First things first. At the press conference the European leaders should say they did not meet to discuss a “peace plan”, but rather a war plan. They can then emphasise that Russia can have peace whenever it wants by withdrawing its forces.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
Thanks for the reply. The Tory MPs need to realise this is not 2003. Badenoch is not IDS. Jenrick is not Howard.
No, Cleverly is Howard even if Kemi is IDS, Jenrick is David Davis
Who then is Cameron?
Aucune.
(Certainly not right now. And given that one of Cameron's skills was to throw everyone the odd bone to keep them onboard, it's going to be tricky, because I'm not sure that the left or right fringes on the old Conservative family want to be kept on board. Just because there's a gap in the market doesn't mean that anyone is going to fill it.)
The age of the Cameron has passed. The fruitcake faction of the Party could then be brow-beaten and persuaded that a moderniser in charge was a prerequsite for being elected, and then governing capably. That theory has been well and truly exploded, given the Governments of May and Sunak, and now that a completely batty party (from the Cameronite perspective) leads in the polls.
If Cameron was back as Tory leader though I suspect the Tories would be near tied with Reform for first. Plenty of centrist Labour and LD voters would vote for Cameron again over Farage and Starmer but they won't vote for Kemi sadly or Jenrick either for that matter
Cameron was never 'liked' by centrist Labour and Lib Dem voters. They would have voted with noses held, thinking of their bank accounts. Kemi is quite capable of attracting votes for the same reason.
Yes and would hold their noses and do the same again given the alternative of Farage, Starmer and Reeves and Polanski.
Kemi however isn't attracting those liberal centrist voters as she was too associated with Brexit and is too anti woke for them
It's more likely to happen in the privacy of the polling booth.
I’m not sure that many people say one thing and do another in the polling booth. Most of what drives political views is individual morality, and for want of a better word “taste” or otherwise for the personal styles of the politicians.
Most humans have a mental god buried deep in their brains, a feeling that what they do in private is still visible to some sort of omniscient moral authority that will weigh them and may find them wanting. That’s why the world isn’t full of amoral beasts who’ll do what they can get away with, and why voters regularly opt for parties that are inimical to their self interest.
So yes I expect some voters do vote with their pockets, but other factors are just as important.
Today’s Russian papers are loving America's new national security strategy. One Russian paper on implications for Europe: “Trump isn’t their Daddy any more.” Kremlin spokesman is quoted as saying: “The adjustments in the updated strategy correspond in many ways to our vision” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8EX0a9yNUw
Three minutes. Russian newspaper review by Steve Rosenberg.
Isn't the new US foreign policy to dominate the 'Western Hemisphere' which is London to Hawaii. So excludes Russia and China and almost all of Europe. So essentially they've withdrawn from the world in order to bomb a few fishing boats in the Caribbean.
Yes. The implication is that China/Russia can carve up the rest.
India is about to start producing drones for Russia's war in Ukraine. Europeans are desperately talking about peace to keep in with Trump, but the peace talks seem to be only a diversion to stop Europe from using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine's fight for survival.
The situation feels really bleak, and reportedly Starmer was the driving force behind pushing the target data for NATO's new 5% spending target out to 2035, so the British PM is a main component in the axis of denial in Europe that is holding it back from grasping the reality of the precarious position Europe is in and of taking decisive action to turn things around.
What's the good news?
Starmer should take a leaf out of President Trump's book and warn Modi that any drones will trigger the immediate cancellation of all Indian visas. He won't, of course. Something something international law.
Partly, but mostly realpolitik that we aren't the USA and even the USA struggles with its demands from countries the size of India.
Actually Britain and America are equally important for the Indian diaspora. Russia, on the other hand, is not.
Good luck convincing Modi to take orders from Starmer.....
Modi depends on a lot of NRI money and the UK has a huge and fairly enthusiastic support base for Modi. Banning all types of work and student visas as well as suspending the new trade deal would be appropriate IMO. Maybe even putting up restrictions on visitor visas. I say this as a British Indian so it brings me little joy to suggest such measures but supplying Russia with drones that will be used to kill people in Ukraine is beyond acceptable and we shouldn't accept it. Even if it means our tourist and education sectors suffer for a while.
Modhi is another of those pieces of shit that have come to rule big nations in recent times.
Social media makes it a lot easier for those types to consolidate power. It is a trend that will sadly continue. Probably worse to come.
Does it? There was no social media in the 1930s when Nationalists nearly swept the board. Modi's BJP party also lost its majority at the last Indian general election
It does. Politicians and oligarchs can pay to deliver their own tailored news channels to viewers and readers. Consensus in society breaks down and sets the scene to make the strong man, who might be a shit, but at least he is our shit, the only one who can fix things.
They only send their news channels to their own supporters anyway.
If we had much stronger economies and less immigration strongmen would be less of an issue, it is weaker economies that produce nationalist strongmen or the hard left as in the 1930s more than social media
You raise an interesting comparison and I take the point you are making, but I’d also note that our economy today, while not firing on all cylinders, is way stronger than it was in the 1930s during the Great Depression. So I don’t think that’s the whole explanation.
Our economy is absolutely not stronger than it was in the 1930s. Unless you are using absolute measures, which wouldn't make sense given that it was nearly a century ago.
UK unemployment peaked at over 20% in the 1930s. What is it today?
UK output fell 6% in 1929/31. We had a similar contraction in 2008/10, but growth today is positive!
The London Stock Exchange fell about 40% 1929-32. How's the FTSE doing?
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
I would rather there were more safe routes for refugees but the fact is that there aren't.
Which does not justify enabling the drowning of people in the Channel.
And there are safe routes, most people who apply for asylum in this country did not get here on small boats.
They haven't come through "safe routes". They have mostly come as tourists, students or workers and then claimed asylum. That's not what people generally mean by a "safe route".
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
The UK, also shown, ranks 11th with 160 applicants per 100,000 residents. Data is from July 2024 to June 2025
You suggest, however, that "relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does." So...
UK: 244,376 km2 France: 632,702.3 km2, but that's including French Guiana etc. European France is 543,940 km2 Germany: 357,114 km2 Spain: 506,030 km2
So, asylum seekers per area gives us...
UK: 0.45 France: 0.25, but European France, if we presume no aslym seekers to French Guiana, not certain what the figures are there, comes to, is 0.29 Germany: 0.53 Spain: 0.31
Therefore, yes, we take more than France (and Spain) per area, but still less than Germany, and I've not done the figures, but I presume we're still way below Greece and Belgium.
The Boriswave is the confounder. We allow legal migration, illegal migration and asylum to be conflated by bad actors. And people never want to actually look and understand data.
I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
There is no doubt if Europe committed we would win. The reasons that is not happening are the US relationship as described above, but also the risk of it turning nuclear if Putin feels he has little left to lose and that war will be electorally unpopular.
Rampell: "A whole new generation of flim-flam artists has been born, including not just Trump's own children, but the children of the entire Trump administration. Call them second generation grifters or the grifting nepo-babies. There's the adult sons of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick...then there's Alex Witkoff, son of Steve Witkoff...and of course, we can't forget Trump's own children...According to Forbes, Eric Trump has since gotten TEN TIMES richer since his father's win...a startup backed by Don Jr just scored a $600 million deal with the Pentagon..." https://x.com/Emolclause/status/1997897512498143601
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
There is no doubt if Europe committed we would win. The reasons that is not happening are the US relationship as described above, but also the risk of it turning nuclear if Putin feels he has little left to lose and that war will be electorally unpopular.
If the Europeans make it clear they will ramp up their assistance to whatever it takes to drive Russia from Ukrainian soil that would be a game changer. Would Russia go nuclear in that scenario? I think it highly unlikely but I cannot say that there is no risk. Putin would know he personally (and his family) would not survive such a humiliation.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
Russia used to be Mexico with along of ancient missiles (and tanks)
The inability to build the next generation of weapons is pretty indicative.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
Russia used to be Mexico with along of ancient missiles (and tanks)
The inability to build the next generation of weapons is pretty indicative.
You wouldn't want to overstate this. Russia is building its own drones by the tens of thousands and long after we heard the nonsense about their military efforts culminating the bombardment of Ukraine increases in intensity week on week. We have a serious amount to learn about modern warfare to get ourselves up to speed but Ukraine can give us a hell of a lot of bitter experience.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
Thanks for the reply. The Tory MPs need to realise this is not 2003. Badenoch is not IDS. Jenrick is not Howard.
No, Cleverly is Howard even if Kemi is IDS, Jenrick is David Davis
Who then is Cameron?
Aucune.
(Certainly not right now. And given that one of Cameron's skills was to throw everyone the odd bone to keep them onboard, it's going to be tricky, because I'm not sure that the left or right fringes on the old Conservative family want to be kept on board. Just because there's a gap in the market doesn't mean that anyone is going to fill it.)
