foxinsoxuk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mortimer said:

Could someone please clarify Corbyn's position, as of this moment, on freedom of movement?

Oh, and whether Charlie F has resigned

Corbyn is massively in favour of free movement but the Plebs are not and he'd like to get some Plebs votes so let's eat fudge instead.

Can't say about Charlie F.

Jezza is in favour of migration, but not of the EU itself. Thats my understanding.

He thinks it is a cesspit of capitalist free-market oppressors.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Dromedary said:

Paristonda said:

Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.

It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.

Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?

Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.

It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.

The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters

Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?

We fought them with the French and Turks then

I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).

In 1940-1 we also had a worldwide Empire on our side, it wasn't just plucky old Britain.!

Veteran British war correspondent who broke the news that World War Two had started, has died in Hong Kong at the age of....105

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Dromedary said:

Paristonda said:

Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.

It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.

Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?

Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.

It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.

The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters

Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?

We fought them with the French and Turks then

I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).

Falklands.

Argentina is not a great power.

Britain did not fight that war by itself. It had to rely on US logistics.

TOPPING said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mortimer said:

Could someone please clarify Corbyn's position, as of this moment, on freedom of movement?

Oh, and whether Charlie F has resigned

Corbyn is massively in favour of free movement but the Plebs are not and he'd like to get some Plebs votes so let's eat fudge instead.

Can't say about Charlie F.

Jezza is in favour of migration, but not of the EU itself. Thats my understanding.

He thinks it is a cesspit of capitalist free-market oppressors.

He does have a point!

MM (Completely OT)

I don't know whether you took a look at the Bafta nominations? Irony of ironies 'Son of Saul' and 'Julieta' both up for best foreign language awards despite SoS winning last years Oscar. Possibly my two favourite films in any language though Son of Saul will almost certainly win. If you haven't seen it and you aren't feeling suicidal you must watch it

surbiton said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

I read earlier today that another 5000 Jews have left France for Israel - can anyone comment on this re trends?

Europe's Jewish Exodus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2h7ggRUFws

In addition to (fears) of growing antisemitism in places like France, Israel is booming, with great education system, high tech job opportunities, new low cost (often subsidized by the state) housing developments, with all mod cons, community facilities etc etc etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6L9mS9ti6o&list=PL73YrgSr2jIwttfD1lx4Y8QTZeUtjAyMD&index=2

......and, unlimited free land appropriated from the Palestinians.

Subsidised and with a guarantee that if it's ever confiscated the money will be repaid with interest.

Every country in major wars have had help from someone.

SeanT said:

My mortgage arrangement is coming to an end, and my bank is offering me a new 5 year deal on a fixed rate of 1.99 (less interest than I'm paying now)

To me that seems like a good offer, a hedge against interest rates shooting up in mid-Brexit chaos. What do PBers think?

What is your rate if you just go onto variable rate?

Mine is on a tracker (coming off fixed back in 2012) of 1.99+base so been basically 2.49 and now 2.24 for the last 5 years. That seemed like a good deal to me and I don't see rates rising any time soon personally. But I don't see any risk to taking 1.99% fixed and would grab it, realistically rates can't go down any further but could go up.

SeanT said:

My mortgage arrangement is coming to an end, and my bank is offering me a new 5 year deal on a fixed rate of 1.99 (less interest than I'm paying now)

To me that seems like a good offer, a hedge against interest rates shooting up in mid-Brexit chaos. What do PBers think?

Errm

Take it ?

Though have a look into Offset tracker deals.

I'm assuming you're on 50% marginal rate hence anything up to 2.985% would effectively beat that 1.99%, you'd also be able to keep your cash more liquid...

TOPPING said:

So farewell then, Kempton Park.

Home of some staggeringly amazing racing notably any number of King Georges.

I remember one in particular, Dessie's last. Unshipped the jock three out, stood up and shook himself off, before cantering, ears pricked, past the crowd in the stands who nearly lifted the roof off with cheering the riderless horse.

