Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either.
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
I've played wargames for years, and, based on that dubious experience of many different scenarios, Moscow would have fallen (though it's an open question whether it would have ended the war) if Germany hadn't had to intervene in the Balkans and they'd spent less time reducing the Kiev pocket. In 1941. I'd guess that Stalin had Richard Sorge to thank more than lend-lease.
They’d also have a few more troops.
They wouldn’t have needed to keep 25% of their troops in the West to defend against and repel beach landings by Britain, or invest as much in air defence; just occupation forces alone.
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either. That said, Hitler's decision was made in no small part because of the scale of assistance the US was giving Britain. Were Britain not in the war, would the US have been involved in the Atlantic at all? And if not, would Hitler have prompted war with the two neutral superpower democracies?
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
It's unknowable. What it would have come down to would have been whether German resources or Soviet resilience ran out first. In all probability, the Soviets had enough troops and land to meet the German invasion, even without Britain and the US (who might still have supplied equipment, at a price). Whether they would have had enough to drive to Berlin - and beyond - is another matter. Though the manhattan project would likely still have gone ahead.
We will never agree how to Leave in a way that satisfies everyone over the status quo.
But, I believe the Chequers Deal is an acceptable compromise.
Acceptable to _whom_, precisely?
Acceptable to those not on the fringes. ie for most leave voters it will be an improvement on being inside the EU and for most remain voters it'll be better than a no deal Brexit.
Well, it doesn't seem to be acceptable to leavers, remainers, the EU27, the commission, the cabinet, Parliament, the european parliament, or the electorate.
There is nothing that Leavers would not sacrifice to leave the EU. Northern Ireland would be a trivial cost for them, never mind peace in Northern Ireland.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
The UK will be literally extinct if Northern Ireland goes.
You have zero credibility.
Your strategy is simply to say the EU is the only answer to whatever one posts about.
Loon.
Try to engage with the substance. I asked a question yesterday which I think bears some examination: Why are people whose primary identity British more likely to be Remainers than people whose primary identity is English? I think the answer might not please you.
Since your answers are ones that please you, and are not evidence based, i’m remarkably sanguine about it actually.
It’s just a waste of my time.
It's certainly not a waste of your time to consider why Brexit is going so badly wrong.
That doesn’t follow. If British identity was even stronger it wouldn't imply we would be more in favour of the EU, or more European integration.
Far from it.
If only people who identified as British had voted in the referendum, Remain would have won.
Remain would have won if there was no purdah period, or if the question had been phrased differently, or if the Conservative Party had not been neutral, or if EU citizens and 16 years olds could have voted, or if Cameron had got something on free movement, or if postal voting had been banned.
In other news, if my Auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle.
And Cameron probably wouldn't have won a majority in 2015 if it hadn't been for the SNP and there wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place. So the SNP - and Nicola Sturgeon with Ed in her pocket - are in fact to blame for Brexit. And if Nick Clegg hadn't debate Farage UKIP would never have surged in the polls - so Cameron wouldn't have given his referendum pledge. So it's Clegg's fault.
Cause and effect has many angles.
It does, that’s why it’s far easier to support those angles and the decision tree that supports yours case.
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
Most Leavers will have rightly sniffed out that this question was intended to be used against them as a weapon by the ultra-Remainers. They will have noticed that it’s a ridiculous forced choice (they are far more intelligent than you give them credit for) to suggest that the threats of violent terrorists should have a veto on democracy expressed through the UK ballot box. You are wrong on this, and a number of moderate and respected posters disagreeing with you down thread should make you pause for thought.
For what it’s worth, I might well have replied the same to this question to an opinion pollster, even though I care passionately about peace and absolutely want both.
To do otherwise would have resulted in polling numbers on a macro level would have been to play their game and give HMG extra evidence to pursue the softest of Brexits.
If your line is that Leavers don't REALLY prefer violence in Northern Ireland to abandoning Brexit, I'm afraid there isn't the slightest scintilla of evidence for that. Leavers have to be assumed to be batshit mental.
It's a shame that it's as high as 30%, but there you go. These are the crazed times we live in.
Have you spoken to any?
I haven’t met a single leaver who wants violence in Northern Ireland.
Come on Alastair.
Want? No. Regard as an acceptable price to pay. Hell, yes. This is BREXIT we're talking about. Any amount of chaos and destruction is acceptable for these cretins.
You elected Corbyn, that’s what happened. It’s not as if you weren’t warned. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and your party. You did this to yourselves.
You wanted to widen the debate. And you have. The precise definition of anti-semitism is now the focus of intense daily debate, in a way last seen in 1930’s Germany or in the Lipstadt/David Irving libel trial.
They did. Maybe for a lot of reasons , it was a shame Ed Milliband , and Ed Balls were not put in charge by the British people.
The question for the poll is silly. It assumes a hypothetical (The UK leaving the EU means more violence in NI) and then asks a question based on this.
For example ... 'Reading the comments of Mr Meeks could send you barmy. is this an acceptable price to pay for reading his prose?' With a yes or no option.
Some of these recent assertions are worrying indeed - we are told that if we leave without a deal planes will not fly, trucks will be stuck in Kent, medical supplies won't reach our shores, and terrorism will return to Northern Ireland - presumably in additon to all the stuff that was promised first time around.