The age of the Cameron has passed. The fruitcake faction of the Party could then be brow-beaten and persuaded that a moderniser in charge was a prerequsite for being elected, and then governing capably. That theory has been well and truly exploded, given the Governments of May and Sunak, and now that a completely batty party (from the Cameronite perspective) leads in the polls.
If Cameron was back as Tory leader though I suspect the Tories would be near tied with Reform for first. Plenty of centrist Labour and LD voters would vote for Cameron again over Farage and Starmer but they won't vote for Kemi sadly or Jenrick either for that matter
Cameron was never 'liked' by centrist Labour and Lib Dem voters. They would have voted with noses held, thinking of their bank accounts. Kemi is quite capable of attracting votes for the same reason.
Yes and would hold their noses and do the same again given the alternative of Farage, Starmer and Reeves and Polanski.
Kemi however isn't attracting those liberal centrist voters as she was too associated with Brexit and is too anti woke for them
It's more likely to happen in the privacy of the polling booth.
I’m not sure that many people say one thing and do another in the polling booth. Most of what drives political views is individual morality, and for want of a better word “taste” or otherwise for the personal styles of the politicians.
Most humans have a mental god buried deep in their brains, a feeling that what they do in private is still visible to some sort of omniscient moral authority that will weigh them and may find them wanting. That’s why the world isn’t full of amoral beasts who’ll do what they can get away with, and why voters regularly opt for parties that are inimical to their self interest.
So yes I expect some voters do vote with their pockets, but other factors are just as important.
Which is why the whole hug a hoodie/husky stuff was important, as was Stopping Banging On About Europe.
If you want wet paternalists to vote for you, you have to give them something beyond lower taxes. That may be because they we are appalling people, but that's electoral democracy.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
There is no doubt if Europe committed we would win. The reasons that is not happening are the US relationship as described above, but also the risk of it turning nuclear if Putin feels he has little left to lose and that war will be electorally unpopular.
If the Europeans make it clear they will ramp up their assistance to whatever it takes to drive Russia from Ukrainian soil that would be a game changer. Would Russia go nuclear in that scenario? I think it highly unlikely but I cannot say that there is no risk. Putin would know he personally (and his family) would not survive such a humiliation.
I’m sure Trump would give the Putin’s a safe haven.
Incidentally, Trump’s “Peace Deal” between Cambodia and Thailand seems to have comprehensively broken down. Co-in-laws have had to do a runner from the family farm, close to the border, and are staying in Bangkok.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
There is no doubt if Europe committed we would win. The reasons that is not happening are the US relationship as described above, but also the risk of it turning nuclear if Putin feels he has little left to lose and that war will be electorally unpopular.
If the Europeans make it clear they will ramp up their assistance to whatever it takes to drive Russia from Ukrainian soil that would be a game changer. Would Russia go nuclear in that scenario? I think it highly unlikely but I cannot say that there is no risk. Putin would know he personally (and his family) would not survive such a humiliation.
I’m sure Trump would give the Putin’s a safe haven.
Incidentally, Trump’s “Peace Deal” between Cambodia and Thailand seems to have comprehensively broken down. Co-in-laws have had to do a runner from the family farm, close to the border, and are staying in Bangkok.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
You really think it is doing worse than Germany and France?
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
To be fair, the Balkans weren't/aren't members of the EEC/EU.
I think the argument is such integration helps to reduce the chance of conflict. (I actually tend towards your POV on this before you bite my head off).
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
Yes and Russia spends far more of its GDP on defence than non US NATO nations are willing to do with a few exceptions like Poland.
Russia does not have the spending on welfare and health we do, it spends it on defence and arms instead
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
As a convinced European I was always sceptical about including the Balkan states. And I wasn’t keen on Greece or Cyprus being members, either.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
I have no need to worry. I just like pointing out the holes in the idiotic arguments made by the Eurofanatics.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
Yugoslavia wasn't in the EU at the time of course, and only some of the successor states are in.
The EU isn't the sole reason for European peace, but it isn't irrelevant to it either.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
There is no doubt if Europe committed we would win. The reasons that is not happening are the US relationship as described above, but also the risk of it turning nuclear if Putin feels he has little left to lose and that war will be electorally unpopular.
If the Europeans make it clear they will ramp up their assistance to whatever it takes to drive Russia from Ukrainian soil that would be a game changer. Would Russia go nuclear in that scenario? I think it highly unlikely but I cannot say that there is no risk. Putin would know he personally (and his family) would not survive such a humiliation.
I’m sure Trump would give the Putin’s a safe haven.
Incidentally, Trump’s “Peace Deal” between Cambodia and Thailand seems to have comprehensively broken down. Co-in-laws have had to do a runner from the family farm, close to the border, and are staying in Bangkok.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
Russia used to be Mexico with along of ancient missiles (and tanks)
The inability to build the next generation of weapons is pretty indicative.
You wouldn't want to overstate this. Russia is building its own drones by the tens of thousands and long after we heard the nonsense about their military efforts culminating the bombardment of Ukraine increases in intensity week on week. We have a serious amount to learn about modern warfare to get ourselves up to speed but Ukraine can give us a hell of a lot of bitter experience.
Building drones by hand on a desk with a soldering iron and screwdriver, from kits, is one thing.
Being unable to build more than a slack handful of tanks, SPGs, aircraft or missiles is another.
Even Ukraine is fielding new missiles.
See the recent failure of the “next generation” Russian ICBM. Which has failed nearly every test so far.
Today’s Russian papers are loving America's new national security strategy. One Russian paper on implications for Europe: “Trump isn’t their Daddy any more.” Kremlin spokesman is quoted as saying: “The adjustments in the updated strategy correspond in many ways to our vision” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8EX0a9yNUw
Three minutes. Russian newspaper review by Steve Rosenberg.
Isn't the new US foreign policy to dominate the 'Western Hemisphere' which is London to Hawaii. So excludes Russia and China and almost all of Europe. So essentially they've withdrawn from the world in order to bomb a few fishing boats in the Caribbean.
Yes. The implication is that China/Russia can carve up the rest.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
Plus, one salvo from the Friends of Ukraine - and Russia's economy lies in ruins. It is hardly glittering today, but after a 24 hour bombardment with state of the art weaponry against Russian air defence then against fragile and flammable hydrocarbon kit, they would be begging for international aid.
China might supply it - but only in exchange for old Manchuria. And not at the expense of offending western markets.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
One of my fears is that Ukraine cannot keep up this intensity of warfare indefinitely, and that as the support from Europe falters, they may reach a breaking point before Russia does. And then, when Russia wants to have another go at Europe, they will benefit from Ukrainian industry and the Ukrainian people that they have coerced into fighting for them.
Europe reeks of a desperation for peace. It only emboldens Russia to push for more.
Zelensky has already said he would agree to a ceasefire on current lines, as has Europe but Putin wants more than that which they reject
Russia can keep on pushing for more because Putin has the security of knowing that he can offer a ceasefire at any time, and there is no question that it will be accepted. There is thus no risk for him that in pushing for more he might risk Russian becoming overextended and losing some of what he has. The European desperation for peace thus encourages Putin to prolong the war.
The only way to break out of this dynamic is to commit to a strategy for victory.
If Europe were that desperate for peace they would already have accepted Putin's preferred peace terms.
There is zero chance of forcing Russia out of Ukraine until Trump leaves office and a new Democrat President might give the extra funds and arms needed for Zelensky to be able to do so, at best a ceasefire on current lines is all that can be done for now
That's just not true. While I acknowledge it's unlikely, since their various leaders are just too cautious, Europe has the capacity on its own to defeat Putin. But it would require a serious collective commitment which isn't yet there.
It's not impossible that the Trump overreach and outright hostility towards Europe leads to the penny dropping. I'm not betting on it but it's considerably more than a non zero chance.
It would need massive austerity and slashing of welfare states and health budgets or massive tax rises to fund massive increases in European arms manufacturing to send to Ukraine which European electorates just aren't willing to do. The slight increase in defence budgets already approved is all they will back but that can at best ensure stalemate, not victory without US support as well
It really wouldn't. Russia's GDP is approximately $2.2trn. EU GDP is $21trn and ours is another $3.6 trn so our combined GDP is comfortably more than 10X Russia's. Russia had a massive advantage in terms of stored hardware at the start of the war but that is now almost completely exhausted. What is required is the will and in particular the willingness to break with the US by acting unilaterally and contrary to their apparent wishes. That is not an easy decision given the role the US has played in our defence for 80 years now but I think it is inevitable that break will come.
There is no doubt if Europe committed we would win. The reasons that is not happening are the US relationship as described above, but also the risk of it turning nuclear if Putin feels he has little left to lose and that war will be electorally unpopular.
