''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
That is precisely where my thinking is.
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.
I am not really that well informed on banking issues, but my feeling is that, at some stage EU banking regulations will be an own goal, so it is important for the City to be governed not by EU regulations, but our own so that it will be well-positioned at that point to take advantage of the EU own goals.
Not just banking, but (re)insurance (particularly the major broking operations, which are potentially more exposed to the EU generally) and other FS sub-sectors are now, quietly, making just that point in the consultation exercises going on.
Mr. Surbiton, when a state takes its military security for granted based on prolonged peace and the absence of an external threat, it gets a rude awakening sooner or later.
Rome went from undisputed dominance to near collapse in less than a century.
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.
That is precisely where my thinking is.
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.
I am not really that well informed on banking issues, but my feeling is that, at some stage EU banking regulations will be an own goal, so it is important for the City to be governed not by EU regulations, but our own so that it will be well-positioned at that point to take advantage of the EU own goals.
Not just banking, but (re)insurance (particularly the major broking operations, which are potentially more exposed to the EU generally) and other FS sub-sectors are now, quietly, making just that point in the consultation exercises going on.
FWIW, the IFS SM report put the value of UK financial services exports to the EU at £23.1 billion, split £2.4billion insurance & pensions, remainder banking and investment services. Figures are from 2014 though.
That's not necessarily the most helpful split (or, probably, the right total - it's hellishly difficult to capture a lot of these stats). At the risk of stating the obvious, the useful split is the proportion of all of the above related to direct provision (not, it should be noted, intermediation) of retail/personal lines products - that's what we need to move to (say) Dublin if the UK loses passporting. It will still be less than half the total, probably; it will certainly be the less profitable part of the whole.
When they were 74-4 and 110-5, that didn't look likely.
Look forward to the highlights.
In my youth anything over 300 was looked upon as reasonable and 400 was a very good score . Now anything less than 400 is looked upon as a collapse.
(In 1976 IIRC the West Indies were castigated for bowling less than 100 overs a day - I can remember Ritchie complaining when fewer than 100 balls an hour were delivered.)
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
And give the unelected Eurocrats an expeditionary force? Madness.
You're labouring under a delusional level of paranoia. What madness do you think the EUcrats are going to get up to?
The 90's and 00's golden age of the liberal West being the dominant force in the world are ending and there is far worse than Brussels out there. The US is pivoting to be able deal with China so Europe needs to be more in charge of its own fate with respect to Russia, North Africa and the near middle east at least.
Busy day for american polling, 4 PPP polls in 2 days:
N.Carolina
Trump 43 Hillary 41
S.Carolina
Trump 41 Hillary 39
N.H.
Hillary 50 Trump 37
Florida
Hillary 46 Trump 43
Also 2 polls from Gravis:
Maine
Hillary 43 Trump 33
Georgia
Trump 43 Hillary 39
And one from Suffolk:
Iowa
Trump 37 Hillary 36
The very uneven picture of the Trump Collapse continues. S.Carolina and Maine join the list of states recording it, Georgia maybe moving out of the list.
What these polls show despite the large national leads this race is still close as f.
It shows no-one wants to vote for either candidate.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
I mean the fact that they have only one land border (US), and are many miles from another country (excluding that tiny french island in Newfoundland). Less need for an expansive army.
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
Of the last 19 polls before the EU referendum 8 had Leave in the lead.
Of the last 19 US Presidential polls 0 have Trump in the lead.
Yes but we are still 3 months from polling day and of course Remain started the EUref campaign with a 15% lead, bigger than Hillary had even immediately after the DNC convention
''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
I mean the fact that they have only one land border (US), and are many miles from another country (excluding that tiny french island in Newfoundland). Less need for an expansive army.
The USA must be defending themselves from a Mexican invasion. Wait a minute.........someone should tell that idiot that there is no need to build a wall. The Mexicans can be nuked !
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
I mean the fact that they have only one land border (US), and are many miles from another country (excluding that tiny french island in Newfoundland). Less need for an expansive army.
The USA must be defending themselves from a Mexican invasion. Wait a minute.........
Who knows why the US spends so much on their military, but the Canadians get a good deal out of it.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
There is if 2012 is a guide, Obama won 51% of the popular vote but 62% of Electoral College votes. Even if Trump wins all the Romney states and adds Nevada, Iowa, Florida and Ohio, Hillary would still win 273-265
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
And give the unelected Eurocrats an expeditionary force? Madness.
