Anglosphere doesn't in practice seem to involve Canada and New Zealand very much. Liz Truss (pointedly?) left them off her list of allies and those that are into Anglosphere also seem to disparage those countries' leaders. USA? Yes, but problematic, maybe because they don't really see themselves as Anglosphere. India and other bits of the old British Empire aren't really Anglosphere. They're English speaking countries, which is different.
Which leaves Australia. Australia is most definitely Anglosphere, possibly feeling rather lonely.
It's also remarkable how "Global Britain" begins, and ends, with Australia.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
That is such a lazy analysis though. The number of Empire nostalgists is grossly exaggerated, seemingly as it is a nice convenient explanation which puts everything that has happened entirely on British shoulders, and whilst that's where most of the focus should be, events have not happened in a vaccuum and the status quo has been a factor, not just imperial yearning.
I've even tried mentally putting my own punctuation into your post but it didn't help. Should I try google translate?
I had the same issue. Ultimately I assumed @kle4 was trying to say that nostalgia for the Empire was not the sole reason for the Leave vote, which I entirely concur with.
I suspect it (Empire nostalgia) was only a factor for a minority of Leave voters. Sovereignty, immigration, red tape, concerns about democracy, loss of identity, jobs, standard of living, and of course simple dislike of foreigners... these and others all played a part and I have some sympathy for a number of these.
Comes down to personal taste. Most Leavers are older less well educated less likely to speak other languages less likely to be interested in art music literature and culture so prefer what reminds them of home. The jokes about the English taking their cornflakes on holiday isn't a joke. Just a little outdated now that young people who have tasted the delights of our diverse continent but they're mainly Remainers
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They imposed multiple trade sanctions on the Australians for daring to ask about the "origins of coronavirus". Hence, in part, AUKUS
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Never threatened the United Kingdom?
It has just broken a solemn treaty with us, annexed Hong Kong (our ex colony) and deprived 100,000s (millions?) or potential UK subjects of their basic human rights
I think the important word in that is "ex". An odd example anyway from the man who never harks back to the British Empire.
It's not called that, but it's not far off. I heard about it on Radio 4 or 5 when a promoter of the campaign was being interviewed. It's been advertised to (and ignored by) me on social media. It seems to be something where people sign up to try their very hardest to buy everything from black owned businesses.
It made me wonder what other such ethnic or religious group campaigns would be allowed..
I doubt white, Christian or Jewish would make the list.
I presume that it is an extension of the attempts at this in the American political scene.
Mind you, this ended up in American politics with preferential government treatment for companies owned by the various groups. Veterans, disabled people, Native Americans, African Americans....
But don't worry. What (mostly) happens is that in the contracting shell game that is American public contracts - companies get work and contract it out to another company who contract it out to another company etc - the "special groups" get used. Their company gets a contract, but all the actual profitable work is still done by other companies, who use the facia of a minority owned company for public relations and little more.
Isn't it insultingly patronising and racist to say to black people that they need a special race based campaign to appeal for people's business?
Well, in the US, at least, the effects of racism against Black & Native American people was such that not even the Trump Republicans have suggested repealing the Federal Contracting laws that give such preferential treatment.
When even *those arseholes* think there is a problem....
It is a stupid and inefficient solution, of course. But that is what American politics is good at creating.
America was starting from a very different place when those laws were dreamt up to where we were then, let alone where we are now.
I still really want to know what else would be OK on the "Buy ..." racial list here.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Never threatened the United Kingdom?
It has just broken a solemn treaty with us, annexed Hong Kong (our ex colony) and deprived 100,000s (millions?) or potential UK subjects of their basic human rights
I think the important word in that is "ex". .
It's not actually that important a word when they essentially abrogated the agreement which led to its change in status.
Of course nothing can or will be done about it, but that we are not the colonial power anymore is kind of irrelevant to that there was an agreement applying for the future relationship.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
The Anglosphere is shorthand for the white bits of the Empire plus the lost colonies of America.
Funnily it doesn't ever seem to include the many other English speaking countries of the world 🤔
No that's just you projecting. Never took you for a racist before but there you go.
To most of us the Anglosphere is colour blind and includes all those bits you seem so keen to deride or exclude.
The only bits we might have trouble with are the French speaking bits of Canada.
Anglosphere doesn't in practice seem to involve Canada and New Zealand very much. Liz Truss (pointedly?) left them off her list of allies and those that are into Anglosphere also seem to disparage those countries' leaders. USA? Yes, but problematic, maybe because they don't really see themselves as Anglosphere. India and other bits of the old British Empire aren't really Anglosphere. They're English speaking countries, which is different.
Which leaves Australia. Australia is most definitely Anglosphere, possibly feeling rather lonely.
It's also remarkable how "Global Britain" begins, and ends, with Australia.
It has a variable geometry, depending on what is required. You know this, you are just being sour and obtuse, because you wanted to be "European", instead. Ah well, tough shit
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Never threatened the United Kingdom?
It has just broken a solemn treaty with us, annexed Hong Kong (our ex colony) and deprived 100,000s (millions?) or potential UK subjects of their basic human rights
I think the important word in that is "ex". .
It's not actually that important a word when they essentially abrogated the agreement which led to its change in status.
Of course nothing can or will be done about it, but that we are not the colonial power anymore is kind of irrelevant to that there was an agreement applying for the future relationship.
Maybe the Chinese signed it in bad faith, imagining that they would have the opportunity to unilaterally stop abiding by it later on. Was Lord Frost working for them at the time?
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
The Anglosphere is shorthand for the white bits of the Empire plus the lost colonies of America.
Funnily it doesn't ever seem to include the many other English speaking countries of the world 🤔
That's Sunil's Imperial Federation isn't it?
I would define the Anglosphere (or "Kleincommonwealth") as UK, US (minus Puerto Rico), Canada (minus Quebec), Australia, NZ and Ireland.
An Imperial Federation (or "Grosscommonwealth") would be nice, but let's be honest, not all countries with English as an official language actually have populations where a majority use English as their "everyday" language. How many Bollywood films are primarily in English?
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They imposed multiple trade sanctions on the Australians for daring to ask about the "origins of coronavirus". Hence, in part, AUKUS
The US imposed multiple sanctions on China too, because Trump wanted to. Perhaps we should go to war against the US for disrupting trans Pacific trade?
Anglosphere doesn't in practice seem to involve Canada and New Zealand very much. Liz Truss (pointedly?) left them off her list of allies and those that are into Anglosphere also seem to disparage those countries' leaders. USA? Yes, but problematic, maybe because they don't really see themselves as Anglosphere. India and other bits of the old British Empire aren't really Anglosphere. They're English speaking countries, which is different.
Which leaves Australia. Australia is most definitely Anglosphere, possibly feeling rather lonely.
It's also remarkable how "Global Britain" begins, and ends, with Australia.
Considering from memory that there are more British expats in Australia than the entire European Union 27 nations combined, why is that remarkable?
The best value bets on Old Bexley and Sidcup, odds permitting, could be on turnout (very low) and the Greens coming second, with Labour and the Lib Dems cancelling each other out.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
The Anglosphere is shorthand for the white bits of the Empire plus the lost colonies of America.
Funnily it doesn't ever seem to include the many other English speaking countries of the world 🤔
That's Sunil's Imperial Federation isn't it?