If the Europeans make it clear they will ramp up their assistance to whatever it takes to drive Russia from Ukrainian soil that would be a game changer. Would Russia go nuclear in that scenario? I think it highly unlikely but I cannot say that there is no risk. Putin would know he personally (and his family) would not survive such a humiliation.
I’m sure Trump would give the Putin’s a safe haven.
Incidentally, Trump’s “Peace Deal” between Cambodia and Thailand seems to have comprehensively broken down. Co-in-laws have had to do a runner from the family farm, close to the border, and are staying in Bangkok.
Yes, perhaps FIFA should rethink their award?
On that score..
General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
We have not had a lot of American combat power in our own neighborhood.
Interesting and not the wipe out for NHS Fife that was expected. I understand that various offers might have been made to Ms Peggie and turned down. She might be regretting that.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
I'd imagine that's a pretty clear rule in their safeguarding policy - without which they wouldn't be allowed to operate.
They can't monitor the toilets constantly in a soft play, but having a rule that says nobody is allowed on the premises if they don't have children with them (and are signed in), would be a practical way to minimise risks.
No matter how lovely you and your mum are it's not worth the risk of someone complaining.
It appears that US corporations do irony really well.
Our #LandSystems team were delighted to host the Minister for Defence Readiness & Industry, @LukePollard, last week to support the @BritishArmy's announcement that the #AJAX Armoured Fighting Vehicle has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC). This achievement represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing transformation of the British Army’s Modernisation.
AJAX is: ✅Built in Merthyr Tydfil, supported by 230+ UK suppliers ✅Responsible for sustaining 4,100 skilled jobs across the UK ✅Comprised of 589 vehicles across six variants ✅Export-ready and NATO-interoperable
AJAX delivers cutting-edge reconnaissance, firepower, and digital integration – supporting the UK’s Strategic Defence Review 2025 themes of warfighting readiness, industrial resilience and innovation shaped by lessons from Ukraine.
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. https://x.com/gduknews/status/1989348335774253189
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
I'd imagine that's a pretty clear rule in their safeguarding policy - without which they wouldn't be allowed to operate.
They can't monitor the toilets constantly in a soft play, but having a rule that says nobody is allowed on the premises if they don't have children with them (and are signed in), would be a practical way to minimise risks.
No matter how lovely you and your mum are it's not worth the risk of someone complaining.
I thought of asking the receptionist "in that case, do you have a bucket handy?"
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
I'd imagine that's a pretty clear rule in their safeguarding policy - without which they wouldn't be allowed to operate.
They can't monitor the toilets constantly in a soft play, but having a rule that says nobody is allowed on the premises if they don't have children with them (and are signed in), would be a practical way to minimise risks.
No matter how lovely you and your mum are it's not worth the risk of someone complaining.
Making toilets/changing rooms children only is fairly basic in safeguarding. It’s what we do at my rowing club, when children are on the premises.
It appears that US corporations do irony really well.
Our #LandSystems team were delighted to host the Minister for Defence Readiness & Industry, @LukePollard, last week to support the @BritishArmy's announcement that the #AJAX Armoured Fighting Vehicle has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC). This achievement represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing transformation of the British Army’s Modernisation.
AJAX is: ✅Built in Merthyr Tydfil, supported by 230+ UK suppliers ✅Responsible for sustaining 4,100 skilled jobs across the UK ✅Comprised of 589 vehicles across six variants ✅Export-ready and NATO-interoperable
AJAX delivers cutting-edge reconnaissance, firepower, and digital integration – supporting the UK’s Strategic Defence Review 2025 themes of warfighting readiness, industrial resilience and innovation shaped by lessons from Ukraine.
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. https://x.com/gduknews/status/1989348335774253189
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. As long as nobody sits in it.
I guess they're really serious about the retreat to the backyard.
https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/1997523343554253241 The Financial Times reports that there is "deep disappointment" in the Takaichi Administration over the lack of public support she has received from Trump over her remarks about defending Taiwan. The article notes that Elbridge Colby had been pushing Japan to take such a stance.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
Nation states tied into a political union that they didn't want.
Fortunately, extricating ourselves from the EU could be achieved via the ballot box, rather than the Armalite.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
You really think it is doing worse than Germany and France?
Would Germany and France be doing better if they had left the EU too? I doubt it somehow.
Anyway I'm talking about Brexit again! Nooooooooooooooo
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
I'd imagine that's a pretty clear rule in their safeguarding policy - without which they wouldn't be allowed to operate.
They can't monitor the toilets constantly in a soft play, but having a rule that says nobody is allowed on the premises if they don't have children with them (and are signed in), would be a practical way to minimise risks.
No matter how lovely you and your mum are it's not worth the risk of someone complaining.
Making toilets/changing rooms children only is fairly basic in safeguarding. It’s what we do at my rowing club, when children are on the premises.
They don’t do it at our cricket clubhouse; maybe they should. There are always a few children around.
It appears that US corporations do irony really well.
Our #LandSystems team were delighted to host the Minister for Defence Readiness & Industry, @LukePollard, last week to support the @BritishArmy's announcement that the #AJAX Armoured Fighting Vehicle has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC). This achievement represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing transformation of the British Army’s Modernisation.
AJAX is: ✅Built in Merthyr Tydfil, supported by 230+ UK suppliers ✅Responsible for sustaining 4,100 skilled jobs across the UK ✅Comprised of 589 vehicles across six variants ✅Export-ready and NATO-interoperable
AJAX delivers cutting-edge reconnaissance, firepower, and digital integration – supporting the UK’s Strategic Defence Review 2025 themes of warfighting readiness, industrial resilience and innovation shaped by lessons from Ukraine.
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. https://x.com/gduknews/status/1989348335774253189
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. As long as nobody sits in it.
For some reason I am reminded about the urban legend of boobtrapped Japanese pistols from WWII.
Scattered on the battlefield, they were alleged to explode if used.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
I'd imagine that's a pretty clear rule in their safeguarding policy - without which they wouldn't be allowed to operate.
They can't monitor the toilets constantly in a soft play, but having a rule that says nobody is allowed on the premises if they don't have children with them (and are signed in), would be a practical way to minimise risks.
No matter how lovely you and your mum are it's not worth the risk of someone complaining.
Making toilets/changing rooms children only is fairly basic in safeguarding. It’s what we do at my rowing club, when children are on the premises.
They don’t do it at our cricket clubhouse; maybe they should. There are always a few children around.
In my boarding school before I retired there were visitors loos in the boarding houses. As a member of staff we had to only use the visitor loos for obvious reasons.
I guess they're really serious about the retreat to the backyard.
https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/1997523343554253241 The Financial Times reports that there is "deep disappointment" in the Takaichi Administration over the lack of public support she has received from Trump over her remarks about defending Taiwan. The article notes that Elbridge Colby had been pushing Japan to take such a stance.
What makes no sense is the belief that this behaviour is somehow "Making America Great Again." All it does is advertise the US government's cowardice, incompetence, and veniality.
It appears that US corporations do irony really well.
Our #LandSystems team were delighted to host the Minister for Defence Readiness & Industry, @LukePollard, last week to support the @BritishArmy's announcement that the #AJAX Armoured Fighting Vehicle has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC). This achievement represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing transformation of the British Army’s Modernisation.
AJAX is: ✅Built in Merthyr Tydfil, supported by 230+ UK suppliers ✅Responsible for sustaining 4,100 skilled jobs across the UK ✅Comprised of 589 vehicles across six variants ✅Export-ready and NATO-interoperable
AJAX delivers cutting-edge reconnaissance, firepower, and digital integration – supporting the UK’s Strategic Defence Review 2025 themes of warfighting readiness, industrial resilience and innovation shaped by lessons from Ukraine.
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. https://x.com/gduknews/status/1989348335774253189
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. As long as nobody sits in it.
For some reason I am reminded about the urban legend of boobtrapped Japanese pistols from WWII.
Scattered on the battlefield, they were alleged to explode if used.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
So there was a Commons debate about the 28 point Ukraine peace/surrender plan. A time surely for all sides of the House to come together. And in response Kemi Badenoch sounded off about Starmer surrendering fishing rights to the EU. She is a deeply unserious politician. That she is not as bad as the even-worse Farage and Jenrick doesn't change that.
Ugh. There's plenty to criticise Starmer on in terms of being unserious about defence, and of lacking a strategy to win the war. Why would Kemi waste her time with fish?
Because Badenoch thinks it's more important to score political points against the government than support Ukraine and she doesn't want the UK to work with the EU in supporting Ukraine.
Also I don't think from her reply that Badenoch understood the implications of the 28 point plan. She's a remarkably incurious person, if not outright stupid.
It appears that US corporations do irony really well.