Now there are two possibilities here. The first, which I'd always assumed to be the case, is that this is a bucketload of hyperbole spread by politicians and media who are desperate not to leave.
The second possibility is that all of this is true, and that the reason why the civil service is so desperate for us not to leave is that we are so inveigled in the EU project that it is impossible for us to leave without literal horrors occurring. Consider the implications of this - if we can't get our planes to fly, trucks to leave, if a sovereign decision such as the Good Friday Agreement becomes meaningless, we are in no meaningful sense be a self-governing nation; we are in fact governed entirely by the EU.
And we have been lied to even more over the past 40 years than even the most ardent brexiteers thought.
And we have been lied to even more over the past 40 years than even the most ardent brexiteers thought.
Ted Heath in the televised debate before the 1975 referendum:
“What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation-state. And those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation-state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us."
You elected Corbyn, that’s what happened. It’s not as if you weren’t warned. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and your party. You did this to yourselves.
You wanted to widen the debate. And you have. The precise definition of anti-semitism is now the focus of intense daily debate, in a way last seen in 1930’s Germany or in the Lipstadt/David Irving libel trial.
They did. Maybe for a lot of reasons , it was a shame Ed Milliband , and Ed Balls were not put in charge by the British people.
That's a bit like hiring a painter and decorator who comes with a really dodgy reputation, then find they nick your stuff and in hindsight wishing you had hired the chuckle brothers instead.
Some of these recent assertions are worrying indeed - we are told that if we leave without a deal planes will not fly, trucks will be stuck in Kent, medical supplies won't reach our shores, and terrorism will return to Northern Ireland - presumably in additon to all the stuff that was promised first time around.
Now there are two possibilities here. The first, which I'd always assumed to be the case, is that this is a bucketload of hyperbole spread by politicians and media who are desperate not to leave.
The second possibility is that all of this is true, and that the reason why the civil service is so desperate for us not to leave is that we are so inveigled in the EU project that it is impossible for us to leave without literal horrors occurring. Consider the implications of this - if we can't get our planes to fly, trucks to leave, if a sovereign decision such as the Good Friday Agreement becomes meaningless, we are in no meaningful sense be a self-governing nation; we are in fact governed entirely by the EU.
And we have been lied to even more over the past 40 years than even the most ardent brexiteers thought.
It's really a matter of timescales. We're pivoting in a different direction than previously assumed, and economies aren't unicycles. A lot of people don't feel the pivot is worth the economic cost, but that aside, our issues are really down to the speed at which we're conducting said pivot.
And we have been lied to even more over the past 40 years than even the most ardent brexiteers thought.
Ted Heath in the televised debate before the 1975 referendum:
“What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation-state. And those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation-state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us."
Good old Ted. Wrong about everything, bless his little cotton socks.
That line about immigration is balls. FoM is not about entry - pretty much anyone can enter the UK legally. It’s about right to benefits.
Well, right to benefits and right to work (though in-work benefits are a particular draw*), but the basic point is one that @rcs keeps going on about repeatedly. Plenty of countries have visa-free travel to the UK. Plenty of people come on a visa for one purpose then overstay for another purpose. Plenty of countries both inside and outside the EU have mechanisms (with various degrees of success) for enforcing restrictions on the right to live and work in that country. "People can walk across the border so what about freedom of movement, eh?" is a bit of a red herring in this regard.
* Somewhat anecdotal source: from an immigration consultant who specialises in getting East Europeans settled into the UK
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
Some of us did warn that Vote Leave's plans would lead to all sorts of problems for Northern Ireland.
As Emperor Kahless the Unforgetable said
'Destroying an empire to win a war is no victory, and ending a war to save an empire is no defeat'
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Were Britain not in the war, would the US have been involved in the Atlantic at all? And if not, would Hitler have prompted war with the two neutral superpower democracies?
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
I've played wargames for years, and, based on that dubious experience of many different scenarios, Moscow would have fallen (though it's an open question whether it would have ended the war) if Germany hadn't had to intervene in the Balkans and they'd spent less time reducing the Kiev pocket. In 1941. I'd guess that Stalin had Richard Sorge to thank more than lend-lease.
And the US Senate's deep reluctance early in the war to aid Britain would have applied in spades to Russia.
The Soviets didn't show much gratitude: In September 1942, Sorge's wife Katya Maximova was arrested by the NKVD on the charges that she was a "German spy", since she was married to the German citizen Sorge (that Sorge was a GRU agent did not matter to the NKVD), and was deported to the Gulag. Maximova died in the Gulag in 1943....
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Alastair's arguing for an epistocracy, but I doubt that would have a happy ending either.
The moral panic about murders in London has proven to be rather exaggerated. In the last 5 weeks there have been just 3 homicides, in a city of 8.5 million people.
What I suspect it means is they don’t accept the premise of the poll.
N.Ireland has for the last 20 years been characterised by low level thuggery (for profit) and the occasional flare up (usually for competitive advantage). Personally I don’t see that changing as a result of our decision to leave the EU.