I would define the Anglosphere (or "Kleincommonwealth") as UK, US (minus Puerto Rico), Canada (minus Quebec), Australia, NZ and Ireland.
An Imperial Federation (or "Grosscommonwealth") would be nice, but let's be honest, not all countries with English as an official language actually have populations where a majority use English as their "everyday" language. How many Bollywood films are primarily in English?
Potentially I would add Norway as an honorary member, they speak perfect English and have very pro-Anglo-Atlanticist leanings, and they are non-EU, plus maybe South Africa (long term, if they so desire, but who knows)
Ireland is a conundrum, for them, more than anywhere else. The change in corporation tax forced on them (by genial Irishman Joe Biden no less!) is a sign of colder winds blowing, across Connemara, Cork and Wicklow
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
It's not called that, but it's not far off. I heard about it on Radio 4 or 5 when a promoter of the campaign was being interviewed. It's been advertised to (and ignored by) me on social media. It seems to be something where people sign up to try their very hardest to buy everything from black owned businesses.
It made me wonder what other such ethnic or religious group campaigns would be allowed..
I doubt white, Christian or Jewish would make the list.
I presume that it is an extension of the attempts at this in the American political scene.
Mind you, this ended up in American politics with preferential government treatment for companies owned by the various groups. Veterans, disabled people, Native Americans, African Americans....
But don't worry. What (mostly) happens is that in the contracting shell game that is American public contracts - companies get work and contract it out to another company who contract it out to another company etc - the "special groups" get used. Their company gets a contract, but all the actual profitable work is still done by other companies, who use the facia of a minority owned company for public relations and little more.
Isn't it insultingly patronising and racist to say to black people that they need a special race based campaign to appeal for people's business?
Well, in the US, at least, the effects of racism against Black & Native American people was such that not even the Trump Republicans have suggested repealing the Federal Contracting laws that give such preferential treatment.
When even *those arseholes* think there is a problem....
It is a stupid and inefficient solution, of course. But that is what American politics is good at creating.
America was starting from a very different place when those laws were dreamt up to where we were then, let alone where we are now.
I still really want to know what else would be OK on the "Buy ..." racial list here.
"Buy White" would obviously be out.
I mean, if it's everyone but white people, why shouldn't a "Don't Buy From Whites" campaign be allowed if it essentially says the same thing?
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
“In recent years, thanks to globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture, English has tended to take precedence over the other two working languages, which are nevertheless those of two founding countries of the European Union,” the resolution said.
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
The British lives in the military are all volunteers, they know what they've signed up for.
The entire planet is global, there's nowhere "safe" if war starts, which is why Defence is about trying to prevent war not trying to fight it primarily.
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
“In recent years, thanks to globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture, English has tended to take precedence over the other two working languages, which are nevertheless those of two founding countries of the European Union,” the resolution said.
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
English is still the most-spoken language in EU member-state Ireland.
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
“In recent years, thanks to globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture, English has tended to take precedence over the other two working languages, which are nevertheless those of two founding countries of the European Union,” the resolution said.
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
“In recent years, thanks to globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture, English has tended to take precedence over the other two working languages, which are nevertheless those of two founding countries of the European Union,” the resolution said.
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
Wait, the Anglosphere is inside the EU too?
The English language ≠ the Anglosphere
No the Anglosphere is not inside the EU which is why they're trying to kick out English. The French are always banging on about the Anglo Saxons, by which they mean the Anglosphere nations. Especially UK, US and Aus.
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
“In recent years, thanks to globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture, English has tended to take precedence over the other two working languages, which are nevertheless those of two founding countries of the European Union,” the resolution said.
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
Wait, the Anglosphere is inside the EU too?
The English language ≠ the Anglosphere
No, he was talking about "globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture", which suggests external to the EU.
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
“In recent years, thanks to globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture, English has tended to take precedence over the other two working languages, which are nevertheless those of two founding countries of the European Union,” the resolution said.
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
Wait, the Anglosphere is inside the EU too?
The English language ≠ the Anglosphere
No the Anglosphere is not inside the EU which is why they're trying to kick out English. The French are always banging on about the Anglo Saxons, by which they mean the Anglosphere nations. Especially UK, US and Aus.
And yet, just the other day Dura Ace and Roger were desperate to assure us that the French have nary a care for the UK, or the Anglo Saxons, and no one uses this "Anglo Saxon term anyway" and the "Anglosphere is Narnia" or whatever yada fucking yada
"Le philosophe Michel Guérin estime, dans une tribune au « Monde », que l’usage généralisé de l’anglais au sein de la diplomatie européenne relève, à l’heure du Brexit et de l’Aukus, d’un « masochisme politique » qui « laisse sans voix"
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
The Anglosphere is shorthand for the white bits of the Empire plus the lost colonies of America.
Funnily it doesn't ever seem to include the many other English speaking countries of the world 🤔
That's Sunil's Imperial Federation isn't it?
I would define the Anglosphere (or "Kleincommonwealth") as UK, US (minus Puerto Rico), Canada (minus Quebec), Australia, NZ and Ireland.
An Imperial Federation (or "Grosscommonwealth") would be nice, but let's be honest, not all countries with English as an official language actually have populations where a majority use English as their "everyday" language. How many Bollywood films are primarily in English?
Potentially I would add Norway as an honorary member, they speak perfect English and have very pro-Anglo-Atlanticist leanings, and they are non-EU, plus maybe South Africa (long term, if they so desire, but who knows)
Ireland is a conundrum, for them, more than anywhere else. The change in corporation tax forced on them (by genial Irishman Joe Biden no less!) is a sign of colder winds blowing, across Connemara, Cork and Wicklow
When it all comes to pass I will bow my head in shame and abjectly admit I was wrong and you were right all along.
Then I'll put a big fur coat on and nip off back through the wardrobe never to bee seen again. 😉
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
It would seem I as I was about right for the Grand Final result. I thought St Helens would win but only just and a 12- 10 result was about as close as you can get. I haven't seen the final yet as we have been entertaining but I suspect both teams defence was on top for most of the match.
So pleased for James Roby.
Gritted teeth. But well done. Sure was a close, high quality contest. No spoilers, but key for me was Dragons taking the 2 just before half time. Saints were rocking and weary then after a sustained onslaught of goal line defence. 6-2 wouldn't have been much different to 6-4 as a h-t score. Plus. Think they brought on Mourgue at dummy half 10 minutes too late.
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
“In recent years, thanks to globalisation dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture, English has tended to take precedence over the other two working languages, which are nevertheless those of two founding countries of the European Union,” the resolution said.
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
Wait, the Anglosphere is inside the EU too?
The English language ≠ the Anglosphere
No the Anglosphere is not inside the EU which is why they're trying to kick out English. The French are always banging on about the Anglo Saxons, by which they mean the Anglosphere nations. Especially UK, US and Aus.
And yet, just the other day Dura Ace and Roger were desperate to assure us that the French have nary a care for the UK, or the Anglo Saxons, and no one uses this "Anglo Saxon term anyway" and the "Anglosphere is Narnia" or whatever yada fucking yada
"Le philosophe Michel Guérin estime, dans une tribune au « Monde », que l’usage généralisé de l’anglais au sein de la diplomatie européenne relève, à l’heure du Brexit et de l’Aukus, d’un « masochisme politique » qui « laisse sans voix"
The French have une grosse frite on their shoulders about English being the international language, twas ever thus (in my lifetime at least).