Our #LandSystems team were delighted to host the Minister for Defence Readiness & Industry, @LukePollard, last week to support the @BritishArmy's announcement that the #AJAX Armoured Fighting Vehicle has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC). This achievement represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing transformation of the British Army’s Modernisation.
AJAX is: ✅Built in Merthyr Tydfil, supported by 230+ UK suppliers ✅Responsible for sustaining 4,100 skilled jobs across the UK ✅Comprised of 589 vehicles across six variants ✅Export-ready and NATO-interoperable
AJAX delivers cutting-edge reconnaissance, firepower, and digital integration – supporting the UK’s Strategic Defence Review 2025 themes of warfighting readiness, industrial resilience and innovation shaped by lessons from Ukraine.
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. https://x.com/gduknews/status/1989348335774253189
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth. As long as nobody sits in it.
For some reason I am reminded about the urban legend of boobtrapped Japanese pistols from WWII.
Scattered on the battlefield, they were alleged to explode if used.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
Your mum still takes you to soft play? Bless.
If anyone's mum would like to take to soft play, I'm up for that.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
I would rather there were more safe routes for refugees but the fact is that there aren't.
Which does not justify enabling the drowning of people in the Channel.
And there are safe routes, most people who apply for asylum in this country did not get here on small boats.
They haven't come through "safe routes". They have mostly come as tourists, students or workers and then claimed asylum. That's not what people generally mean by a "safe route".
Tourists, students and workers have got here safely and the majority of asylum claims come from those safe routes.
Anyone in France should be welcome to apply for a visa to come and visit us. Not pay people smugglers.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
A few months back, Mum and I were prevented from using the loos at the soft-play next door to Fairlop Waters (the clubhouse having closed early) because of safeguarding ("oh, there might be kids present" the receptionist said). Luckily there were loos open across the road at Fairlop Tube station!
Your mum still takes you to soft play? Bless.
Um, I did say the Fairlop Waters club house was closed? Pay more attention please!
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Rolls-Royce hat vom Rüstungsunternehmen KNDS einen Großauftrag zur Lieferung von über 300 mtu-Antrieben des Typs MB 873 Ka-501 für den Antrieb neuer Leopard-2-Kampfpanzer erhalten. Das teilte das Unternehmen am heutigen Montag mit. https://x.com/soldat_technik/status/1997982244854497567
Rolls-Royce hat vom Rüstungsunternehmen KNDS einen Großauftrag zur Lieferung von über 300 mtu-Antrieben des Typs MB 873 Ka-501 für den Antrieb neuer Leopard-2-Kampfpanzer erhalten. Das teilte das Unternehmen am heutigen Montag mit. https://x.com/soldat_technik/status/1997982244854497567
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
Nation states tied into a political union that they didn't want.
Fortunately, extricating ourselves from the EU could be achieved via the ballot box, rather than the Armalite.
I don't think the Yugoslavs wanted it to fall apart. Certainly not in the way it did.
Apart from Slovenia - which is quite distinct with more of a Western/Central European background (much of it was an Austrian Crown Land since time immemorial) it's made up of very mixed up South Slavs and Albanians. Having been part of multiethnic polities (Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia) people were free to move round and they did. So separating it out into countries didn't work very well. Neither did translating confessional differences into nationalities.
Rolls-Royce hat vom Rüstungsunternehmen KNDS einen Großauftrag zur Lieferung von über 300 mtu-Antrieben des Typs MB 873 Ka-501 für den Antrieb neuer Leopard-2-Kampfpanzer erhalten. Das teilte das Unternehmen am heutigen Montag mit. https://x.com/soldat_technik/status/1997982244854497567
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
So there was a Commons debate about the 28 point Ukraine peace/surrender plan. A time surely for all sides of the House to come together. And in response Kemi Badenoch sounded off about Starmer surrendering fishing rights to the EU. She is a deeply unserious politician. That she is not as bad as the even-worse Farage and Jenrick doesn't change that.
Ugh. There's plenty to criticise Starmer on in terms of being unserious about defence, and of lacking a strategy to win the war. Why would Kemi waste her time with fish?
"Countries including France are said to want to tie a new post-Brexit security deal to more beneficial access to British waters, potentially holding up military cooperation."
Speaking of the scorpion and the frog, France can never resist the opportunity to poke this country in the eye, even when it is clearly not in their interest to do so.
Are we any different?
I suspect it plays well domestically to their electorate.
Interesting and not the wipe out for NHS Fife that was expected. I understand that various offers might have been made to Ms Peggie and turned down. She might be regretting that.
I think its pretty damning though and add in the ridiculous testimony of some e.g. "I don't know what sex I am, I haven't had my chromosomes tested". The main case, that Peggie was harassed by NHS after her complaint is upheld. I find it odd that she is being found wanting over the statements about racist social media content (completely tangential to the case) yet Upton is not over suggestions that he lied about events to implicate Peggie (no other corroboration of his allegations, 'tampered' electronic notes etc).
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
It seems to me that Western support for Israel's onslaught on the Palestinians has contributed to the less than enthusiasic attitude to Russian sanctions in the many parts of the world that are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. They don't view Russian actions in the Ukraine as being much different to Israel's actions in Gaza and so regard demands to sanction Russia as hypocritical. Western support for Israel has probably damaged the outlook for Ukraine substantially more than Spanish and Irish sympathy for Gaza.
My view is that those nations that support Russia are so cynical in their outlook, that absolutely nothing that Western powers did in relation to Gaza would make a difference.
Cynics can be easier to deal with than idealists. You just need to work out what they want.
In India's relationship with the UK, that seems to be to ensure Modi is seen as the boss of the relationship, with India no longer the supplicant.
This country needs to realise that India under Modi is not our friend.
I think we also need to recognise that India under anyone has many citizens with a very deep resentment of Britain based on history, and kept very much alive by Bollywood storytelling. It would be good to focus on building an alternative, forward-looking narrative of co-operation with India, but it cannot be one based on giving in, because then we will get neither respect nor friendship.
We should tell them to GTF on a motorbike. Why do we need to crawl to every tyrant nowadays. Can we stoop any lower , having to beg people to be nice is pathetic.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
I would rather there were more safe routes for refugees but the fact is that there aren't.
Which does not justify enabling the drowning of people in the Channel.
And there are safe routes, most people who apply for asylum in this country did not get here on small boats.
They haven't come through "safe routes". They have mostly come as tourists, students or workers and then claimed asylum. That's not what people generally mean by a "safe route".
Tourists, students and workers have got here safely and the majority of asylum claims come from those safe routes.
Anyone in France should be welcome to apply for a visa to come and visit us. Not pay people smugglers.
I'm guessing that, if you are in France as an undocumented immigrant, your visa application to visit the UK tends to get rejected.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
The UK, also shown, ranks 11th with 160 applicants per 100,000 residents. Data is from July 2024 to June 2025
You suggest, however, that "relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does." So...
UK: 244,376 km2 France: 632,702.3 km2, but that's including French Guiana etc. European France is 543,940 km2 Germany: 357,114 km2 Spain: 506,030 km2
So, asylum seekers per area gives us...
UK: 0.45 France: 0.25, but European France, if we presume no aslym seekers to French Guiana, not certain what the figures are there, comes to, is 0.29 Germany: 0.53 Spain: 0.31
Therefore, yes, we take more than France (and Spain) per area, but still less than Germany, and I've not done the figures, but I presume we're still way below Greece and Belgium.
The Boriswave is the confounder. We allow legal migration, illegal migration and asylum to be conflated by bad actors. And people never want to actually look and understand data.
I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...
they don't get the benefits and free housing , etc in those other safe countries. Soft touch for any chancer.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
The UK, also shown, ranks 11th with 160 applicants per 100,000 residents. Data is from July 2024 to June 2025
You suggest, however, that "relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does." So...
UK: 244,376 km2 France: 632,702.3 km2, but that's including French Guiana etc. European France is 543,940 km2 Germany: 357,114 km2 Spain: 506,030 km2
So, asylum seekers per area gives us...
UK: 0.45 France: 0.25, but European France, if we presume no aslym seekers to French Guiana, not certain what the figures are there, comes to, is 0.29 Germany: 0.53 Spain: 0.31
Therefore, yes, we take more than France (and Spain) per area, but still less than Germany, and I've not done the figures, but I presume we're still way below Greece and Belgium.
The Boriswave is the confounder. We allow legal migration, illegal migration and asylum to be conflated by bad actors. And people never want to actually look and understand data.
I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...
they don't get the benefits and free housing , etc in those other safe countries. Soft touch for any chancer.
What social rights do I have as an asylum seeker in France?