Fundamentally though, we cant let threats from terrorists constrain our actions as a country. Allowing yourself to be prevented from doing the right thing because of fear is not attractive
In other news, Dorset is booming. And I just saw a Cocker Spanisl in a canoe. He hadn’t jumped off at all. Remarkable!
Amazing. Who knew the Royal Navy under the Conservatives that we could manage a cocker spaniel canoe in replacement for our non existent aircraft carrier. Remarkable indeed. British bulldog on a surfboard next ?!?
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I disagree with your assumption. It's pretty clear that 30% are indeed unhinged nutters who would rather trash the country than see it associated with something that they regard as akin to the whore of Babylon. The appropriate response is more psychiatric than political.
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
I’m certainly going to be rude about the absolute majority of Leavers who would sacrifice Scotland and Northern Ireland in pursuit of their obsession. I continue to await any explanation of the way in which such an outcome would enhance Britain. Leaving it diminished, divided and still split from stem to stern does not sound particularly positive to me.
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
In other news, Dorset is booming. And I just saw a Cocker Spanisl in a canoe. He hadn’t jumped off at all. Remarkable!
Amazing. Who knew the Royal Navy under the Conservatives we could manage a cocker spaniel canoe in replacement for our non existent aircraft carrier. Remarkable indeed. British bulldog on a surfboard next ?!?
Probably just one of the Secret Boat Service feeling a little ruff.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Democracy didn't stop in 2016, and ardent Brexiteers are finding it increasingly difficult to convince others. Marcus Fysh here seems to be feeling the strain.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Democracy didn't stop in 2016, and ardent Brexiteers are finding it increasingly difficult to convince others. Marcus Fysh here seems to be feeling the strain.
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
How would they know that they really won? There's a touch of Mandy Rice-Davies about that quote.
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result. Generally at least one of them will be correct in claiming victory, I suppose, but for an outsider it's hard or even impossible to discern who it is. Ultimately the cycle of elections followed by competing claims of victory followed by one side claiming everything was rigged must be very corrosive for democracy.
I do think British the electoral system could do with some work to strengthen it (aside from Fake News, there's e.g. the issue of how local/national spending limits work in an internet-ad age, or the way parties are funded) but it says a lot that all sides have near-total faith in the vote-counting itself.
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
How would they know that they really won? There's a touch of Mandy Rice-Davies about that quote.
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result.
Reminds me of a recent referendum.
Except of course we now know the winning side were corrupt and cheating.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Alastair's arguing for an epistocracy, but I doubt that would have a happy ending either.
As it happens, I may have rather more to say on that very subject shortly, so no spoilers.
In any case, David is wrong to suggest that there's a majority for setting Northern Ireland aflame to secure Brexit. There is a sizeable minority of fruitcakes who are up for that proposition but they don't yet command a majority in the country as a whole.
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
How would they know that they really won? There's a touch of Mandy Rice-Davies about that quote.
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result.
Reminds me of a recent referendum.
Except of course we now know the winning side were corrupt and cheating.
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
How would they know that they really won? There's a touch of Mandy Rice-Davies about that quote.
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result.
Reminds me of a recent referendum.
Except of course we now know the winning side were corrupt and cheating.
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
Hey, I voted leave. Mostly because I feed off chaos.
(Interesting how Kennedy saw winning 52 seats to the Conservatives' 166 qualified as becoming the "real" opposition... and how fickle that momentum was to prove.)
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Alastair's arguing for an epistocracy, but I doubt that would have a happy ending either.
As it happens, I may have rather more to say on that very subject shortly, so no spoilers.
In any case, David is wrong to suggest that there's a majority for setting Northern Ireland aflame to secure Brexit. There is a sizeable minority of fruitcakes who are up for that proposition but they don't yet command a majority in the country as a whole.
I think the question should have been put like this:
a) Does you prefer Brexit to go ahead? or b) Does you prefer to cave into the demands of assorted NI terrorists?
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
How would they know that they really won? There's a touch of Mandy Rice-Davies about that quote.
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result.
Reminds me of a recent referendum.
Except of course we now know the winning side were corrupt and cheating.
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
Hey, I voted leave. Mostly because I feed off chaos.
That’s because they think it’s now or never for the UK, and the UK will be meaningfully extinct if it stays in the EU in time, and the EU will do anything to stop it.
One response to that is to argue the Leavers are mad (as the EU and many Remainers often do) another is to ask why 52% of the electorate, or 41% on no-deal, if you prefer, feel that strongly about it and what the EU might have done to drive those feelings.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
It is lunacy to risk the outbreak of violence, still less to regard it as an acceptable trade-off, for what is essentially a second order matter. Rather than waste time trying to peer deep into their foetid brains, just call it what it is: lunacy.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Yes - I'm afraid the otherwise sane and erudite Mr. Meeks is so unhinged when it comes to Brexit that he fails to see the irony in his tirade of insults about leavers. The whines and moans of denied entitlement of one so clever by many more not so clever continues to be unedifying and embarrassing.
There's a case for saying that the real terrorists Ulster were those protestants who refused to accept the 1912 Act on the whole of Ireland being separated from the UK. What sparked off decades of troubles was the British government going back on that.