Totally bonkers. Maybe Chelsea should sell off Stamford Bridge and relocate to Skegness.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Nuttall seems hellbent on getting into Northern Labour... Ukip are holding events where members can suggest policy etc... in Derby! When I was into it all, everything was in Mayfair. I think that's all he is focussing on, rightly or wrongly

Does anyone doubt that is the right priority?

Targetting Tories never got UKIP any seats (other than defections) whereas targetting Labour presents a fat juicy target right now. Plus with the EU boil now lanced there will be even less opportunities to attack the Tories from the right but as a nationalist left wing party the field is left open currently to achieve in northern England what the SNP achieved in northern Britain.

Probably the right think to do. I think it was Michael Dugher who said Ukip got 10,000 votes in his constituency without delivering a leaflet.

Down here they should just target tories Remainers, esp those who campaigned on immigration then voted Remain (Hornchurch, Thurrock, Rochester)

MarkHopkins said:

MTimT said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Dromedary said:

Paristonda said:

Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.

It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.

Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?

Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.

It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.

The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters

Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?

We fought them with the French and Turks then

I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).

Falklands.

Argentina is not a great power.

Britain did not fight that war by itself. It had to rely on US logistics.

Well Argentina had to rely on French missiles.

Two Type 42 destroyers - UK made!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santísima_Trinidad_(D-2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Hércules_(B-52)

PlatoSaid said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Dromedary said:

Paristonda said:

Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.

It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.

Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?

Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.

It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.

The UK is never going to fight Russia on its own, it is on the other side of Europe for starters

Yes, it was so much easier to get to in 1854, wasn't it?

We fought them with the French and Turks then

I know. Great power wars are usually fought in alliances - or at least, with the hope of bringing new countries into alliance. I can't think when Britain last intentionally fought a major war by itself (i.e. 1940-1 doesn't count as Britain co-ordinated its policy with France before 1939).

Falklands.

Argentina is not a great power.

What made Argentina so German friendly? Just been rewatching Dexter, and forgotten it was the desination of choice for Hannah.

Especially after the second world war?

Peron wanted to use Nazi military experience/knowledge/science in the same way the Americans and Soviets had done.

He set up escape routes via Italy and Spain based on his experience serving as a military adviser/observer in Italy during the 30s/early 40s

Philip_Thompson said:

From the masterminds who came up with a policy of nuclear submarines without nuclear warheads can we really be surprised at a policy of controlled migration without controls?

Aircraft carriers without aircraft?

SeanT said:

Thanks for the advice. Yes, I thought it was a good deal: I will take it!

Only concern might be that you won't be able to pay off lumps when those royalty cheques come rolling in. But it is an extremely competitive rate. Suggests the market doesn't see any real increase in rates for a long time to come.

surbiton said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

I read earlier today that another 5000 Jews have left France for Israel - can anyone comment on this re trends?

Europe's Jewish Exodus

(snip)

In addition to (fears) of growing antisemitism in places like France, Israel is booming, with great education system, high tech job opportunities, new low cost (often subsidized by the state) housing developments, with all mod cons, community facilities etc etc etc.

(snip)

......and, unlimited free land appropriated from the Palestinians.

Indeed. It's hard to see what Israel "fears" from anti-Jewish feeling in France.

In what amounted almost to ritual humiliation, President François Hollande sat in the audience at the grand synagogue in France following the attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris, which itself followed the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and listened to Benyamin Netanyahu declare to French Jews that they had a home in Israel.

I know of no parallels.

If Hollande had any backbone, he would have told Netanyahu that he wasn't welcome in France if he was going to say that in his speech; that the French state protects French citizens and indeed all residents and visitors regardless of their ethno-religious backgrounds; and that it does not accept help from foreign states that restrict their interest to assisting particular ethno-religious groups, especially foreign states that claim some kind of wardship over French people and encourage them to emigrate. In short, he would have said that he does not recognise Israel as representing French Jews.