AUKUS may develop into a strong alliance of English-speaking nations. But it may equally lead to nothing.
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Because the longer this goes on, the more pressure there is on the EU to yield, rather than be blamed for the resumption of violence. The EU cannot impose a hard border across Ireland (even thought they insanely tried, for about 3 hours, before exploding in confusion)
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
How long do you think our flagship will last when the Chinese missiles start flying?
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
None, but we should be developing a computer chip industry to supply the world instead of Taiwan. We should also be rebuilding our manufacturing industry instead of being beholden to China.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Allowing rising autocracies to break international agreements and invade their neighbours has never ended well.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
How long do you think our flagship will last when the Chinese missiles start flying?
It's a long way from home...
And is our flagship permanently stationed there? I'm no Horatio Nelson, but maybe waiting till it leaves the area could be an alternative tactic.
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Allowing rising autocracies to break international agreements and invade their neighbours has never ended well.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Our job will be to police and calm the north Atlantic - basically, keep the Frogs in their box - provide bases (esp Diego Garcia), and add some naval commitment east of Suez, possibly a carrier, plus special forces, which will now all be based in Oz
Europe is becoming utterly irrelevant. A beautiful museum. This is probably good for Europeans, if they can maintain their enviable quality of life AND fend off Putin, but it is a relegation for European powers that feel more global: ie the UK and France
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Because the longer this goes on, the more pressure there is on the EU to yield, rather than be blamed for the resumption of violence. The EU cannot impose a hard border across Ireland (even thought they insanely tried, for about 3 hours, before exploding in confusion)
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
Frost doesn’t want a deal and it’s clear that no 10 keep moving the goalposts . As soon as the EU agree to one thing no 10 ask for more . The fact remains Bozo and Frost never intended to honour the agreement they went round telling everyone was wonderful. If it was so bad they shouldn’t have signed upto it but of course no 10 knew a no deal would cause them issues at the 2019 GE so they lied to the public and to the EU .
This seems to be ignored by some in here who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable . One can only imagine the furore if the EU did the same thing .
Having triumphantly kyboshed the negotiation he originally designed and forced the EU to come up with exactly what he now wants from them, Machiavelli Frost is now going to kybosh exactly what he now wants from them.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Narnia exists! I read about it in a book and everything!
It was twin-towned with Totnes for many years......
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Our job will be to police and calm the north Atlantic - basically, keep the Frogs in their box - provide bases (esp Diego Garcia), and add some naval commitment east of Suez, possibly a carrier, plus special forces, which will now all be based in Oz
Europe is becoming utterly irrelevant. A beautiful museum. This is probably good for Europeans, if they can maintain their enviable quality of life AND fend off Putin, but it is a relegation for European powers that feel more global: ie the UK and France
Hence, the raucous reaction to Aukus
Diego Garcia for Taiwan? Was @HYUFD your Geography teacher? And what in holy hell has France to do with this? Australia is quite some distance too.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed preventing that is "pointless"?
Of course, if the Chinese did that, they’d tank their own economy in the process, and Xi et al are well aware that they are riding a tiger that requires China’s economic growth and prosperity for its people to continue unchecked. China’s incipient banking and power crises are already threatening that, so they’re not going to actively make things worse.
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Because the longer this goes on, the more pressure there is on the EU to yield, rather than be blamed for the resumption of violence. The EU cannot impose a hard border across Ireland (even thought they insanely tried, for about 3 hours, before exploding in confusion)
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
Frost doesn’t want a deal and it’s clear that no 10 keep moving the goalposts . As soon as the EU agree to one thing no 10 ask for more . The fact remains Bozo and Frost never intended to honour the agreement they went round telling everyone was wonderful. If it was so bad they shouldn’t have signed upto it but of course no 10 knew a no deal would cause them issues at the 2019 GE so they lied to the public and to the EU .
This seems to be ignored by some in here who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable . One can only imagine the furore if the EU did the same thing .
What, like the fucking French president deliberately smearing a cheap, highly effective, sold-not-for-profit UK vaccine as "quasi-ineffective" JUST because it came from Britain, this condemning thousands to death from added vaccine hesitancy?
Yes, imagine a British prime minister doing anything as bad as that? Weirdly, the UK PM didn't. The French president did
Having triumphantly kyboshed the negotiation he originally designed and forced the EU to come up with exactly what he now wants from them, Machiavelli Frost is now going to kybosh exactly what he now wants from them.
The first option on the paper is do nothing. So if The government and Frost do nothing about this problem, what is the consequence? They will be damned won’t they?
So one of the do options has to be taken. They have to be active.
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
Why don’t you try to cross an Orange Walk and see how beautiful your injuries are?
I'm a protestant Celt, I'm on their side! Londonderry Air and the Battle of the Boyne.
I always admired Gascoigne for that flute thing he did
Now there is a surprise.
I don't know about you, but my instinctive reflex is to protect the minority, to go to the aid of the bullied.
Black people in Civil Rights America. Roma in Eastern Europe. Trans people in Austin Texas. And, recently, Protestants in the island of Ireland, the beleaguered, the besieged, a minority with its rights trampled and traditions dishonoured. It's not moral and they need our support
Having triumphantly kyboshed the negotiation he originally designed and forced the EU to come up with exactly what he now wants from them, Machiavelli Frost is now going to kybosh exactly what he now wants from them.
The first option on the paper is do nothing. So if The government and Frost do nothing about this problem, what is the consequence? They will be damned won’t they?
So one of the do options has to be taken. They have to be active.
I accept that these people are incapable of masterful inactivity (holidays paid for by others excepted), but a period of even dully incompetent inactivity would be welcome.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Allowing rising autocracies to break international agreements and invade their neighbours has never ended well.
That doesn't really address the point.
We could certainly have submarines police the Taiwan Strait along with our allies to inflict serious cost on China.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed preventing that is "pointless"?
Of course, if the Chinese did that, they’d tank their own economy in the process, and Xi et al are well aware that they are riding a tiger that requires China’s economic growth and prosperity for its people to continue unchecked. China’s incipient banking and power crises are already threatening that, so they’re not going to actively make things worse.
China too needs an external enemy to keep the poor in line.
It sounds to me as if the USS Connecticut is retiring damaged after striking something big. When playing cat and mouse, this cat got it's nose whacked.
Memo to Mr Briskin. Torry, or Aberdeen generally, don’t have a branch of the Louden Tavern. Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
Only a matter of time, the People are on the march all over Scotland winning folk over with charm and good humour.
Why don’t you try to cross an Orange Walk and see how beautiful your injuries are?
I'm a protestant Celt, I'm on their side! Londonderry Air and the Battle of the Boyne.
I always admired Gascoigne for that flute thing he did
Now there is a surprise.
I don't know about you, but my instinctive reflex is to protect the minority, to go to the aid of the bullied.
Black people in Civil Rights America. Roma in Eastern Europe. Trans people in Austin Texas. And, recently, Protestants in the island of Ireland, the beleaguered, the besieged, a minority with its rights trampled and traditions dishonoured. It's not moral and they need our support
Yes. That lying bully on the Costa del Sol shafted them all right. Take him out in righteous fury.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
It’s 1984!
The best way to picture the 1984 scenario in UK today is to look at Iran today. Does Iran have enough external enemies to condemn in the daily huddle, for you Leon? So the question is, how much of Iran is a sort of “no one likes us we are stronger together mentality”? A mentally known as Millwall.