I find that deeply offensive Mike - Edward Carson was a cousin and close friend of my grandfather. He led a political and legal campaign* to achieve what he believed in from a moral and philosophical stance.
If you want to point the figure it’s Craig who deserves the blame more than anyone else but more for his actions afterwards than for his campaign on partition.
* Apart from Larne. That pushed the boat out a little
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either.
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
I've played wargames for years, and, based on that dubious experience of many different scenarios, Moscow would have fallen (though it's an open question whether it would have ended the war) if Germany hadn't had to intervene in the Balkans and they'd spent less time reducing the Kiev pocket. In 1941. I'd guess that Stalin had Richard Sorge to thank more than lend-lease.
They’d also have a few more troops.
They wouldn’t have needed to keep 25% of their troops in the West to defend against and repel beach landings by Britain, or invest as much in air defence; just occupation forces alone.
I don't think the Soviets would have given up if Hitler had taken Moscow, and ultimately they would have won, just through sheer manpower. But if the fall of Moscow would have sufficed to get the Japanese to move against the Soviets in their Far East, then that might have been enough to finish them off.
I felt like the UK has always engaged with the EU from a position of dishonesty and denial. I also felt the EU will not stop integrating until it's a federal state, and that's something the UK cannot and will not be part of.
The only way to square those circles is that we have to go through the process of attempting to negotiate a departure from the EU to hammer home the reality of the UK's place in the world, rather than neo-imperial Brexiteer wet dreams.
I fully expected the process to be utterly chaotic, and voted leave anyway.
The question for the poll is silly. It assumes a hypothetical (The UK leaving the EU means more violence in NI) and then asks a question based on this.
For example ... 'Reading the comments of Mr Meeks could send you barmy. is this an acceptable price to pay for reading his prose?' With a yes or no option.
I have to write them, so it's only fair that the risks should be evenly distributed.
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
How would they know that they really won? There's a touch of Mandy Rice-Davies about that quote.
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result. Generally at least one of them will be correct in claiming victory, I suppose, but for an outsider it's hard or even impossible to discern who it is. Ultimately the cycle of elections followed by competing claims of victory followed by one side claiming everything was rigged must be very corrosive for democracy.
I do think British the electoral system could do with some work to strengthen it (aside from Fake News, there's e.g. the issue of how local/national spending limits work in an internet-ad age, or the way parties are funded) but it says a lot that all sides have near-total faith in the vote-counting itself.
Though as someone actively interested in Africa, I think grumblings about elections are a massive improvement on previous ways of changing governments. The spread of democracy across the world is one of the major improvements in Africa during my lifetime, albeit a bit rough and ready compared with our own. Nice to see the Pakistan government change somewhat democratically too.
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec 1941).
Britain could, had it so wanted, opted to abandon the continent, either in 1939 or 1940. Whether that would have been a wise decision isn't the question here. The question is whether it would have been a viable decision.
Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either.
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
They’d also have a few more troops.
They wouldn’t have needed to keep 25% of their troops in the West to defend against and repel beach landings by Britain, or invest as much in air defence; just occupation forces alone.
I don't think the Soviets would have given up if Hitler had taken Moscow, and ultimately they would have won, just through sheer manpower. But if the fall of Moscow would have sufficed to get the Japanese to move against the Soviets in their Far East, then that might have been enough to finish them off.
One of the relatively unsung miracles of the '41 campaign is the way in which the Soviets dismantled their industrial base in the Donbass and shipped it East. If the Germans had been quicker off the mark, that might not have been possible.
I do agree about the Japanese, though their experience in Khalkhyn Gol soured them on the whole idea of tangling with the Russians.
One of the relatively unsung miracles of the '41 campaign is the way in which the Soviets dismantled their industrial base in the Donbass and shipped it East.
So it's possible to dismantle an industrial base and move it east fairly quickly?
"Zimbabwe's opposition says its candidate, Nelson Chamisa, has won Monday's presidential election.
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
How would they know that they really won? There's a touch of Mandy Rice-Davies about that quote.
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result.
Reminds me of a recent referendum.
Except of course we now know the winning side were corrupt and cheating.
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
Hey, I voted leave. Mostly because I feed off chaos.
One of the relatively unsung miracles of the '41 campaign is the way in which the Soviets dismantled their industrial base in the Donbass and shipped it East.
So it's possible to dismantle an industrial base and move it east fairly quickly?
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
It's neither 52% of the electorate nor 41% of no dealers here. It's 58% of Leavers. That's 30% of the electorate.
A worryingly high percentage, but still a clear minority who are looking to trash this country in pursuit of their mad hobbyhorse.
And why do you think they might?
As other posters have pointed out downthread this is a non-sequitur designed to make them look unreasonable. There’s no way 30% of the UK are certifiable (perhaps 2%, 5% or 10%.. but not 30%) so... I ask again, why do so many people feel so strongly about the EU? And what might the EU have done to earn that enmity?
I don’t think even you believe that. You are too intelligent.
What if it wasn't Brexit (for which read the consequences of democracy) that might prompt terrorism. What if, say, it was LGBT rights. Would that then be acceptable Danegeld to bribe the terrorists?
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Alastair's arguing for an epistocracy, but I doubt that would have a happy ending either.