Back in 2004, Israeli prime minister Ariel "Sabra and Chatila" Sharon called on all French Jews to move to Israel "immediately". In response, the Chirac government kicked up a fuss and said that Sharon's call was unacceptable.

How things have changed, eh?

Emigration of French Jews from France to Israel:
2010: 1923
2014: 6658
2015: 7469
first half of 2016: 1858 - and Zionists are complaining that that's too few.

Of course, in between Chirac and Hollande there was Sarkozy, who was said by Le Figaro to have worked for Mossad as a sayan.

As I have noted here before, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen's biological father, French journalist and diplomat Roger Auque, also worked for Mossad (and admitted it).

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

david_herdson said:

MTimT said:

Dromedary said:

Paristonda said:

Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.

It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.

Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?

Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.

It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.

What time-scale are you talking about? Post Bolshevik revolution? Pre-? What about the Great Game? Was that not also the British Empire trying to keep Russia from getting a warm water port? I seem to remember something about a Light Brigade and Crimea ...

If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.

Yes. For the great majority of the last 200 years, the UK has been in opposition to Russia/USSR. The only real exception was in the early 20th century and that was as much as anything by the accident of Germany behaving stupidly rather than any fundamental change in Anglo-Russian interests. (1941-5 doesn't count as that was even more an accident of circumstances).

I think it is fairer to say we have allied with our friends across the pond more than we have unilaterally opposed Russia. Opposition with Russia has been part of our Special Relationship. Continuing opposition to Russia seems unlikely if America thaws it's relationship. I'd expect us to have a polite indifference to Russia for the next few years.

Britain's alliance with the US only dates back to 1940, if you count lend-lease as the effective start; .

1917?

surbiton said:

Sandpit said:

Floater said:

surbiton said:

Floater said:

surbiton said:

TGOHF said:

surbiton said:

Patrick said:

TGOHF said:

Patrick said:

Hmm....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/islamization-britain-2016-more-backwards-some-parts-pakistan-0

"September 15. The British Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Simon Collis, completed the Hajj after converting to Islam. He is believed to be the first British ambassador to perform the pilgrimage, one of the five pillars of Islam."

What ? The FO is an interesting place.

The FO's job is, surely, to represent the government and interests of the British to foreigners - not the other way round. In the world today it seems beyond perverse and actually insulting to have a Muslim convert dealing on our behalf with those scumbags. WTF?

A Muslim cannot be British ? or, vice versa ?

You are MaxPB and I claim my £5.

I tell you what wouldn't be possible - for the Saudi ambassador to convert to Christianity and still be ambassador.

I don't think a Saudi could convert at all. I am not 100% sure but definitely 99.9% sure. The sooner they are got rid of [ or, "taken down" ], the better.

But our Prime Ministers keep paying homage.

Nothing to do with being Saudi.

Islam takes a very dim view of people who convert from or renounce their faith.

The Pew foundation did some very disturbing polling on views of muslims in European countries towards people who left the faith

Muslims have converted to other religions, mainly to Christianity. Agreed it is not allowed in Islam itself.

What do you think Missionaries do in Islamic countries ? Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf is a major exception.

Muslims have converted, they are very brave and some have died for their bravery.

You think Islamic countries tolerate the promotion of other faiths?

To be fair, there are Islamic countries quite tolerant of other religions. I got married in a Catholic Church in Dubai, for example.

I am pretty sure that there are churches in every Muslim country except Saudi Arabia, our friend.

I'll research that and come back to you with a definitive answer, but AIUI there's not many churches in the Gulf, certainly the GCC, outside of UAE and Oman.

"The "clock is ticking" on a Northern Ireland election following the resignation of Martin McGuinness, the Secretary of State has said."

Is he sure it is just a clock???

Sunil_Prasannan said:

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

david_herdson said:

MTimT said:

Dromedary said:

Paristonda said:

Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.