As an asylum seeker, you will benefit from social rights during your procedure. This means that you are normally entitled to: health cover (social security), reduced transport fares, accommodation, a monthly allowance (ADA ) in the form of a payment card which does not allow you to withdraw money but only to pay in certain authorized stores.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
The UK, also shown, ranks 11th with 160 applicants per 100,000 residents. Data is from July 2024 to June 2025
You suggest, however, that "relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does." So...
UK: 244,376 km2 France: 632,702.3 km2, but that's including French Guiana etc. European France is 543,940 km2 Germany: 357,114 km2 Spain: 506,030 km2
So, asylum seekers per area gives us...
UK: 0.45 France: 0.25, but European France, if we presume no aslym seekers to French Guiana, not certain what the figures are there, comes to, is 0.29 Germany: 0.53 Spain: 0.31
Therefore, yes, we take more than France (and Spain) per area, but still less than Germany, and I've not done the figures, but I presume we're still way below Greece and Belgium.
The Boriswave is the confounder. We allow legal migration, illegal migration and asylum to be conflated by bad actors. And people never want to actually look and understand data.
I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...
they don't get the benefits and free housing , etc in those other safe countries. Soft touch for any chancer.
What social rights do I have as an asylum seeker in France?
As an asylum seeker, you will benefit from social rights during your procedure. This means that you are normally entitled to: health cover (social security), reduced transport fares, accommodation, a monthly allowance (ADA ) in the form of a payment card which does not allow you to withdraw money but only to pay in certain authorized stores.
It's similar in Germany.
So even more ridiculous that the parasites pay to come here , they will not be getting the largesse we stupidly hand out.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
The UK, also shown, ranks 11th with 160 applicants per 100,000 residents. Data is from July 2024 to June 2025
You suggest, however, that "relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does." So...
UK: 244,376 km2 France: 632,702.3 km2, but that's including French Guiana etc. European France is 543,940 km2 Germany: 357,114 km2 Spain: 506,030 km2
So, asylum seekers per area gives us...
UK: 0.45 France: 0.25, but European France, if we presume no aslym seekers to French Guiana, not certain what the figures are there, comes to, is 0.29 Germany: 0.53 Spain: 0.31
Therefore, yes, we take more than France (and Spain) per area, but still less than Germany, and I've not done the figures, but I presume we're still way below Greece and Belgium.
The Boriswave is the confounder. We allow legal migration, illegal migration and asylum to be conflated by bad actors. And people never want to actually look and understand data.
I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...
they don't get the benefits and free housing , etc in those other safe countries. Soft touch for any chancer.
What social rights do I have as an asylum seeker in France?
As an asylum seeker, you will benefit from social rights during your procedure. This means that you are normally entitled to: health cover (social security), reduced transport fares, accommodation, a monthly allowance (ADA ) in the form of a payment card which does not allow you to withdraw money but only to pay in certain authorized stores.
It's similar in Germany.
Re malcolmg's comment, I am repeatedly disappointed by the ability of people to confidently opine on matters of which they are completely ignorant. Perhaps AI thinking is actually pretty close to human thinking!
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
I would rather there were more safe routes for refugees but the fact is that there aren't.
Which does not justify enabling the drowning of people in the Channel.
And there are safe routes, most people who apply for asylum in this country did not get here on small boats.
They haven't come through "safe routes". They have mostly come as tourists, students or workers and then claimed asylum. That's not what people generally mean by a "safe route".
Tourists, students and workers have got here safely and the majority of asylum claims come from those safe routes.
Anyone in France should be welcome to apply for a visa to come and visit us. Not pay people smugglers.
I'm guessing that, if you are in France as an undocumented immigrant, your visa application to visit the UK tends to get rejected.
Oh well.
That is not an excuse to pay people smuggler's to get into this country, killing people in the progress.
****ing hell idly browsing through what's on at the theatre this week and if I want to see Bryan Cranston in All my Sons it will cost at least £224 in the gods and the whole place is sold out so goodness knows what the Stalls tickets will have cost.
Please keep this information anonymous. Addressing the noise and vibration issues is only the tip of the iceberg; the entire platform is affected by numerous faults and design shortcomings.
A significant design flaw was identified during a Bovie instructors’ course. While testing the rear door emergency cut-off system, instructors discovered that it did not function as intended. Rather than activating upon contact, the emergency cut-off bar bent or moved out of the way, allowing the dummy to be crushed by the rear door.
When this issue was raised with GD, the response was that it was “user error,” and that the bar was designed to be activated by hand only—before anyone could be injured. They further asserted that the likelihood of someone becoming trapped was extremely low. Ultimately, it took four attempts to position the dummy precisely enough for the bar to activate.
This led to the discovery of another major design flaw. When the emergency bar remains depressed—due to the dummy being trapped between the hull and the rear door—the door cannot be released electronically, and there is no quick-release mechanism. Instead, the door must be opened manually via a pump system. This requires two personnel inside the vehicle, the removal of a section of racking to access the pump, and approximately 15 minutes of effort, even under ideal conditions with a prepared crew. When this was reported to GD, it was again dismissed as neither a problem nor a design fault. Efforts by Bovie instructors to provide constructive feedback were disregarded.
These platforms are not user-friendly and will inevitably cost the Army more in parts, labour, and future modifications. In their current state, they are simply not fit for purpose https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998040071442759946
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
A war within the old Yugoslavia of course. Not the greatest advert for ultra-nationalism I can think of.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
Nation states tied into a political union that they didn't want.
Fortunately, extricating ourselves from the EU could be achieved via the ballot box, rather than the Armalite.
I don't think the Yugoslavs wanted it to fall apart. Certainly not in the way it did.
Apart from Slovenia - which is quite distinct with more of a Western/Central European background (much of it was an Austrian Crown Land since time immemorial) it's made up of very mixed up South Slavs and Albanians. Having been part of multiethnic polities (Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia) people were free to move round and they did. So separating it out into countries didn't work very well. Neither did translating confessional differences into nationalities.
One side-effect of the Yugoslav War was on football.
Yugoslavia (as was) qualified for the 1992 Euro Football Championship, but were disqualified because of the War. So Denmark took their place - and promptly ended up as Champions!
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the suggestion that the number of asylum seekers per area was an important metric, and on that metric, we take more people than France, although France takes more per head of population. I've now done some further calculations and offer the following league table of asylum seekers (2024 numbers) per square kilometre:
Malta 2.22 Belgium 1.29 Cyprus 0.99 Luxembourg 0.85 Netherlands 0.80 - European Netherlands only counted Germany 0.70 Greece 0.56 Italy 0.53 UK 0.43 - excluding Channel Islands and other Crown dependencies Spain 0.34 - excluding African territories Austria 0.30 France 0.29 - European France only counted Slovenia 0.28 Ireland 0.27 Bulgaria 0.11 Poland 0.05 Denmark 0.05 Estonia 0.03 Portugal 0.03 - excluding Madeira Sweden 0.03 Croatia 0.02 Czechia 0.02 Latvia 0.02 Romania 0.01 Finland 0.01 Lithuania 0.01 Slovakia < 0.01 Hungary < 0.01
So, the UK is in the top third, but way below countries like Malta and Cyprus (which are on the frontline, so to speak) and also below other comparable nations (Germany, BENELUX). You can also see the reluctance of many eastern Europeans countries.
****ing hell idly browsing through what's on at the theatre this week and if I want to see Bryan Cranston in All my Sons it will cost at least £224 in the gods and the whole place is sold out so goodness knows what the Stalls tickets will have cost.
We used to occasionally go to the theatre in London but for about 6 or 7 years now it's become too expensive.
Please keep this information anonymous. Addressing the noise and vibration issues is only the tip of the iceberg; the entire platform is affected by numerous faults and design shortcomings.
A significant design flaw was identified during a Bovie instructors’ course. While testing the rear door emergency cut-off system, instructors discovered that it did not function as intended. Rather than activating upon contact, the emergency cut-off bar bent or moved out of the way, allowing the dummy to be crushed by the rear door.
When this issue was raised with GD, the response was that it was “user error,” and that the bar was designed to be activated by hand only—before anyone could be injured. They further asserted that the likelihood of someone becoming trapped was extremely low. Ultimately, it took four attempts to position the dummy precisely enough for the bar to activate.
This led to the discovery of another major design flaw. When the emergency bar remains depressed—due to the dummy being trapped between the hull and the rear door—the door cannot be released electronically, and there is no quick-release mechanism. Instead, the door must be opened manually via a pump system. This requires two personnel inside the vehicle, the removal of a section of racking to access the pump, and approximately 15 minutes of effort, even under ideal conditions with a prepared crew. When this was reported to GD, it was again dismissed as neither a problem nor a design fault. Efforts by Bovie instructors to provide constructive feedback were disregarded.