As it happens, I may have rather more to say on that very subject shortly, so no spoilers.
In any case, David is wrong to suggest that there's a majority for setting Northern Ireland aflame to secure Brexit. There is a sizeable minority of fruitcakes who are up for that proposition but they don't yet command a majority in the country as a whole.
I'm not suggesting that and only a moron would twist my words to say so. I do, however, favour democracy over a craven attitude towards violent bullies, even when the electorate makes a daft choice.
The terrorists in NI have no legitimate argument for returning to violence and we should pay the threats implied on their behalf no heed. Theirs is not and should not be a voice in this debate.
One of the relatively unsung miracles of the '41 campaign is the way in which the Soviets dismantled their industrial base in the Donbass and shipped it East. If the Germans had been quicker off the mark, that might not have been possible. (Snip)
What the Russians did was quite amazing.
However we did the same, albeit to a much lesser degree. In Darley Dale, just outside the Peak District, sits Firth Rixons. This was originally part of a Sheffield metalwork firm, and it was moved out of the city during the war, onto the old LMS workers' playing fields next to Rowsley loco shed in 1941 - specifically because it was doing important work and Sheffield was a big target for bombing.
Labour has launched an investigation into another councillor after he shared a Facebook post comparing the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler.
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Well, no, that is the nature of direct democracy, which is what they had in ancient Athens and which led to populist votes for the arbitrary murder of the inhabitants of Mityline, of Athens' own generals after Arginusae, and of Socrates (in his case, pretty much literally because the Athenian people had had enough of experts and thought he was one). Are you happy with those outcomes because "enough fruitcakes" wanted them? The nature of UK representative democracy is that it is no such thing, it's an oligarchy with the people being granted a token say between two factions of oligarchs every so often. So appeals to "democracy" don't work either as moral philosophy, or as political history. A shiny-foreheaded tyrant whimsically ordering an advisory plebiscite, and then making it binding by press release, is not democracy in any useful or interesting sense.
Perhaps we should have quietly ducked out of WWII then.
Brexit is not comparable to WWII.
You just quoted Kahless to support your case.
In WWII Britain did destroy its empire to win a victory, considered by most to be our greatest ever, whilst we consider that Halifax’s strategy to end the war to save it was disgraceful.
So it falls flat on its face at the first hurdle.
Britain had no choice but to fight WW2. Brexit is entirely self-inflicted.
Of course it had a choice. Lots of countries chose to enter WWII; lots chose to stay out, from Ireland to Spain to Sweden to Switzerland to the USA (to a greater or lesser extent, pre-Dec Now, it may be true that Britain couldn't have avoided war with Japan, which was prompted largely by the US-Japan-China relationships, so perhaps, in that sense, Britain might not have avoided the war in general and - given Hitler's insane decision to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour - might not have avoided the European war either.
To have sat out WW2 in Europe would have been disreputable but it was certainly possible.
I’
They’d also have a few more troops.
They wouldn’t have needed to keep 25% of their troops in the West to defend against and repel beach landings by Britain, or invest as much in air defence; just occupation forces alone.
I don't think the Soviets would have given up if Hitler had taken Moscow, and ultimately they would have won, just through sheer manpower. But if the fall of Moscow would have sufficed to get the Japanese to move against the Soviets in their Far East, then that might have been enough to finish them off.
One of the relatively unsung miracles of the '41 campaign is the way in which the Soviets dismantled their industrial base in the Donbass and shipped it East. If the Germans had been quicker off the mark, that might not have been possible.
I do agree about the Japanese, though their experience in Khalkhyn Gol soured them on the whole idea of tangling with the Russians.
Apart from the invasion of Manchuria and North Korea right at the end of the War, the Soviets took neutrality with the Japanese pretty seriously, for example they interned one of the Doolittle Raid B-25s after it crash-landed in the Russian Far East. Internment of B-29s later in the War of course led to the development of the Tupolev Tu-4 "copy" and a whole line of further heavy bombers.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
Might have to reclassify what victory and defeat means. If victory for Germany meant pushing soviets armies over the Urals then quite possibly. An important aspect in Russias performance in WW2 is the simply huuuuuuge logistical support the US gave it.
Airplane fuel (and airplanes), trains and trucks in massive quantities - without this basic logistical basis the Russian army was going no where.. By the whole life of war the Allied contribution to the Russian war machine wasn't much but in specific years it was basically all of it. And in things like trains the Allies supplied close to 2000 trains to Russia whilst Russia produced less than 500 in the same time period.
It's a complicated hypothetical but if Russia had to split it's industrial focus over so many different areas, rely on lower grade fuel for their planes etc. then they are in a bad place.
Well it's not really anything to do with the threat of terrorism or LGBT rights. 61% of English Leavers would be happy to see the back of Scotland to secure Brexit:
These fruitcakes just want out and to hell with the destruction it might unleash.
You can be as rude as you like - though it doesn't help your cause. But the nature of democracy is that if enough fruitcakes want something, they should get it. If it's that loopy, there ought to be an arguable case against it that'll persuade the majority. There was no such majority.
Alastair's arguing for an epistocracy, but I doubt that would have a happy ending either.