You're labouring under a delusional level of paranoia. What madness do you think the EUcrats are going to get up to?
The 90's and 00's golden age of the liberal West being the dominant force in the world are ending and there is far worse than Brussels out there. The US is pivoting to be able deal with China so Europe needs to be more in charge of its own fate with respect to Russia, North Africa and the near middle east at least.
Like that is ever going to happen. How many European countries who are members of NATO currently fulfill their existing obligations in terms of defence expenditure? The idea that Europe is ever going to be more in charge of its own fate as regards defence belongs in Wolkenkuckucksheim.
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please). Could that be wishful thinking?
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?
I don't. But I would be nervous about putting much on Hillary because it smells like a EU Ref re-run with Trump getting a significant boost from previous non-voters, and the polls are not far enough apart to discount it.
I am dubious about how protectionist the USA will be anyway unless there is a massive Trump landslide, the limits of executive power might get tested quite rapidly against a pro-business, or at least pro-profit, congress. Trump scraping over the line by a fraction of a percent won't have the mandate to carry congress with him, a Trump landslide of 60%+ might, but is vanishingly unlikely.
The Senate may not be sympathetic to Trump, a GOP controlled House would be far more so, Republicans in the House initially voted against the bank bailout in 2008 after all and are very tough on immigration
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence
Were those the 3 that ran away that the BBC / Guardian kept telling us they were all innocent and came from good families, until a video emerged of one of their fathers involved in extremist supporting demo?
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Not if they hit Alaska first!
Her foreign policy expertise rested on the fact that the missiles would go over Alaska. That was her "experience" to become the Commander-in-Chief.
Given a choice between Palin and Trump, I might go with the former.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence
Were those the 3 that ran away that the BBC / Guardian kept telling us they were all innocent and came from good families, until a video emerged of one of their fathers involved in extremist supporting demo?
Yep. A gruesome justice has been served.
Didn't the families also initially try to lay all the blame with the authorities? But, I am guessing taking your daughter on an extremist march doesn't have any impact on them.
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Not if they hit Alaska first!
Snow worries.
Provided they avoid Anchorage
And then they kill some ice. Alaska has nothing to fear from a bit of random warming.
Similarly Russia has always had places like Siberia as a defence. Lighting it up with stuff makes it better.
We have Scotland - it should be much the same, but the locals like it dowdy.
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence
Oh no. What a shame. I'm astonished.
I blame the police, MI5, MI6, the turks, the government, the Daily Mail, the Islamophobic brits...
Mr. T, ideas are ephemeral and will flourish online. Money will still come from the places that fund IS/Daesh. I agree it'll be a blow but the lunatics, but, unlike the Khmer Rouge, it'll be more like the ending of an act rather than the final curtain.
It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military terms
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Not if they hit Alaska first!
Snow worries.
Provided they avoid Anchorage
And then they kill some ice. Alaska has nothing to fear from a bit of random warming.
Similarly Russia has always had places like Siberia as a defence. Lighting it up with stuff makes it better.
We have Scotland - it should be much the same, but the locals like it dowdy.
300,000 people live in Anchorage and the surrounding area
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with that
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.
Not if they hit Alaska first!
Her foreign policy expertise rested on the fact that the missiles would go over Alaska. That was her "experience" to become the Commander-in-Chief.
Given a choice between Palin and Trump, I might go with the former.
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military terms
There is moderate FSA left. They are all islamists. The moderate types are all dead already, they've been killed by the islamists and Assad/Russia.
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence
The worry is not the soldiers in Syria/ Iraq/ Libya but 'sleepers' in the EU and UK.
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military terms
There is moderate FSA left. They are all islamists. The moderate types are all dead already, they've been killed by the islamists and Assad/Russia.
Well whatever they are they will not have much chance when they are the last ones standing against Assad and Putin
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military terms
I don't feel the expected dread about Putin. He's a ruthless, charmless autocrat - but no worse (and arguably better) than our supposed ally Erdogan.
He is no threat to the UK, unless he attacks the Baltics and destabilises NATO, which I don't think he will (what's the point)
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSR. He knows Trump will do nothing to protect the Baltics and Obama would be too weak to do anything
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military terms
I don't feel the expected dread about Putin. He's a ruthless, charmless autocrat - but no worse (and arguably better) than our supposed ally Erdogan.