These platforms are not user-friendly and will inevitably cost the Army more in parts, labour, and future modifications. In their current state, they are simply not fit for purpose https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998040071442759946
Not user-friendly?! They sound like death traps! I'm not sure even the Ukrainians would accept them at this point.
The chat I've heard is we basically have no choice but to continue - the army needs a tracked vehicle, Boxer is not sufficient, and there is no off-the-shelf alternative that delivers the volume necessary in the next few years.
I guess the difficulty with defence procurement is knowing when something is just normally disastrous versus a complete catastrophe.
****ing hell idly browsing through what's on at the theatre this week and if I want to see Bryan Cranston in All my Sons it will cost at least £224 in the gods and the whole place is sold out so goodness knows what the Stalls tickets will have cost.
We used to occasionally go to the theatre in London but for about 6 or 7 years now it's become too expensive.
Yes... but you can often find deals at much lower than the headline cost (Paula Vogel's "Indecent" at the Menier Chocolate Factory was absolutely fantastic a few years ago, and I paid next to nothing) and many shows are not as expensive as the ones with big name stars ("KS6: Small Forward" by the Belarus Free Theatre was great and much cheaper than that -- I came area splattered with fake blood), so I think London theatre still has a lot to offer.
Please keep this information anonymous. Addressing the noise and vibration issues is only the tip of the iceberg; the entire platform is affected by numerous faults and design shortcomings.
A significant design flaw was identified during a Bovie instructors’ course. While testing the rear door emergency cut-off system, instructors discovered that it did not function as intended. Rather than activating upon contact, the emergency cut-off bar bent or moved out of the way, allowing the dummy to be crushed by the rear door.
When this issue was raised with GD, the response was that it was “user error,” and that the bar was designed to be activated by hand only—before anyone could be injured. They further asserted that the likelihood of someone becoming trapped was extremely low. Ultimately, it took four attempts to position the dummy precisely enough for the bar to activate.
This led to the discovery of another major design flaw. When the emergency bar remains depressed—due to the dummy being trapped between the hull and the rear door—the door cannot be released electronically, and there is no quick-release mechanism. Instead, the door must be opened manually via a pump system. This requires two personnel inside the vehicle, the removal of a section of racking to access the pump, and approximately 15 minutes of effort, even under ideal conditions with a prepared crew. When this was reported to GD, it was again dismissed as neither a problem nor a design fault. Efforts by Bovie instructors to provide constructive feedback were disregarded.
These platforms are not user-friendly and will inevitably cost the Army more in parts, labour, and future modifications. In their current state, they are simply not fit for purpose https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998040071442759946
Not user-friendly?! They sound like death traps! I'm not sure even the Ukrainians would accept them at this point.
The chat I've heard is we basically have no choice but to continue - the army needs a tracked vehicle, Boxer is not sufficient, and there is no off-the-shelf alternative that delivers the volume necessary in the next few years.
I guess the difficulty with defence procurement is knowing when something is just normally disastrous versus a complete catastrophe.
Maybe we would have a more positive impact on the war if we gave them to the Russians?
WRT Ukraine, we have done better than Germany, France, and Italy, per capita, but the real stand outs are Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands, whose per capita contributions far outshine the rest.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
Please keep this information anonymous. Addressing the noise and vibration issues is only the tip of the iceberg; the entire platform is affected by numerous faults and design shortcomings.
A significant design flaw was identified during a Bovie instructors’ course. While testing the rear door emergency cut-off system, instructors discovered that it did not function as intended. Rather than activating upon contact, the emergency cut-off bar bent or moved out of the way, allowing the dummy to be crushed by the rear door.
When this issue was raised with GD, the response was that it was “user error,” and that the bar was designed to be activated by hand only—before anyone could be injured. They further asserted that the likelihood of someone becoming trapped was extremely low. Ultimately, it took four attempts to position the dummy precisely enough for the bar to activate.
This led to the discovery of another major design flaw. When the emergency bar remains depressed—due to the dummy being trapped between the hull and the rear door—the door cannot be released electronically, and there is no quick-release mechanism. Instead, the door must be opened manually via a pump system. This requires two personnel inside the vehicle, the removal of a section of racking to access the pump, and approximately 15 minutes of effort, even under ideal conditions with a prepared crew. When this was reported to GD, it was again dismissed as neither a problem nor a design fault. Efforts by Bovie instructors to provide constructive feedback were disregarded.
These platforms are not user-friendly and will inevitably cost the Army more in parts, labour, and future modifications. In their current state, they are simply not fit for purpose https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998040071442759946
Not user-friendly?! They sound like death traps! I'm not sure even the Ukrainians would accept them at this point.
The chat I've heard is we basically have no choice but to continue - the army needs a tracked vehicle, Boxer is not sufficient, and there is no off-the-shelf alternative that delivers the volume necessary in the next few years.
I guess the difficulty with defence procurement is knowing when something is just normally disastrous versus a complete catastrophe.
Please keep this information anonymous. Addressing the noise and vibration issues is only the tip of the iceberg; the entire platform is affected by numerous faults and design shortcomings.
A significant design flaw was identified during a Bovie instructors’ course. While testing the rear door emergency cut-off system, instructors discovered that it did not function as intended. Rather than activating upon contact, the emergency cut-off bar bent or moved out of the way, allowing the dummy to be crushed by the rear door.
When this issue was raised with GD, the response was that it was “user error,” and that the bar was designed to be activated by hand only—before anyone could be injured. They further asserted that the likelihood of someone becoming trapped was extremely low. Ultimately, it took four attempts to position the dummy precisely enough for the bar to activate.
This led to the discovery of another major design flaw. When the emergency bar remains depressed—due to the dummy being trapped between the hull and the rear door—the door cannot be released electronically, and there is no quick-release mechanism. Instead, the door must be opened manually via a pump system. This requires two personnel inside the vehicle, the removal of a section of racking to access the pump, and approximately 15 minutes of effort, even under ideal conditions with a prepared crew. When this was reported to GD, it was again dismissed as neither a problem nor a design fault. Efforts by Bovie instructors to provide constructive feedback were disregarded.
These platforms are not user-friendly and will inevitably cost the Army more in parts, labour, and future modifications. In their current state, they are simply not fit for purpose https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998040071442759946
Not user-friendly?! They sound like death traps! I'm not sure even the Ukrainians would accept them at this point.
The chat I've heard is we basically have no choice but to continue - the army needs a tracked vehicle, Boxer is not sufficient, and there is no off-the-shelf alternative that delivers the volume necessary in the next few years.
I guess the difficulty with defence procurement is knowing when something is just normally disastrous versus a complete catastrophe.
Please keep this information anonymous. Addressing the noise and vibration issues is only the tip of the iceberg; the entire platform is affected by numerous faults and design shortcomings.
A significant design flaw was identified during a Bovie instructors’ course. While testing the rear door emergency cut-off system, instructors discovered that it did not function as intended. Rather than activating upon contact, the emergency cut-off bar bent or moved out of the way, allowing the dummy to be crushed by the rear door.
When this issue was raised with GD, the response was that it was “user error,” and that the bar was designed to be activated by hand only—before anyone could be injured. They further asserted that the likelihood of someone becoming trapped was extremely low. Ultimately, it took four attempts to position the dummy precisely enough for the bar to activate.
This led to the discovery of another major design flaw. When the emergency bar remains depressed—due to the dummy being trapped between the hull and the rear door—the door cannot be released electronically, and there is no quick-release mechanism. Instead, the door must be opened manually via a pump system. This requires two personnel inside the vehicle, the removal of a section of racking to access the pump, and approximately 15 minutes of effort, even under ideal conditions with a prepared crew. When this was reported to GD, it was again dismissed as neither a problem nor a design fault. Efforts by Bovie instructors to provide constructive feedback were disregarded.
These platforms are not user-friendly and will inevitably cost the Army more in parts, labour, and future modifications. In their current state, they are simply not fit for purpose https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998040071442759946
Not user-friendly?! They sound like death traps! I'm not sure even the Ukrainians would accept them at this point.
The chat I've heard is we basically have no choice but to continue - the army needs a tracked vehicle, Boxer is not sufficient, and there is no off-the-shelf alternative that delivers the volume necessary in the next few years.
I guess the difficulty with defence procurement is knowing when something is just normally disastrous versus a complete catastrophe.
Compare to the Saracen APC - designed in the 1950s.
For escape, you pull a couple of levers that mechanically disengage the hinges. So the doors literally fall off, under their own weights. Couple of additional escape hatches on the same principle.