As it happens, I may have rather more to say on that very subject shortly, so no spoilers.
In any case, David is wrong to suggest that there's a majority for setting Northern Ireland aflame to secure Brexit. There is a sizeable minority of fruitcakes who are up for that proposition but they don't yet command a majority in the country as a whole.
I'm not suggesting that and only a moron would twist my words to say so. I do, however, favour democracy over a craven attitude towards violent bullies, even when the electorate makes a daft choice.
The terrorists in NI have no legitimate argument for returning to violence and we should pay the threats implied on their behalf no heed. Theirs is not and should not be a voice in this debate.
David, you might see it in those terms. There is no reason to assume that most respondents did and plenty to assume that they didn't, despite all the Leavesplaining on thread
No one is suggesting that terrorists in Scotland are about to start gun-running across the river Tweed. Yet English Leavers regard Scotland's independence as an acceptable price to pay for Brexit.
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Well, not on here, because it's politicalbetting.com, not truthandreconciliation.com. I come here to debate argue.
My remain-voting wife and I live in perfect harmony (though I have promised that she can eat me first should things go Pete Tong).
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Or indeed even listening to reasonable objections?
Leavers own this mess, and will be electorally punished for it in due course.
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Have you noticed Alastair trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Leave voters? (Spoiler: he just calls them names)
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Or indeed even listening to reasonable objections?
Leavers own this mess, and will be electorally punished for it in due course.
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Have you noticed Alastair trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Leave voters? (Spoiler: he just calls them names)
I don't just call them names. That is only one of the services I offer.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
Might have to reclassify what victory and defeat means. If victory for Germany meant pushing soviets armies over the Urals then quite possibly. An important aspect in Russias performance in WW2 is the simply huuuuuuge logistical support the US gave it.
Airplane fuel (and airplanes), trains and trucks in massive quantities - without this basic logistical basis the Russian army was going no where.. By the whole life of war the Allied contribution to the Russian war machine wasn't much but in specific years it was basically all of it. And in things like trains the Allies supplied close to 2000 trains to Russia whilst Russia produced less than 500 in the same time period.
It's a complicated hypothetical but if Russia had to split it's industrial focus over so many different areas, rely on lower grade fuel for their planes etc. then they are in a bad place.
Off the top of my head, most planes used on the Eastern Front originated in Russia (say 36,000 Shturmovik bombers, 37000 Yakovlev fighters, 15000 Lavochkin fighters and around 10,000 early MiGs). Compared with the entire run of 3,300 P-63 fighters (USA), most of the 9,588 P-39 fighters (USA), and a few thousand P-40s (USA), and some B-25 bombers (USA).
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Or indeed even listening to reasonable objections?
Leavers own this mess, and will be electorally punished for it in due course.
Are you telling me that there will be a Labour government in the future? Please God no.
Often, the journalists doing this sort of thing come across worse than their targets. This is one such example. Willsman has questions to answer, but this really isn't the way to get them IMO.
I’m never quite sure if the Soviets could have won if they’d had zero help from the US and UK and Germany focussed all its resources on that conflict alone.
Might have to reclassify what victory and defeat means. If victory for Germany meant pushing soviets armies over the Urals then quite possibly. An important aspect in Russias performance in WW2 is the simply huuuuuuge logistical support the US gave it.
Airplane fuel (and airplanes), trains and trucks in massive quantities - without this basic logistical basis the Russian army was going no where.. By the whole life of war the Allied contribution to the Russian war machine wasn't much but in specific years it was basically all of it. And in things like trains the Allies supplied close to 2000 trains to Russia whilst Russia produced less than 500 in the same time period.
It's a complicated hypothetical but if Russia had to split it's industrial focus over so many different areas, rely on lower grade fuel for their planes etc. then they are in a bad place.
Off the top of my head, most planes used on the Eastern Front originated in Russia (say 36,000 Shturmovik bombers, 37000 Yakovlev fighters, 15000 Lavochkin fighters and around 10,000 early MiGs). Compared with the entire run of 3,300 P-63 fighters (USA), most of the 9,588 P-39 fighters (USA), and a few thousand P-40s (USA), and some B-25 bombers (USA).
ah yes but the figures for sccidents are startling
the soviet are force lost between a quarter and half its strength each year through accidents rather than german air activity. Poor maintenance, poor pilot training stupid missions.
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise: the fact that we don’t know what to do isn’t a reason to delay leaving, because no matter how long we delay, we stil won’t know what to do.
If we can’t agree a way to leave through our democratic processes that does introduce a little bit of doubt about whether we should be leaving.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
I think you’re conflating the uses of the term “Leavers” to include “Leave voters” and “Leave-at-all-costers” in order to claim majority support for that view. It seems really unlikely that all Leave voters agree we must leave now, however inadequate our planning, however bad the consequences. And ignoring any other changes since May 2016, only 5% would need to disagree for Leave to fall behind Remain.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Have you noticed Leavers trying to reach out to build a consensus with erstwhile Remain voters? (Spoiler: they haven't)
Or indeed even listening to reasonable objections?
Leavers own this mess, and will be electorally punished for it in due course.
Oh shit - yet another pay rise for Gary Lineker
Much deserved by one of Leicesters finest sons. I used to buy fruit at his dads market stall.