And you want us to copy it? The Mighty Auk, the fake Cold War with China, delaying China being the worlds number 1 superpower on grounds of Freedom and Democracy (if you ignore our inaction on Hong Kong) - this is all for internal consumption, just like it was in Orwell’s 1984? Is that what you are saying Leon?
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Because the longer this goes on, the more pressure there is on the EU to yield, rather than be blamed for the resumption of violence. The EU cannot impose a hard border across Ireland (even thought they insanely tried, for about 3 hours, before exploding in confusion)
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
Frost doesn’t want a deal and it’s clear that no 10 keep moving the goalposts . As soon as the EU agree to one thing no 10 ask for more . The fact remains Bozo and Frost never intended to honour the agreement they went round telling everyone was wonderful. If it was so bad they shouldn’t have signed upto it but of course no 10 knew a no deal would cause them issues at the 2019 GE so they lied to the public and to the EU .
This seems to be ignored by some in here who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable . One can only imagine the furore if the EU did the same thing .
What, like the fucking French president deliberately smearing a cheap, highly effective, sold-not-for-profit UK vaccine as "quasi-ineffective" JUST because it came from Britain, this condemning thousands to death from added vaccine hesitancy?
Yes, imagine a British prime minister doing anything as bad as that? Weirdly, the UK PM didn't. The French president did
You’re making a false equivalence between two unrelated issues. It seems as if the anti Macron brigade have jumped on one comment and are holding onto it for dear life whilst the so called Saint Bozo can do no wrong .
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed at preventing that is "pointless"?
What have they done to disrupt trade in the Pacific?
They're threatening Taiwan that is the #1 source of computer chips on the planet.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
How many British lives would you sacrifice to defend Taiwan? Has Parliament had a chance to debate our mutual aid treaty with Taiwan? And how comfortably far from the warzone will you be when the bullets start flying?
More practically what would the UK military actually be in a position to do to defend Taiwan?
Allowing rising autocracies to break international agreements and invade their neighbours has never ended well.
That doesn't really address the point.
We could certainly have submarines police the Taiwan Strait along with our allies to inflict serious cost on China.
We certainly could. We could also use special forces to train the Taiwanese military, as the US has been doing. Both of these would be a serious escalation of the situation.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Narnia exists! I read about it in a book and everything!
Yes. The sad thing is, CS Lewis intended the books as an allegorical proof of the truth of Christianity. Without seeing the obvious corollary that, yes, dear, the Kingdom of Heaven is precisely as real as Narnia.
I don’t that was the case. He was retelling many of the biblical stories in a way that appealed to children, but I don’t think he saw it as “proof”
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Because the longer this goes on, the more pressure there is on the EU to yield, rather than be blamed for the resumption of violence. The EU cannot impose a hard border across Ireland (even thought they insanely tried, for about 3 hours, before exploding in confusion)
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
Frost doesn’t want a deal and it’s clear that no 10 keep moving the goalposts . As soon as the EU agree to one thing no 10 ask for more . The fact remains Bozo and Frost never intended to honour the agreement they went round telling everyone was wonderful. If it was so bad they shouldn’t have signed upto it but of course no 10 knew a no deal would cause them issues at the 2019 GE so they lied to the public and to the EU .
This seems to be ignored by some in here who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable . One can only imagine the furore if the EU did the same thing .
Its called maximalist negotiations and since the UK holds all the cards, the EU have no choice but to keep conceding as they have done time and again since Frost took over.
Which is why all people like you have is whinging about "honour".
Screw your crocodile tears. There is no honour, there is only realpolitik, and invoking Article 16 is honouring the deal since the article is a part of the deal anyway.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Never threatened the United Kingdom?
It has just broken a solemn treaty with us, annexed Hong Kong (our ex colony) and deprived 100,000s (millions?) or potential UK subjects of their basic human rights
I think the important word in that is "ex". An odd example anyway from the man who never harks back to the British Empire.
There was a treaty governing the relationship between China and Hong Kong plus their democratic freedoms. China has torn that up.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed preventing that is "pointless"?
Of course, if the Chinese did that, they’d tank their own economy in the process, and Xi et al are well aware that they are riding a tiger that requires China’s economic growth and prosperity for its people to continue unchecked. China’s incipient banking and power crises are already threatening that, so they’re not going to actively make things worse.
Don't come on here talking sense. Putin can be in Calais while the 72 year and counting invasion of Taiwan is imminent. So long as the EU is to blame. Or summat.
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
Very well said.
The lack of respect some people are willing to show to women is astonishing and angering.
And I don't view this as a males v females issue. I've always been on the side of women because its the right thing to do, but now even more personally as a father to two young daughters - I want them to grow up into a world in which they and other girls will be safe.
It sickens me that some people don't prioritise the equality and safety of girls.
Yeah right. All that male violence against and harassment of women is coming from polite, meek, feminised men. Of course it is.
Or it's us older men doing the heavy lifting in terms of anti-woman violence and harassment, because the young just aren't up to it? This Millie Tant stuff is all very well, but do you actually think a significant number of PBers either commit or condone any such thing? If not, what's your point?
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed preventing that is "pointless"?
Of course, if the Chinese did that, they’d tank their own economy in the process, and Xi et al are well aware that they are riding a tiger that requires China’s economic growth and prosperity for its people to continue unchecked. China’s incipient banking and power crises are already threatening that, so they’re not going to actively make things worse.
Don't come on here talking sense. Putin can be in Calais while the 72 year and counting invasion of Taiwan is imminent. So long as the EU is to blame. Or summat.
The key is to keep it 72 years and counting. If we can keep it "and counting" then our defence policy has worked. The same as keeping the USSR from invading West Germany, every year it was "and counting" was a success.
But the idea of Putin reaching Calais is preposterous. Russia is bust and their army is decrepit. Russia isn't invading Europe, its a bad joke now. The UK could hold Russia to a stalemate without any allies.
Yeah right. All that male violence against and harassment of women is coming from polite, meek, feminised men. Of course it is.
Or it's us older men doing the heavy lifting in terms of anti-woman violence and harassment, because the young just aren't up to it? This Millie Tant stuff is all very well, but do you actually think a significant number of PBers either commit or condone any such thing? If not, what's your point?
A whole load of PBers were willing to condone misogyny earlier today.
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
Very well said.
The lack of respect some people are willing to show to women is astonishing and angering.
And I don't view this as a males v females issue. I've always been on the side of women because its the right thing to do, but now even more personally as a father to two young daughters - I want them to grow up into a world in which they and other girls will be safe.
It sickens me that some people don't prioritise the equality and safety of girls.
Of course it does. And you want to ban some stuff, and some other stuff, and muslims, and accuse everyone of paedophilia and antisemitism for not agreeing with you, because that's the way libertarians roll.
Having triumphantly kyboshed the negotiation he originally designed and forced the EU to come up with exactly what he now wants from them, Machiavelli Frost is now going to kybosh exactly what he now wants from them.
Yeah right. All that male violence against and harassment of women is coming from polite, meek, feminised men. Of course it is.
Or it's us older men doing the heavy lifting in terms of anti-woman violence and harassment, because the young just aren't up to it? This Millie Tant stuff is all very well, but do you actually think a significant number of PBers either commit or condone any such thing? If not, what's your point?