He is no threat to the UK, unless he attacks the Baltics and destabilises NATO, which I don't think he will (what's the point)
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSR
Dangerous to who exactly?
And for all people like to demonise Russia, remember our political masters are allied to the likes of the Saudis...
Back in 1986, brimming with the socialist passions I had partly soaked up from such musicians as Billy Bragg and Paul Weller, I co-founded a branch of the Labour party’s youth wing in the well-known socialist hotbed of Tatton – then represented by the soon to be disgraced MP Neil Hamilton, and these days the adopted home turf of George Osborne. But the Labour Party Young Socialists, as it was known, was then controlled by Militant, and soon enough a few of their troops popped up in the constituency, quickly gaining control of the branch and the two seats it was granted on the local Labour general management committee. God knows what they were thinking: today Wilmslow, Knutsford and Northwich; tomorrow the world?
What happened to me in the interim was grim: repeatedly being accused of “not knowing my history” (true: I was 16) and becoming so miserable about a mixture of unpleasant behaviour and ulterior motives that one night I got home from yet another meeting and burst into tears. That was me done: after a last blast of activism in a nearby constituency where Militant was apparently not active, I jacked in the Labour party for the best part of 15 years.
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Sad news and another popular holiday destination moves off the tourist list
Watching a spot of the cricket this afternoon, I was struck by the tv adverts for £199 holidays to Turkey....I can safely say I will be giving that tempting offer a miss.
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence
The worry is not the soldiers in Syria/ Iraq/ Libya but 'sleepers' in the EU and UK.
By invading Iraq, we started a war that resulted in the deaths over a million people and which, in the form of ISIS, still continues. Many will see the crushing of ISIS as yet another act of gross injustice against the Muslim (especially Sunni) people. Is it really any wonder that our actions are arousing hatred and providing fertile ground for extremism?
The more we kill over there, the more sleepers we will create over here.
Sad news and another popular holiday destination moves off the tourist list
Watching a spot of the cricket this afternoon, I was struck by the tv adverts for £199 holidays to Turkey....I can safely say I will be giving that tempting offer a miss.
As will most but the beach resorts in the south of the country are still reasonably safe on the whole
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military terms
I don't feel the expected dread about Putin. He's a ruthless, charmless autocrat - but no worse (and arguably better) than our supposed ally Erdogan.
He is no threat to the UK, unless he attacks the Baltics and destabilises NATO, which I don't think he will (what's the point)
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSR
Dangerous to who exactly?
And for all people like to demonise Russia, remember our political masters are allied to the likes of the Saudis...
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania most prominently and I am no great fan of the Saudis either but Saudi Arabia does not have the military power of Russia even if it does have some rather dubious dealings
It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
7's is a very different game to 15-a-side.
Yes I know...and past few years has become increasingly specalised. And it is particularly noticeable with the forwards, they are a totally different shape to modern 15 forwards.
But all that been said, a 6ft winger will rocket boosters for legs you would think would be able to play wing in 15s, no?
@PeterMannionMP: The lights are going out all over the #LabourLeadership hustings. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime..
Sir Peter Mannion MP @PeterMannionMP - With annual leadership elections, fee hikes, and evermore left membership, Labour will become the wealthiest unelectable cult in the world.
@PeterMannionMP: The lights are going out all over the #LabourLeadership hustings. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime..
Sir Peter Mannion MP @PeterMannionMP - With annual leadership elections, fee hikes, and evermore left membership, Labour will become the wealthiest unelectable cult in the world.
Do you have to pay to reach a levels closer to going clear and be able to fully understand Corbyn's greatness?
@lisanandy: Sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending we're winning lets down every single person who needs a Labour Government #labourleadership
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSR
Dangerous to who exactly?
And for all people like to demonise Russia, remember our political masters are allied to the likes of the Saudis...
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania most prominently and I am no great fan of the Saudis either but Saudi Arabia does not have the military power of Russia even if it does have some rather dubious dealings
So not our problem then.
The problem with Saudi is ideological, they are a far bigger threat to us than Russia will ever be.
So, Labour guy, let me get this right. You want to retain your Europhilia, (goodbye North of England) and do a deal with the Scots (goodbye everywhere but London). Well played, sir, well played.
It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
7's is a very different game to 15-a-side.
Yes I know...and past few years has become increasingly specalised. And it is particularly noticeable with the forwards, they are a totally different shape to modern 15 forwards.