Earlier, @BartholomewRoberts raised the suggestion that the number of asylum seekers per area was an important metric, and on that metric, we take more people than France, although France takes more per head of population. I've now done some further calculations and offer the following league table of asylum seekers (2024 numbers) per square kilometre:
Malta 2.22 Belgium 1.29 Cyprus 0.99 Luxembourg 0.85 Netherlands 0.80 - European Netherlands only counted Germany 0.70 Greece 0.56 Italy 0.53 UK 0.43 - excluding Channel Islands and other Crown dependencies Spain 0.34 - excluding African territories Austria 0.30 France 0.29 - European France only counted Slovenia 0.28 Ireland 0.27 Bulgaria 0.11 Poland 0.05 Denmark 0.05 Estonia 0.03 Portugal 0.03 - excluding Madeira Sweden 0.03 Croatia 0.02 Czechia 0.02 Latvia 0.02 Romania 0.01 Finland 0.01 Lithuania 0.01 Slovakia < 0.01 Hungary < 0.01
So, the UK is in the top third, but way below countries like Malta and Cyprus (which are on the frontline, so to speak) and also below other comparable nations (Germany, BENELUX). You can also see the reluctance of many eastern Europeans countries.
Seems an appropriate list and quite interesting with some surprising elements.
Portugal is the stand-out surprise for me, especially considering neighbouring Spain has nearly as many as we do.
I hope TSE isn't talking his book with all the anti-Badenoch threads. The reason she stays, in my opinion, is that her performance has improved and who are you going to replace her with? The Tories might be doomed whoever the leader is, but I think they'd be a lot better off sticking with Badenoch than bringing in Jenrick.
Nope.
I voted for Badenoch last year and want her to remain in place lest that human colostomy bag Jenrick takes over.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst Badenoch’s performances have improved the Tories are still doing worse than the 2024 GE.
That’s what is focussing the minds of Tory MPs.
I have the feeling that Reform’s numbers have a lot of air in them, as the analytics people say. So tricky to weigh up, as it’s like an outsider in a horse race going twenty lengths clear; it should come back to the pack, but maybe it won’t
It would be tough on Kemi if Reform collapsed in scandal after she’d been removed. Her successor would probably have a Sir Keir style open goal at the next election
Isn't it likely that one of the factors keeping the Tory polling figure low is that it is impossible to know whether a person should vote Tory to help keep Reform out, or vote Tory to help put Reform in?
As long as that polling figure figure is low, the question of voting Tory to have a Tory government doesn't arise; like with voting LD.
No different leader will resolve that issue unless they tell us. It can only be resolved by Reform collapse, or Tory decisiveness.
Surely if your voting Tory but don't like Reform much, at this point you're mainly voting Tory in the hopes of a Tory - Ref coalition where the Tories are able to be a moderating influence on a Ref government.
There's virtually no hope of a Tory majority unless something big changes. If you don't want a rightish government, why are you voting Tory at all?
To be fair, as a Ref voter this would probably be my preferred outcome - Ref are needed to fix immigration, but with Tory influence to ensure they cut spending rather than increase the state.
More generally - why do people constantly treat politics like a team sport, where they back their team through thick or thin, regardless of how useless they are.
I couldn't care less about the fate of any of the UK's political parties, I care about the policies which they enact on the country.
IMHO, the country needs: Net zero immigration for an extended period (until house prices are back to sanity). Massive shrinkage of the state, coupled with a fairly massive reduction in the tax burden, and also a very reduced deficit. Deregulation across most spheres of life.
I'll vote for anyone who looks like they might deliver some of that, or failing that is least likely to deliver the opposite. I couldn't care less what colour label they wear as they are doing it.
This is however slightly tempered by a belief that leopards aren't given to changing their spots - e. g. whatever the Labour Party says before elections about not increasing taxes, you can be can be sure that if elected they'll tax, spend and borrow like it's going out of fashion, because that's what they always do.
If a Reform government is not high spend (somewhere in the middle of the western European pack as % of GDP) I shall eat my hat.
Me too. I think they'll probably fix immigration, and might manage some of the more straightforward deregulation required, and that will be about it. It's still better than the alternatives, which are unlikely to make progress towards any of my desired destinations.
There is no party serious about reducing the size of the state, or even attempting to balance the books, although they Tories occasionally make some of the right noises - for that reason, a Ref-Tory coalition is probably my prefered outcome.
I wouldn't want the Tories to have a majority on their own, see my comments about leopards and spots.
Immigration is down 75% from the Boriswave already.
still circa 50K illegals coming in on boats and costing a fortune, that has to be stopped.
Yes, and in terms of what voters care about this is far more important. Much of the Boriswave was made of of Ukrainians and Hong Kongers. Few people objected to that. Voters have a distinct hierarchy of the sorts of immigration they'll accept. We've reduced immigration of the sort people don't mind but we're still getting the immigration which is politically toxic: the unskilled, the chancers, the criminals and the fanatics.
Many of these people are refugees fleeing death and torture. The UK takes fewer refugees than many other countries. Many refugees go on to make significant positive contributions to their host country.
Should we invade France if they're causing the death and torture of refugees?
You keep making this point but it is idiotic. Every country needs to do its share in terms of accepting refugees. France already has 50% more refugees than we do, relative to their population.
So who determines what our share is and whom we should accept?
I would far rather we accept people, safely, via bringing people over from refugee camps near to conflicts, like David Cameron suggested, than accept people who pay people smugglers who drown people in the Channel.
What about you?
And which scale you look at changes things dramatically, relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does.
The UK, also shown, ranks 11th with 160 applicants per 100,000 residents. Data is from July 2024 to June 2025
You suggest, however, that "relative to per square km, I'm pretty sure we take considerably more than France does." So...
UK: 244,376 km2 France: 632,702.3 km2, but that's including French Guiana etc. European France is 543,940 km2 Germany: 357,114 km2 Spain: 506,030 km2
So, asylum seekers per area gives us...
UK: 0.45 France: 0.25, but European France, if we presume no aslym seekers to French Guiana, not certain what the figures are there, comes to, is 0.29 Germany: 0.53 Spain: 0.31
Therefore, yes, we take more than France (and Spain) per area, but still less than Germany, and I've not done the figures, but I presume we're still way below Greece and Belgium.
The Boriswave is the confounder. We allow legal migration, illegal migration and asylum to be conflated by bad actors. And people never want to actually look and understand data.
I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...
they don't get the benefits and free housing , etc in those other safe countries. Soft touch for any chancer.
What social rights do I have as an asylum seeker in France?
As an asylum seeker, you will benefit from social rights during your procedure. This means that you are normally entitled to: health cover (social security), reduced transport fares, accommodation, a monthly allowance (ADA ) in the form of a payment card which does not allow you to withdraw money but only to pay in certain authorized stores.
It's similar in Germany.
Re malcolmg's comment, I am repeatedly disappointed by the ability of people to confidently opine on matters of which they are completely ignorant. Perhaps AI thinking is actually pretty close to human thinking!
Can you explain then when things are so good in France and Germany why these people pay thousands and risk their lives to come to the UK. Not hard to guess why and it is not the weather.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
Lots of places used be part of the British Empire, and Britain hasn't tried to reconquer them. Lots of other Empires have also come apart. It's only authoritarian dictatorships - like Russia and China - that seek to reconquer former imperial possessions.
Many people ranting about the EU don't know much about the bloody history of this continent (or conveniently ignore it)
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
This old lie again.
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
My father’s equivalent of this ran something like: “before the EEC / EU, an army crossed the line at least once every fifty years”. (It may have been something like: there’s no fifty year period where an army didn’t cross the line, which is slightly different but contains an annoying double negative. Historians can tell me which, or neither, is closer to the truth!)
A few skirmishes in the Balkans don’t change that reality, no matter how awful they were locally.
Post cold war we’re almost at a fifty year gap again. Lets hope we make it to 2029!
Comments
Most humans have a mental god buried deep in their brains, a feeling that what they do in private is still visible to some sort of omniscient moral authority that will weigh them and may find them wanting. That’s why the world isn’t full of amoral beasts who’ll do what they can get away with, and why voters regularly opt for parties that are inimical to their self interest.
So yes I expect some voters do vote with their pockets, but other factors are just as important.
UK output fell 6% in 1929/31. We had a similar contraction in 2008/10, but growth today is positive!
The London Stock Exchange fell about 40% 1929-32. How's the FTSE doing?
I get it. People see migrants fleeing from (checks notes) France and wonders why they don't stay there and claim asylum. One reason was revealed on QT last week - often they have been refused by other nations along the way...
The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
https://x.com/Emolclause/status/1997897512498143601
"But Hunter Biden..", I guess ?
The inability to build the next generation of weapons is pretty indicative.