A whole load of PBers were willing to condone misogyny earlier today.
So yes.
Of course they were, Philibet. Of course they were.
Yeah right. All that male violence against and harassment of women is coming from polite, meek, feminised men. Of course it is.
Or it's us older men doing the heavy lifting in terms of anti-woman violence and harassment, because the young just aren't up to it? This Millie Tant stuff is all very well, but do you actually think a significant number of PBers either commit or condone any such thing? If not, what's your point?
Well, the evidence of our actions as opposed to our words is evident in the way that the government wants to track women via Apps rather than take their predators off the streets.
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
Very well said.
The lack of respect some people are willing to show to women is astonishing and angering.
And I don't view this as a males v females issue. I've always been on the side of women because its the right thing to do, but now even more personally as a father to two young daughters - I want them to grow up into a world in which they and other girls will be safe.
It sickens me that some people don't prioritise the equality and safety of girls.
Of course it does. And you want to ban some stuff, and some other stuff, and muslims, and accuse everyone of paedophilia and antisemitism for not agreeing with you, because that's the way libertarians roll.
I didn't say to ban anything.
I did say to call out misogyny as wrong. A lot of people were not prepared to, or even attacked those who call out misogyny as wrong.
Seems we're still a long way from getting women treated as equals.
Yeah right. All that male violence against and harassment of women is coming from polite, meek, feminised men. Of course it is.
Or it's us older men doing the heavy lifting in terms of anti-woman violence and harassment, because the young just aren't up to it? This Millie Tant stuff is all very well, but do you actually think a significant number of PBers either commit or condone any such thing? If not, what's your point?
Leon and Cyclefree are both talking about the male population at large, which as Cyclefree observes has a fair number of thuggish men whose faults do not include Leon's effete generalisation. PBers are the librarians of ancient Rome, who would thoughtfully ponder the fine points of municipal by-elections while the world burst into flames around us. There are worse things to be.
Yeah right. All that male violence against and harassment of women is coming from polite, meek, feminised men. Of course it is.
Or it's us older men doing the heavy lifting in terms of anti-woman violence and harassment, because the young just aren't up to it? This Millie Tant stuff is all very well, but do you actually think a significant number of PBers either commit or condone any such thing? If not, what's your point?
A whole load of PBers were willing to condone misogyny earlier today.
So yes.
Of course they were, Philibet. Of course they were.
Anyone who is not prepared to call out misogynistic behaviour is condoning it.
Yeah right. All that male violence against and harassment of women is coming from polite, meek, feminised men. Of course it is.
Or it's us older men doing the heavy lifting in terms of anti-woman violence and harassment, because the young just aren't up to it? This Millie Tant stuff is all very well, but do you actually think a significant number of PBers either commit or condone any such thing? If not, what's your point?
How many of us, with our character - to be as decent as possible to everyone regardless, to love them all in fact - should own the crimes of other characters, simply through association of being the same sex as the criminal?
I’m not saying there are not crimes, or to belittle the number of crimes, only recognise it is character committing the crimes, regardless of skin colour, gender or any other classification to pigeon hole under - this has to be part of the solution, otherwise the real danger is lazy unhelpful reactionary response of even more man fearing and man hating isn’t it? Unless of course, that’s exactly what people want? If that is the aim, I wouldn’t like to patronise anyone. But they would be wrong, because a big part of the solution is decent male role models in people’s lives, especially as they are growing up.
What seems like a growing problem happening in UK is global village. What was already out there beyond our border is coming here, whilst we liked to think the whole world was no worse than us. We ignored how we had moved on, until we were suddenly not an island anymore.
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
No - it’s a fundamentally important distinction. A political anti-Western stance is something we should have no hesitation in combatting. A liberal society has the right to protect itself.
If it was “just” about discrimination against women the argument against government banning things is harder to refute
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
Very well said.
The lack of respect some people are willing to show to women is astonishing and angering.
And I don't view this as a males v females issue. I've always been on the side of women because its the right thing to do, but now even more personally as a father to two young daughters - I want them to grow up into a world in which they and other girls will be safe.
It sickens me that some people don't prioritise the equality and safety of girls.
Of course it does. And you want to ban some stuff, and some other stuff, and muslims, and accuse everyone of paedophilia and antisemitism for not agreeing with you, because that's the way libertarians roll.
I didn't say to ban anything.
I did say to call out misogyny as wrong. A lot of people were not prepared to, or even attacked those who call out misogyny as wrong.
Seems we're still a long way from getting women treated as equals.
You call it out, philibet. Until you spoke out on the subject I was fine with misogyny, and thought it anything there wasn't enough of it in the world. And my wife thought the same. Thank God for people like you.
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Because the longer this goes on, the more pressure there is on the EU to yield, rather than be blamed for the resumption of violence. The EU cannot impose a hard border across Ireland (even thought they insanely tried, for about 3 hours, before exploding in confusion)
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
Frost doesn’t want a deal and it’s clear that no 10 keep moving the goalposts . As soon as the EU agree to one thing no 10 ask for more . The fact remains Bozo and Frost never intended to honour the agreement they went round telling everyone was wonderful. If it was so bad they shouldn’t have signed upto it but of course no 10 knew a no deal would cause them issues at the 2019 GE so they lied to the public and to the EU .
This seems to be ignored by some in here who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable . One can only imagine the furore if the EU did the same thing .
Its called maximalist negotiations and since the UK holds all the cards, the EU have no choice but to keep conceding as they have done time and again since Frost took over.
Which is why all people like you have is whinging about "honour".
Screw your crocodile tears. There is no honour, there is only realpolitik, and invoking Article 16 is honouring the deal since the article is a part of the deal anyway.
What exactly would you be saying if the EU was doing this . As for the “ UK holds all the cards “ this delusion seems to be the continuing comfort blanket for the Brexit cult who seem oblivious to what’s going on in the real world .
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed preventing that is "pointless"?
Of course, if the Chinese did that, they’d tank their own economy in the process, and Xi et al are well aware that they are riding a tiger that requires China’s economic growth and prosperity for its people to continue unchecked. China’s incipient banking and power crises are already threatening that, so they’re not going to actively make things worse.
Don't come on here talking sense. Putin can be in Calais while the 72 year and counting invasion of Taiwan is imminent. So long as the EU is to blame. Or summat.
The key is to keep it 72 years and counting. If we can keep it "and counting" then our defence policy has worked. The same as keeping the USSR from invading West Germany, every year it was "and counting" was a success.
But the idea of Putin reaching Calais is preposterous. Russia is bust and their army is decrepit. Russia isn't invading Europe, its a bad joke now. The UK could hold Russia to a stalemate without any allies.
China are the real threat of the 21st century.
Pity. Many of your fellow Leavers seem to be positively gagging for a Russian invasion of the Baltics. Seems a shame to let them down so. Meanwhile. They seem to have found Taiwan of late. Though few have much idea of its exact location. Somewhere near Australia and the middle of the Indian Ocean. Oh. And "we" have spent the better part of 50 years endangering Taiwan and enabling the PRC. If there is an imminent threat, then the West has sown the seeds. With the UK front and centre.
Doing it for these women, and empowering them with their western liberal rights is one thing. I guess I agree. But my main argument is different;
They should be forced to ditch the burka for *US* - for the shared concept of an *US.*
A recognition that they live in the same society as the rest of us. Like not wearing your pajamas when you go to the supermarket. Or taking the effort to learn English. It’s about basic decency toward their fellow countryman/women.