It raises an interesting question - what is, and what should be Theresa May's approach to Putin? Historically we have always been hawkish on Russia, always been pretty poor relations. Unlike Trump, May has no ideological reason to like Putin, and unlike France or Germany, we have far less reliance or economic involvement with Russia - hence it was us pushing hard for sanctions. So there isn't really any advantage in the UK seeking a thaw in relations.

Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?

Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.

It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.

What time-scale are you talking about? Post Bolshevik revolution? Pre-? What about the Great Game? Was that not also the British Empire trying to keep Russia from getting a warm water port? I seem to remember something about a Light Brigade and Crimea ...

If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.

Yes. For the great majority of the last 200 years, the UK has been in opposition to Russia/USSR. The only real exception was in the early 20th century and that was as much as anything by the accident of Germany behaving stupidly rather than any fundamental change in Anglo-Russian interests. (1941-5 doesn't count as that was even more an accident of circumstances).

I think it is fairer to say we have allied with our friends across the pond more than we have unilaterally opposed Russia. Opposition with Russia has been part of our Special Relationship. Continuing opposition to Russia seems unlikely if America thaws it's relationship. I'd expect us to have a polite indifference to Russia for the next few years.

Britain's alliance with the US only dates back to 1940, if you count lend-lease as the effective start; .

1917?

Read 'The Deluge' by Adam Tooze.

SeanT said:

TOPPING said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

SeanT said:

Thanks for the advice. Yes, I thought it was a good deal: I will take it!

Only concern might be that you won't be able to pay off lumps when those royalty cheques come rolling in. But it is an extremely competitive rate. Suggests the market doesn't see any real increase in rates for a long time to come.

No, I can pay off lumps. Just can't pay off the whole thing without incurring a penalty.

If you can't make more than 1.99% pa on your money then you should sack Goldman as your financial adviser.

Well, yes. There's not much point in paying it off, apart from the emotional satisfaction of seeing it go down (which is not to be sniffed at)

I'm a bit shit at investing. It bores me. Also my income is so volatile, and I'm never quite sure how much my tax bill will be, so it's hard to commit.

I'm thinking of putting £50k in premium bonds, just for the lols, and because interest rates elsewhere are so utterly feeble (I do have some riskier investments, too)

Well of course it's all down to your appetite for risk and only you can answer that. Premium bonds are certainly not the worst thing out there. I think the odds of winning GBP100,000 are around the same as that of winning the lottery (not euromillions) but then again, you get 50,000 tickets and they don't go in the bin and are used again the next month when you don't win!

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

david_herdson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

david_herdson said:

MTimT said:

Dromedary said:

Paristonda said:

Off-topic, I see the Russian Embassy has been trolling the UK about us trying to disrupt any Russian/US thaw.

snip

Will May try and change British attitudes towards Putin, or Trump's attitude toward's Putin?

Hawkish? Mostly British foreign policy has been to ally with Russia to prevent the rise of a strong power in between the two territories - whether that was Sweden, France, or Germany.

It's only recently that you've had this crazy talk about the US being too dovish and imagine if Britain had to fight Russia in the Baltic on its own.

snip

If Britain's history has been about anything, surely it has been shifting alliances, either to neuter the Superpower when that was not us (or post-War our US ally), or to retain our status as the Superpower.

Yes. For the great majority of the last 200 years, the UK has been in opposition to Russia/USSR. The only real exception was in the early 20th century and that was as much as anything by the accident of Germany behaving stupidly rather than any fundamental change in Anglo-Russian interests. (1941-5 doesn't count as that was even more an accident of circumstances).

I think it is fairer to say we have allied with our friends across the pond more than we have unilaterally opposed Russia. Opposition with Russia has been part of our Special Relationship. Continuing opposition to Russia seems unlikely if America thaws it's relationship. I'd expect us to have a polite indifference to Russia for the next few years.

Britain's alliance with the US only dates back to 1940, if you count lend-lease as the effective start; .

1917?

Read 'The Deluge' by Adam Tooze.

As usual - Sir Humphrey had it bang to rights

" Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?"