The EU is barely 30 years old, and its precursor, the EEC, almost 70. Before this project began, there had never been a single 30yr period in recorded history when the people of today’s EU were not fighting each other. Centuries of conflict culminating in the worst human-made disaster in history, the second World War
You'll have a hard time finding Europeans that don't want to improve and reform the EU, but imperfect unions of democracies work! US states haven't taken up arms against each other for 150 years now, despite sometimes extreme political differences. If you bet politically on European fragmentation, you're making a mistake
https://x.com/martinmbauer/status/1997981079110623540
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/07/right-wingers-branded-danger-to-children/
The lack of war in Europe had bugger all to do with the EEC/EU and everything to do with the cold war balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union. Neither side would allow war in Europe because they were too frightened of escalation.
It is no supsrise that, within 2 years of the fall of the Berlin wall we had war again in Europe - in the Balkans. Or does that bit of Europe not count when it goes against your narrative?
If you want wet paternalists to vote for you, you have to give them something beyond lower taxes. That may be because they we are appalling people, but that's electoral democracy.
Incidentally, Trump’s “Peace Deal” between Cambodia and Thailand seems to have comprehensively broken down. Co-in-laws have had to do a runner from the family farm, close to the border, and are staying in Bangkok.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
Meanwhile the UK is doing so well after Brexit isn't it. That's the narrative yiou need to worry about.
I think the argument is such integration helps to reduce the chance of conflict. (I actually tend towards your POV on this before you bite my head off).
Russia does not have the spending on welfare and health we do, it spends it on defence and arms instead
The EU isn't the sole reason for European peace, but it isn't irrelevant to it either.
The Peggie case decision is now out (in part: the remedy not yet decided):
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25680860.nhs-fife-harassed-sandie-peggie---doctor-not-tribunal-rules/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=081225
Being unable to build more than a slack handful of tanks, SPGs, aircraft or missiles is another.
Even Ukraine is fielding new missiles.
See the recent failure of the “next generation” Russian ICBM. Which has failed nearly every test so far.
https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/shattered-hegemony-the-rivalry-between-the-us-and-china-in-the-new-era-of-the-politics-of-force/
https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/trump-sees-china-more-as-an-economic-rival-than-a-military-threat-20251207-p5nlh0
China might supply it - but only in exchange for old Manchuria. And not at the expense of offending western markets.
General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
We have not had a lot of American combat power in our own neighborhood.
I suspect that is probably gonna change.
We will see what we are ordered to do.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1997951393685295540
They can't monitor the toilets constantly in a soft play, but having a rule that says nobody is allowed on the premises if they don't have children with them (and are signed in), would be a practical way to minimise risks.
No matter how lovely you and your mum are it's not worth the risk of someone complaining.
Our #LandSystems team were delighted to host the Minister for Defence Readiness & Industry, @LukePollard, last week to support the @BritishArmy's announcement that the #AJAX Armoured Fighting Vehicle has achieved Initial Operating Capability (IOC). This achievement represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing transformation of the British Army’s Modernisation.
AJAX is:
✅Built in Merthyr Tydfil, supported by 230+ UK suppliers
✅Responsible for sustaining 4,100 skilled jobs across the UK
✅Comprised of 589 vehicles across six variants
✅Export-ready and NATO-interoperable
AJAX delivers cutting-edge reconnaissance, firepower, and digital integration – supporting the UK’s Strategic Defence Review 2025 themes of warfighting readiness, industrial resilience and innovation shaped by lessons from Ukraine.
This is more than a capability milestone. It’s a symbol of British engineering excellence, national resilience, and the power of defence to drive economic growth.
https://x.com/gduknews/status/1989348335774253189
https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/1997523343554253241
The Financial Times reports that there is "deep disappointment" in the Takaichi Administration over the lack of public support she has received from Trump over her remarks about defending Taiwan.
The article notes that Elbridge Colby had been pushing Japan to take such a stance.
Fortunately, extricating ourselves from the EU could be achieved via the ballot box, rather than the Armalite.
Anyway I'm talking about Brexit again! Nooooooooooooooo
Scattered on the battlefield, they were alleged to explode if used.
I guess it works if you don't have a holster.
Also I don't think from her reply that Badenoch understood the implications of the 28 point plan. She's a remarkably incurious person, if not outright stupid.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-11-25/debates/C6153BE8-D078-4F10-9F7A-446946EC494C/G20AndUkraine
Anyone in France should be welcome to apply for a visa to come and visit us. Not pay people smugglers.
the "Certified Banger" account hasn’t tweeted in a month cause someone tweeted “elon is a pedophile” and it got 600k likes btw
https://x.com/M1das_OW2/status/1997754628012917136
I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame.
I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Rolls-Royce hat vom Rüstungsunternehmen KNDS einen Großauftrag zur Lieferung von über 300 mtu-Antrieben des Typs MB 873 Ka-501 für den Antrieb neuer Leopard-2-Kampfpanzer erhalten. Das teilte das Unternehmen am heutigen Montag mit.
https://x.com/soldat_technik/status/1997982244854497567
Apart from Slovenia - which is quite distinct with more of a Western/Central European background (much of it was an Austrian Crown Land since time immemorial) it's made up of very mixed up South Slavs and Albanians. Having been part of multiethnic polities (Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia) people were free to move round and they did. So separating it out into countries didn't work very well. Neither did translating confessional differences into nationalities.
I suspect it plays well domestically to their electorate.
https://domasile.info/en/what-social-rights-do-i-have-as-an-asylum-seeker-in-france/
What social rights do I have as an asylum seeker in France?
As an asylum seeker, you will benefit from social rights during your procedure. This means that you are normally entitled to: health cover (social security), reduced transport fares, accommodation, a monthly allowance (ADA ) in the form of a payment card which does not allow you to withdraw money but only to pay in certain authorized stores.
It's similar in Germany.
That is not an excuse to pay people smuggler's to get into this country, killing people in the progress.
Please keep this information anonymous. Addressing the noise and vibration issues is only the tip of the iceberg; the entire platform is affected by numerous faults and design shortcomings.
A significant design flaw was identified during a Bovie instructors’ course. While testing the rear door emergency cut-off system, instructors discovered that it did not function as intended. Rather than activating upon contact, the emergency cut-off bar bent or moved out of the way, allowing the dummy to be crushed by the rear door.
When this issue was raised with GD, the response was that it was “user error,” and that the bar was designed to be activated by hand only—before anyone could be injured. They further asserted that the likelihood of someone becoming trapped was extremely low. Ultimately, it took four attempts to position the dummy precisely enough for the bar to activate.
This led to the discovery of another major design flaw. When the emergency bar remains depressed—due to the dummy being trapped between the hull and the rear door—the door cannot be released electronically, and there is no quick-release mechanism. Instead, the door must be opened manually via a pump system. This requires two personnel inside the vehicle, the removal of a section of racking to access the pump, and approximately 15 minutes of effort, even under ideal conditions with a prepared crew. When this was reported to GD, it was again dismissed as neither a problem nor a design fault. Efforts by Bovie instructors to provide constructive feedback were disregarded.
These platforms are not user-friendly and will inevitably cost the Army more in parts, labour, and future modifications. In their current state, they are simply not fit for purpose
https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998040071442759946
Yugoslavia (as was) qualified for the 1992 Euro Football Championship, but were disqualified because of the War. So Denmark took their place - and promptly ended up as Champions!
Malta 2.22
Belgium 1.29
Cyprus 0.99
Luxembourg 0.85
Netherlands 0.80 - European Netherlands only counted
Germany 0.70
Greece 0.56
Italy 0.53
UK 0.43 - excluding Channel Islands and other Crown dependencies
Spain 0.34 - excluding African territories
Austria 0.30
France 0.29 - European France only counted
Slovenia 0.28
Ireland 0.27
Bulgaria 0.11
Poland 0.05
Denmark 0.05
Estonia 0.03
Portugal 0.03 - excluding Madeira
Sweden 0.03
Croatia 0.02
Czechia 0.02
Latvia 0.02
Romania 0.01
Finland 0.01
Lithuania 0.01
Slovakia < 0.01
Hungary < 0.01
So, the UK is in the top third, but way below countries like Malta and Cyprus (which are on the frontline, so to speak) and also below other comparable nations (Germany, BENELUX). You can also see the reluctance of many eastern Europeans countries.
The chat I've heard is we basically have no choice but to continue - the army needs a tracked vehicle, Boxer is not sufficient, and there is no off-the-shelf alternative that delivers the volume necessary in the next few years.
I guess the difficulty with defence procurement is knowing when something is just normally disastrous versus a complete catastrophe.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
For escape, you pull a couple of levers that mechanically disengage the hinges. So the doors literally fall off, under their own weights. Couple of additional escape hatches on the same principle.
Portugal is the stand-out surprise for me, especially considering neighbouring Spain has nearly as many as we do.
We should make no concession to such thinking.
A few skirmishes in the Balkans don’t change that reality, no matter how awful they were locally.
Post cold war we’re almost at a fifty year gap again. Lets hope we make it to 2029!