I don’t care if it’s seen by liberals as authoritarian. It’s this argument that, I think, cuts through and has broad support (in a way that the liberal womens rights argument fails).
Let’s be honest about it and not pretend we’re doing it entirely for them. A decent, inclusive case can be made to legislate to ditch the burka. It’s cultural separatism and not part of Britain and our shared British values. It offends and fragments our sense of us.
Speak for yourself. I object to the Government telling me what *I* can wear, never mind Muslim women. Today it's the burka, tomorrow it'll be T-shirts with messages that might annoy someone. I get super-libertarian about this sort of thing - it is None of the Government's Business What We Wear (bar basic decency).
Obviously if people are forced to wear a burka that's something else, and there are laws against coercive control. But the idea that there is One True Standard to which we must all conform is positively Maoist, and if the Government tries to impose one it can fuck right off.
I agree with you on the libertarianism, and incidentally so too did the now-PM in that infamous article, but the entire point of the burqa is about coercive control and segregating and dehumanising women. There is no flipside to it.
So while you're addressing your concerns about the government getting involved [and I completely agree with that] it seems you have nothing to say about the repugnant misogynistic evil that it is. Do you have anything to say on that subject, or do you just want to turn a blind eye to that and fire your ire just on a hypothetical future government?
No role for government in fighting evil? Odd stance. Are we leaving it to Batman?
Absolutely 100% yes.
The state "fighting evil" could have in the past in this country (or the present in other countries) led to myself and other individuals on this site being executed in the name of "fighting evil". The state fighting evil has led to atheists, or gays, or women who want to control their own bodies or a plethora of other individuals being executed or persecuted.
The state fighting evil was the notion being Section 28.
It is not the state's job to determine good and evil. But it is all of ours.
In the words of John Stuart Mill:
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
It’s worth remembering the history. The burqa was hardly seen in the Arab world until the British banned it in Egypt. It was then adopted as a sign of anti-British Arab nationalism.
Fundamentally it’s not anti-women (they are just collateral damage). It’s an explicit and political rejection of Western values.
Isn't that a distinction without a difference, though? One of the Western values they hate is freedom for women. Hence the very first thing these repressive Islamic regimes do is to repress women, lower the age of consent, tell them what to wear and how they should look etc and generally remove their freedoms.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
No - it’s a fundamentally important distinction. A political anti-Western stance is something we should have no hesitation in combatting. A liberal society has the right to protect itself.
If it was “just” about discrimination against women the argument against government banning things is harder to refute
To be fair to Islam, it is being asked to accept what is essentially a Judeo-Christian view of the world when it comes to women’s rights. The key underlying reason why Christian societies eventually moved to banning slavery, giving the women the vote etc was that, under a ethics system that said all people were equal under God and made in God’s image, it was logically impossible to reconcile that with having people as slaves, one sex seen as inferior etc.
However, Islam (and other religions) don’t have that same view because the core of their ethics system - the Koran - doesn’t preach the view everyone is equal. Far from it. So, when the argument is made that eg Saudi should treat men and women equally, Saudis - arguably fairly - say “why should we adopt your views”. Imagine if Islam tried to impose its views on the West…
I think it’s pretty clear no 10 doesn’t want a deal on NI and just wants to draw out another fight to deflect from its domestic woes .
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Because the longer this goes on, the more pressure there is on the EU to yield, rather than be blamed for the resumption of violence. The EU cannot impose a hard border across Ireland (even thought they insanely tried, for about 3 hours, before exploding in confusion)
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
Frost doesn’t want a deal and it’s clear that no 10 keep moving the goalposts . As soon as the EU agree to one thing no 10 ask for more . The fact remains Bozo and Frost never intended to honour the agreement they went round telling everyone was wonderful. If it was so bad they shouldn’t have signed upto it but of course no 10 knew a no deal would cause them issues at the 2019 GE so they lied to the public and to the EU .
This seems to be ignored by some in here who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable . One can only imagine the furore if the EU did the same thing .
Its called maximalist negotiations and since the UK holds all the cards, the EU have no choice but to keep conceding as they have done time and again since Frost took over.
Which is why all people like you have is whinging about "honour".
Screw your crocodile tears. There is no honour, there is only realpolitik, and invoking Article 16 is honouring the deal since the article is a part of the deal anyway.
What exactly would you be saying if the EU was doing this . As for the “ UK holds all the cards “ this delusion seems to be the continuing comfort blanket for the Brexit cult who seem oblivious to what’s going on in the real world .
The EU were doing this from 2017 to 2019.
All we're doing now is reversing the damage May and Robbins conceded to Barnier.
My impression is that if a Muslim woman in Britain today was expected to wear the Burqa they'd face trouble if they decided they didn't want to, and I'd like to think the rest of society would be there to support them in making a free choice.
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
Jesus. That is so utterly far from the truth I despair. You guys really don't even BEGIN to understand the Leaver mindset. It's just.... pitiful. It's also bizarre
Yet you're constantly banging on about the rise of the so-called 'Anglosphere', a construct that has much basis in reality as Narnia.
Except, it really does have a reality. AUKUS is the new military embodiment, Five Eyes is the intelligence embodiment. Now that the UK (in some ways a pivotal nation in this construct) is out of the EU, you will see further moves to make this a political reality, beyond military and intel
Canada, Oz, UK, Australia, NZ, and some smaller English speaking nations (or maybe even virtually English speaking nations, like Norway) share a common culture, often a monarchy, a common law system, an artistic legacy, Shakespeare, the Kardashians, the Beatles, the same social media, the same language
And this latter point is crucial. I read American social media daily. Americans look at the BBC daily. The Daily Mail is huge across the Anglosphere, so is the NYTimes.
I can't speak German so I don't read their media except with Google Translate, and my French is pretty poor, so sometimes there I also do machine translation. It is slow and laborious and basically I get bored and miss the nuances.
I'm not plugged in to their culture the same way I instantly plug into Anglophone culture, wherever it is. LA, Sydney, Edinburgh, Auckland.
Now this language thing becomes a political thing. In the face of an external enemy that unites us. China.
Twas ever thus. You always need an external enemy
"You always need an external enemy" is a weird sentiment.
It's a long-observed and accepted truth of both nation-building and alliance-building. Without an external enemy, there is no need to unite
NATO came to existence because of the USSR
Arguably, the UK came into existence because of Catholic Europe, especially France
Now China is creating new alliances in opposition. This is not some outlandish new theory
To say that you "need" an enemy suggests that if nobody was actually threatening you then you would have to invent one. NATO isn't in that category, clearly. I do find it a bit weird that we are being dragged into a beef with China by the US (who see China trying to usurp it in the Pacific) and Australia (who also feels threatened). I don't think they are much of a threat to us and I don't understand what we're getting out of this new gang we seem to be joining. And where was the referendum where I got to express my opinion on it?
China are the biggest threat to world peace and the newest Evil Empire. If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse. If you don't think that affects our Defence, then what do you think does?
As for when you got to express your opinion: Thursday 12 December 2019.
You could have elected a Marxist PM who wanted to quit NATO and hates the USA. But we didn't.
I already said that I 100% understand NATO, pay attention. And I hate the USA so much that I lived there for 5 years. I didn't sign up to get dragged into some pointless conflict on the other side of the world against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom.