... there comes a point - and we may be near that point - when we need to ask whether the advantages of proceeding with Brexit, particularly give the present level of uncertainty and unpreparedness, outweigh the disadvantages and whether it may not be wise to have a pause, while we work out what to do.
That is a reasonable question. Sadly, the zealots of Brexit are not really listening to reason. Their own insecurities trump everything else... and besides, we cannot have Johnny Foreigner in charge - not the done thing you know!
It won’t fly because the pause would become permanent; we’d never agree what to do and, even if we did, the EU wouldn’t agree either, so we’d default to staying in forever.
The most important step is getting out on reasonable terms. The rest can be fixed later.
So to summarise.
And you confirm all the fears of Leavers with that post.
The one thing all Leavers agree on is that we must Leave and Leave now.
They have zero confidence and trust in the European Union, and for good reason.
Intelligent pro-EU people would do well to reflect on that and consider why that might be.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
A not unreasonable post, somewhat spoilt by your final sentence.
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
Yeah, I see your point about the final sentence, cooking requires fuel
I agree that engineering a small majority in the opposite direction isn’t a recipe for resolving these issues. My point was solely that it’s difficult to claim that there is a majority let alone a consensus for any specific way to leave the EU - and leaving without a plan is far too destructive to do without that democratic justification.
It’s like having a referendum on increasing public spending, and discovering that the majority who wanted to increase it are evenly split between those who absolutely oppose increasing taxes and those who absolutely oppose increasing borrowing: at that point there is not majority support for any real world change to the status quo.
Comments
They wouldn’t have needed to keep 25% of their troops in the West to defend against and repel beach landings by Britain, or invest as much in air defence; just occupation forces alone.
I'm not sure who that leaves?
Maybe for a lot of reasons , it was a shame Ed Milliband , and Ed Balls were not put in charge by the British people.
The question for the poll is silly. It assumes a hypothetical (The UK leaving the EU means more violence in NI) and then asks a question based on this.
For example ... 'Reading the comments of Mr Meeks could send you barmy. is this an acceptable price to pay for reading his prose?' With a yes or no option.
Now there are two possibilities here. The first, which I'd always assumed to be the case, is that this is a bucketload of hyperbole spread by politicians and media who are desperate not to leave.
The second possibility is that all of this is true, and that the reason why the civil service is so desperate for us not to leave is that we are so inveigled in the EU project that it is impossible for us to leave without literal horrors occurring. Consider the implications of this - if we can't get our planes to fly, trucks to leave, if a sovereign decision such as the Good Friday Agreement becomes meaningless, we are in no meaningful sense be a self-governing nation; we are in fact governed entirely by the EU.
And we have been lied to even more over the past 40 years than even the most ardent brexiteers thought.
“What really divides us is that those who are opposing this motion are in fact content to remain with the past development and institutions and organisation of the nation-state. And those on this side are those who want to move forward into a new organisation which is going to have greater success in meeting the needs of its peoples than the nation-state has done in the past. That is what clearly divides us."
* Somewhat anecdotal source: from an immigration consultant who specialises in getting East Europeans settled into the UK
The MDC Alliance says the ruling Zanu-PF party is attempting to rig the vote to allow President Emmerson Mnangagwa to win, and the delay in releasing official results is unacceptable."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-45017383
The Soviets didn't show much gratitude:
In September 1942, Sorge's wife Katya Maximova was arrested by the NKVD on the charges that she was a "German spy", since she was married to the German citizen Sorge (that Sorge was a GRU agent did not matter to the NKVD), and was deported to the Gulag. Maximova died in the Gulag in 1943....
The moral panic about murders in London has proven to be rather
exaggerated. In the last 5 weeks there have been just 3 homicides, in a city of 8.5 million people.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/investigate.asp
N.Ireland has for the last 20 years been characterised by low level thuggery (for profit) and the occasional flare up (usually for competitive advantage). Personally I don’t see that changing as a result of our decision to leave the EU.
Fundamentally though, we cant let threats from terrorists constrain our actions as a country. Allowing yourself to be prevented from doing the right thing because of fear is not attractive
Imagine if it was only possible for one of the following to occur, which would be more important to you:
Nelson Chamisa is elected president
A civil war in Zimbabwe is avoided.
https://twitter.com/MarcusFysh/status/1024273637086584834
https://twitter.com/Katsi22/status/1024287414498549760
https://twitter.com/MarcusFysh/status/1024288503184674816
It's interesting how in almost every election on the continent of Africa, almost every side claims victory, or at least a moral one before the riggers fixed the official result. Generally at least one of them will be correct in claiming victory, I suppose, but for an outsider it's hard or even impossible to discern who it is. Ultimately the cycle of elections followed by competing claims of victory followed by one side claiming everything was rigged must be very corrosive for democracy.
I do think British the electoral system could do with some work to strengthen it (aside from Fake News, there's e.g. the issue of how local/national spending limits work in an internet-ad age, or the way parties are funded) but it says a lot that all sides have near-total faith in the vote-counting itself.
#WATON = We are the opposition now
#ABTV = Anti-Brexit tactical vote
(As Marcus well knows...)