But all that been said, a 6ft winger will rocket boosters for legs you would think would be able to play wing in 15s, no?
But he would have to play for 80 minutes, have to catch a rugby ball coming down "with snow on it" and face guys weighing 20st.
It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
7's is a very different game to 15-a-side.
Yes I know...and past few years has become increasingly specalised. And it is particularly noticeable with the forwards, they are a totally different shape to modern 15 forwards.
But all that been said, a 6ft winger will rocket boosters for legs you would think would be able to play wing in 15s, no?
But he would have to play for 80 minutes, have to catch a rugby ball coming down "with snow on it" and face guys weighing 20st.
Fair point. There is also a fair amount of tactical stuff even for wingers. I know that Varndell was never really considered good enough for England 15s despite being the fastest winger on the planet, mainly because no amount of coaching managed to ensure he was in the right positions defensively.
Comments
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-10516991
When they were 74-4 and 110-5, that didn't look likely.
Look forward to the highlights.
Rome went from undisputed dominance to near collapse in less than a century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pFUsOaZZA
(In 1976 IIRC the West Indies were castigated for bowling less than 100 overs a day - I can remember Ritchie complaining when fewer than 100 balls an hour were delivered.)
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/763683341354795008
The 90's and 00's golden age of the liberal West being the dominant force in the world are ending and there is far worse than Brussels out there. The US is pivoting to be able deal with China so Europe needs to be more in charge of its own fate with respect to Russia, North Africa and the near middle east at least.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
I wonder who won the war ?
Given a choice between Palin and Trump, I might go with the former.
Similarly Russia has always had places like Siberia as a defence. Lighting it up with stuff makes it better.
We have Scotland - it should be much the same, but the locals like it dowdy.
Also worrying to see the way Turkey's going.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3735034/At-12-injured-Thailand-two-motorbike-bombs-explode-tourist-hotspot.html
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 45
NY - Clinton 53 .. Trump 36
ME - Clinton 46 .. Trump 36
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.GA.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.NY.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.ME.8-8-16.pdf
And for all people like to demonise Russia, remember our political masters are allied to the likes of the Saudis...
Back in 1986, brimming with the socialist passions I had partly soaked up from such musicians as Billy Bragg and Paul Weller, I co-founded a branch of the Labour party’s youth wing in the well-known socialist hotbed of Tatton – then represented by the soon to be disgraced MP Neil Hamilton, and these days the adopted home turf of George Osborne. But the Labour Party Young Socialists, as it was known, was then controlled by Militant, and soon enough a few of their troops popped up in the constituency, quickly gaining control of the branch and the two seats it was granted on the local Labour general management committee. God knows what they were thinking: today Wilmslow, Knutsford and Northwich; tomorrow the world?
What happened to me in the interim was grim: repeatedly being accused of “not knowing my history” (true: I was 16) and becoming so miserable about a mixture of unpleasant behaviour and ulterior motives that one night I got home from yet another meeting and burst into tears. That was me done: after a last blast of activism in a nearby constituency where Militant was apparently not active, I jacked in the Labour party for the best part of 15 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/11/trotskyists-on-the-march-chaos-ahead
The more we kill over there, the more sleepers we will create over here.
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 43
NH - Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2016/08/Polling-Memo.pdf
@tnewtondunn: Corbyn at Labour hustings: "Our message to the rest of the world is... oh, the lights have gone out!". Beyond irony.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/
And NY has one of the lowest Clinton Leads ever :
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-york/
Looks like pollgate may be coming to an end.
But all that been said, a 6ft winger will rocket boosters for legs you would think would be able to play wing in 15s, no?
@JournoStephen: Labour: Deal with SNP 'a price worth paying' to stop Tories https://t.co/HU3QICX7iL https://t.co/pSbNDcQILx
@paulwaugh: Corbyn says 'we got ahead of the Tories in the local elections'. Smith quick to pick him up on it. Lab lost seats
@lisanandy: Sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending we're winning lets down every single person who needs a Labour Government #labourleadership
Still, he managed to get that out of his system.
The problem with Saudi is ideological, they are a far bigger threat to us than Russia will ever be.
@HTScotPol: Going by the clap-o-meter at the SNP hustings tonight, @AngusRobertson should be worried about the challenge from @TommySheppard
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/republicans-urge-rnc-cut-funds-trump-226918