Again I repeat: "If they disrupt trade in the Pacific then the entire global supply chain of things like computer chips etc would be disrupted and our economies and the NHS and everything else related would collapse."
You think our Defence being aimed preventing that is "pointless"?
Of course, if the Chinese did that, they’d tank their own economy in the process, and Xi et al are well aware that they are riding a tiger that requires China’s economic growth and prosperity for its people to continue unchecked. China’s incipient banking and power crises are already threatening that, so they’re not going to actively make things worse.
Don't come on here talking sense. Putin can be in Calais while the 72 year and counting invasion of Taiwan is imminent. So long as the EU is to blame. Or summat.
The key is to keep it 72 years and counting. If we can keep it "and counting" then our defence policy has worked. The same as keeping the USSR from invading West Germany, every year it was "and counting" was a success.
But the idea of Putin reaching Calais is preposterous. Russia is bust and their army is decrepit. Russia isn't invading Europe, its a bad joke now. The UK could hold Russia to a stalemate without any allies.
China are the real threat of the 21st century.
The UK plus France may be able to hold Russia to a stalemate, not the UK alone.
Russia still has the biggest military in Europe, followed by France and the UK.
If Taiwan is going to be protected it will be by the US with ourselves and Australia and maybe Japan and S Korea too.
Though more likely unless Trump returns in 2024 the US would leave Taiwan to defend itself and only defend Japan and S Korea, again with us in support.
Helping contain China is fine but we have to lead on defending our own backyard first
‘PM Viktor Orbán has signed a government resolution which supports the decision of the Polish constitutional court about the primacy of national law above EU law.
The resolution also calls on EU institutions to respect national sovereignty.’
Is there another domino to fall? Poland and Hungary really is rounding up the usual suspects.....
French domestic politics is a tinderbox. The risk for the EU is that the mainstream candidates might end up being forced into a Cameron style demand to renegotiate the treaties.
It's already coming, you can feel it. The issue for the EU is that the precedent of Dave's renegotiation is set. Maybe the French will do better than Dave, I'm not sure bit France doesn't have many friends in the EU either and Germany see them as a needy subordinate much in the same way the US views the UK.
Another problem for France's "reset to a strategically autonomous Europe" most of Eastern Europe wants nothing to do with it, and is actively inimical to France.
A Czech military-political boffin here:
"Jakub Janda @_JakubJanda · Oct 7 Central and Eastern Europe will never support the French attempt to go sideways and create new defense structures next to NATO in Europe.
We only trust the U.S. military via NATO that they will defend us against a Russian aggression, that is why.
"Fact is that only Balts and Poles openly voice their concerns about Macron's push for "independence", but many, many other EU countries are equally concerned and not on board, they just don't want to have that dispute in public."
With France's military history it is no surprise that no one would trust them to.come to their aid.
Yes, French military strategy is almost entirely selfish. It is very hard to see France seriously coming to defend Poland or the Baltics against Russia. More likely France would reach some accord with Putin and Germany would play the lofty peacemaker
So the E Europeans cleave to the USA.
What they should do is cleave to THEMSELVES. The combined GDP of Poland, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, the Baltics, etc, would not be entirely insignificant. Add in Austria maybe. If they seriously pooled their resources and manpower, bought their kit as one, became a single army, that would be a huge bulwark against Putin
These smaller multilateral alliances are the future. Aukus for the East
France is interested in what advances France, hence her desire for an Indo-Pacific strategy to protect her assets there, which she is, frankly, incapable of protecting by herself. She is no longer strong enough to seriously defend Polynesia. The Chinese could buy New Caledonia tomorrow
France went to war in 1939 because of an invasion of Poland. Sure, it didn't do them much practical use, but you would have to say the same for UK and Empire too.
Quite a long time ago
If the Baltics were invaded, would France really lead an autonomous Europe to challenge Putin? I just don't see it. If they had the Brits alongside, maybe, but we won't be there, any more. We are tilting to a maritime, oceanic strategy, allied to AUKUS, let the euros defend themselves, or not, as they wish.
The French might challenge Putin if Germany was up for it, but Germany is not up for it, any may never be so
Wait! We left NATO? I realise this government can't fall over itself quick enough to implement Corbynism. But that one passed me by.
NATO is tottering. America is pivoting. The UK is quietly shuffling away. Macron says NATO is "brain dead"
The great threat is China, not Russia. Russia is a weakening power which is only a threat to its near neighbours and with its fuel "weapon"
Within ten years NATO will be finished in all but name. It will be up to the EU to defend itself. Americans will no longer pay, or they will jolly well expect every European nation to do its 2% and buy American kit if they want American protection. You can't blame America for that. Russia is not a threat to the USA, why should the USA care what happens to Estonia or Bulgaria?
Germany has to step up, it is pathetically inert. France needs to get over its Gaullist pretentions and realise it must commit, in an equal way, to an EU army - not one it wants to lead but only in a manner which serves French interests
Meanwhile the UK has joined AUKUS and looks to the seas. So it turns out the Anglosphere is a thing after all.
Despite all that Remainer mockery, I have seen more mention of the "Anglosphere" and the "Anglo-Saxons" on Twitter in the last month than in the last 5 years
You really, really loathe the EU don't you?
I suspect it's not so much that @Leon hates the EU, as that he has a wistful longing for a return to the days when Britain (and thus England) ruled the largest empire in the world.
Those days are gone for good of course so all his yearning will come to nowt.
That is such a lazy analysis though. The number of Empire nostalgists is grossly exaggerated, seemingly as it is a nice convenient explanation which puts everything that has happened entirely on British shoulders, and whilst that's where most of the focus should be, events have not happened in a vaccuum and the status quo has been a factor, not just imperial yearning.
I've even tried mentally putting my own punctuation into your post but it didn't help. Should I try google translate?
If you can’t work out what that is trying to say (and see ways to improve it) then teaching probably isn’t fo you…
Comments
Which leaves Australia. Australia is most definitely Anglosphere, possibly feeling rather lonely.
It's also remarkable how "Global Britain" begins, and ends, with Australia.
I presume we just need to pay them more, to magic up some new nurses?
You're not the quickest, are you?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/18/australia-china-trade-disputes-in-2020.html
I still really want to know what else would be OK on the "Buy ..." racial list here.
"Buy White" would obviously be out.
Of course nothing can or will be done about it, but that we are not the colonial power anymore is kind of irrelevant to that there was an agreement applying for the future relationship.
You're in the Anglosphere now
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan could do comparable economic disruption to the UK than Covid19 potentially.
An Imperial Federation (or "Grosscommonwealth") would be nice, but let's be honest, not all countries with English as an official language actually have populations where a majority use English as their "everyday" language. How many Bollywood films are primarily in English?
I’m sure this’ll go down well in every non-French country.
Ireland is a conundrum, for them, more than anywhere else. The change in corporation tax forced on them (by genial Irishman Joe Biden no less!) is a sign of colder winds blowing, across Connemara, Cork and Wicklow
Info for non Scots PBers. The Louden Tavern pubs are a cross between an Orange Lodge and a Glasgow Rangers social club
"The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union is a unique opportunity to reverse this trend,” it reads, “Once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, there is no longer any reason why the institutions of the Union should be so imbued with Anglo-Saxon culture.”