Except of course we now know the winning side were corrupt and cheating.
#YNWA
In any case, David is wrong to suggest that there's a majority for setting Northern Ireland aflame to secure Brexit. There is a sizeable minority of fruitcakes who are up for that proposition but they don't yet command a majority in the country as a whole.
Lack of trust in the EUis worth reflecting on, but perhaps calmly, over a period of time. Rather than whilst gazing down at the endless line of parked lorries and wondering how else we can cook cabbage.
(Interesting how Kennedy saw winning 52 seats to the Conservatives' 166 qualified as becoming the "real" opposition... and how fickle that momentum was to prove.)
a) Does you prefer Brexit to go ahead?
or
b) Does you prefer to cave into the demands of assorted NI terrorists?
If you want to point the figure it’s Craig who deserves the blame more than anyone else but more for his actions afterwards than for his campaign on partition.
* Apart from Larne. That pushed the boat out a little
WATON =we are toffs of note
ABTV = a bus tours victorious
remains campaign summary
I felt like the UK has always engaged with the EU from a position of dishonesty and denial. I also felt the EU will not stop integrating until it's a federal state, and that's something the UK cannot and will not be part of.
The only way to square those circles is that we have to go through the process of attempting to negotiate a departure from the EU to hammer home the reality of the UK's place in the world, rather than neo-imperial Brexiteer wet dreams.
I fully expected the process to be utterly chaotic, and voted leave anyway.
I do agree about the Japanese, though their experience in Khalkhyn Gol soured them on the whole idea of tangling with the Russians.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1024238517701042176
The name of the game here is not engineering Remain to be slightly ahead of Leave here in second vote (which seems to be all Remainers are interested in) but winning a consensus for a sustainable long-term relationship with our European neighbours that wins majority support.
So far, Remainers seem remarkably disinterested in this. They’d prefer revenge and to do unto Leavers what they feel was done to them.
The terrorists in NI have no legitimate argument for returning to violence and we should pay the threats implied on their behalf no heed. Theirs is not and should not be a voice in this debate.
However we did the same, albeit to a much lesser degree. In Darley Dale, just outside the Peak District, sits Firth Rixons. This was originally part of a Sheffield metalwork firm, and it was moved out of the city during the war, onto the old LMS workers' playing fields next to Rowsley loco shed in 1941 - specifically because it was doing important work and Sheffield was a big target for bombing.
one is estimated at 42.000 years old the younger one at 30,000
http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2018/07/31/01008-20180731ARTFIG00163-un-ver-congele-pendant-42000-ans-dans-le-permafrost-est-revenu-a-la-vie.php
oldest known living creatures on the planet
@EuropeElects
30m30 minutes ago
Netherlands, Ipsos poll:
VVD-ALDE: 22% (+1)
PVV-ENF: 12% (+1)
CDA-EPP: 11%
GL-G/EFA: 10% (-1)
D66-ALDE: 9% (-1)
SP-LEFT: 8% (+1)
FvD-*: 6%
PvdD-LEFT: 5%
PvdA-S&D: 5%
CU-ECR: 4%
50+-*: 4% (+1)
DENK-*: 2%
SGP-ECR: 2%
Field work: 27/07/18-30/07/18
Sample size: 1440"
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/news/97320/excl-labour-launches-probe-after-councillor-shares-post-comparing
Airplane fuel (and airplanes), trains and trucks in massive quantities - without this basic logistical basis the Russian army was going no where.. By the whole life of war the Allied contribution to the Russian war machine wasn't much but in specific years it was basically all of it. And in things like trains the Allies supplied close to 2000 trains to Russia whilst Russia produced less than 500 in the same time period.
It's a complicated hypothetical but if Russia had to split it's industrial focus over so many different areas, rely on lower grade fuel for their planes etc. then they are in a bad place.
No one is suggesting that terrorists in Scotland are about to start gun-running across the river Tweed. Yet English Leavers regard Scotland's independence as an acceptable price to pay for Brexit.
These people are maniacs.
My remain-voting wife and I live in perfect harmony (though I have promised that she can eat me first should things go Pete Tong).
Leavers own this mess, and will be electorally punished for it in due course.
I say this without knowing their gender. They could equally be poster girls. Or something else.
https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1024329260612370432
https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1024329262344679424
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/until-today-i-was-a-jewish-member-of-the-labour-party
the soviet are force lost between a quarter and half its strength each year through accidents rather than german air activity. Poor maintenance, poor pilot training stupid missions.
I agree that engineering a small majority in the opposite direction isn’t a recipe for resolving these issues. My point was solely that it’s difficult to claim that there is a majority let alone a consensus for any specific way to leave the EU - and leaving without a plan is far too destructive to do without that democratic justification.
It’s like having a referendum on increasing public spending, and discovering that the majority who wanted to increase it are evenly split between those who absolutely oppose increasing taxes and those who absolutely oppose increasing borrowing: at that point there is not majority support for any real world change to the status quo.
Or does that only apply when it isn't one of your mates?
They really can't see how bad this makes them look, can they?
2018
what a time to be alive.
Weeks,Days, hours since the latest Labour antisemitism scandal...Chilling that these people are one step from running the country.