Yes the Anglosphere is fictitious. Its funny how the French can recognise Anglo-Saxon culture but @Benpointer thinks its Narnia. 😂
Maybe that is a reflection of today's politics sadly
Have a good rest folks
Good night
Yes Parliament has had a chance to debate it. They debated the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy in February 2021: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-02-09/debates/F4DA588B-A932-451B-A33A-076A6446C6F7/IntegratedReviewOfSecurityDefenceDevelopmentAndForeignPolicy
AUKUS was debated in September: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2021-09-16b.1119.0
The entire planet is global, there's nowhere "safe" if war starts, which is why Defence is about trying to prevent war not trying to fight it primarily.
The English language ≠ the Anglosphere
Here, in France's premier newspaper, just today:
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2021/10/09/que-l-anglais-soit-la-langue-de-l-entente-europeenne-releve-de-l-aberration_6097712_3232.html#xtor=AL-32280270-[default]-[android
"Le philosophe Michel Guérin estime, dans une tribune au « Monde », que l’usage généralisé de l’anglais au sein de la diplomatie européenne relève, à l’heure du Brexit et de l’Aukus, d’un « masochisme politique » qui « laisse sans voix"
Then I'll put a big fur coat on and nip off back through the wardrobe never to bee seen again. 😉
https://twitter.com/TheHubScot/status/1446842367298899975?s=20
The latest demand from the lunatic Frost is to remove any mention of ECJ oversight regarding the NI protocol knowing this is impossible . So what started as the U.K. seeking to address practical trade issues has now morphed into essentially politics .
The EU must surely realize that trying to find a solution is a waste of time and no 10 have no intention of finding common ground.
Sure was a close, high quality contest.
No spoilers, but key for me was Dragons taking the 2 just before half time. Saints were rocking and weary then after a sustained onslaught of goal line defence. 6-2 wouldn't have been much different to 6-4 as a h-t score.
Plus. Think they brought on Mourgue at dummy half 10 minutes too late.
Apparently a pay rise creates new staff.
AUKUS may develop into a strong alliance of English-speaking nations. But it may equally lead to nothing.
What is left?
Britain won't do it. Ireland won't do it. America is content to see it not done. But the EU cannot force the UK to do a border jobby in the Irish Sea, not if we simply say No
There has to be a humongous fudge. It will have to come from the EU. This is the result of their weaponising the Irish border issue in the first place, so it is somewhat deserved, even if the realpolitik from London is quite ruthless
Bors expects it all to be sorted before he gets back from his break in Costa del Sol.
It's a long way from home...
I'm no Horatio Nelson, but maybe waiting till it leaves the area could be an alternative tactic.
Europe is becoming utterly irrelevant. A beautiful museum. This is probably good for Europeans, if they can maintain their enviable quality of life AND fend off Putin, but it is a relegation for European powers that feel more global: ie the UK and France
Hence, the raucous reaction to Aukus
See you tomorrow Big G goodnight 👍
I always admired Gascoigne for that flute thing he did
This seems to be ignored by some in here who think this sort of behaviour is acceptable . One can only imagine the furore if the EU did the same thing .
https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1446958529303269376?s=20
https://thetravellocker.com/2016/06/07/totnes-devon-twinned-with-narnia/
Was @HYUFD your Geography teacher? And what in holy hell has France to do with this?
Australia is quite some distance too.
tank their own economy in the process, and Xi et al are well aware that they are riding a tiger that requires China’s economic growth and prosperity for its people to continue unchecked. China’s incipient banking and power crises are already threatening that, so they’re not going to actively make things worse.
Yes, imagine a British prime minister doing anything as bad as that? Weirdly, the UK PM didn't. The French president did
The first option on the paper is do nothing. So if The government and Frost do nothing about this problem, what is the consequence? They will be damned won’t they?
So one of the do options has to be taken. They have to be active.
Black people in Civil Rights America. Roma in Eastern Europe. Trans people in Austin Texas. And, recently, Protestants in the island of Ireland, the beleaguered, the besieged, a minority with its rights trampled and traditions dishonoured. It's not moral and they need our support
About 300 km less than from here to Afghanistan.
The Pacific is big. Very big.
It sounds to me as if the USS Connecticut is retiring damaged after striking something big. When playing cat and mouse, this cat got it's nose whacked.
And you want us to copy it? The Mighty Auk, the fake Cold War with China, delaying China being the worlds number 1 superpower on grounds of Freedom and Democracy (if you ignore our inaction on Hong Kong) - this is all for internal consumption, just like it was in Orwell’s 1984? Is that what you are saying Leon?
Uh. Is that a ban?
GN all 👍
Both of these would be a serious escalation of the situation.
As far as women are concerned, these are anti-women moves, dressed up as rebellion against the British or Americans or whoever.
Which is why all people like you have is whinging about "honour".
Screw your crocodile tears. There is no honour, there is only realpolitik, and invoking Article 16 is honouring the deal since the article is a part of the deal anyway.
The lack of respect some people are willing to show to women is astonishing and angering.
And I don't view this as a males v females issue. I've always been on the side of women because its the right thing to do, but now even more personally as a father to two young daughters - I want them to grow up into a world in which they and other girls will be safe.
It sickens me that some people don't prioritise the equality and safety of girls.
But the idea of Putin reaching Calais is preposterous. Russia is bust and their army is decrepit. Russia isn't invading Europe, its a bad joke now. The UK could hold Russia to a stalemate without any allies.
China are the real threat of the 21st century.
So yes.
I did say to call out misogyny as wrong. A lot of people were not prepared to, or even attacked those who call out misogyny as wrong.
Seems we're still a long way from getting women treated as equals.
I’m not saying there are not crimes, or to belittle the number of crimes, only recognise it is character committing the crimes, regardless of skin colour, gender or any other classification to pigeon hole under - this has to be part of the solution, otherwise the real danger is lazy unhelpful reactionary response of even more man fearing and man hating isn’t it? Unless of course, that’s exactly what people want? If that is the aim, I wouldn’t like to patronise anyone. But they would be wrong, because a big part of the solution is decent male role models in people’s lives, especially as they are growing up.
What seems like a growing problem happening in UK is global village. What was already out there beyond our border is coming here, whilst we liked to think the whole world was no worse than us. We ignored how we had moved on, until we were suddenly not an island anymore.
If it was “just” about discrimination against women the argument against government banning things is harder to refute
Seems a shame to let them down so.
Meanwhile. They seem to have found Taiwan of late. Though few have much idea of its exact location. Somewhere near Australia and the middle of the Indian Ocean.
Oh. And "we" have spent the better part of 50 years endangering Taiwan and enabling the PRC.
If there is an imminent threat, then the West has sown the seeds. With the UK front and centre.
However, Islam (and other religions) don’t have that same view because the core of their ethics system - the Koran - doesn’t preach the view everyone is equal. Far from it. So, when the argument is made that eg Saudi should treat men and women equally, Saudis - arguably fairly - say “why should we adopt your views”. Imagine if Islam tried to impose its views on the West…
All we're doing now is reversing the damage May and Robbins conceded to Barnier.
Russia still has the biggest military in Europe, followed by France and the UK.
If Taiwan is going to be protected it will be by the US with ourselves and Australia and maybe Japan and S Korea too.
Though more likely unless Trump returns in 2024 the US would leave Taiwan to defend itself and only defend Japan and S Korea, again with us in support.
Helping contain China is fine but we have to lead on defending our own backyard first