Before this weekend sterling 30 year gilt yields were almost nudging below 5% for the first time in ages, and the 10-year has been heading down very rapidly to the low 4s. Interesting to see what the reaction is when markets open tomorrow. Usually you’d expect an inflation shock and yields to jump.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
Except we aren't....""We are not joining these strikes", "we will not join offensive action now"
You're right. But that makes me curious as to the value of these bases to the Americans. I don't want to go full Leon but are they going to start carpet bombing Tehran with B52s? That's what's based at Fairford.
iiuc the hallmark of this campaign is precision strikes, not carpet bombing
Exactly. So why the change now?
I don't see how the style of a bombing campaign affects the need for bases btw "All your bases are belong to us" might be a phrase uttered by Trump before long
IDS had a core. He believed in things. His desire to improve the lot of the working class by minimising their dependence on benefits (or making it easier to wean people off them) was sincere. I remember his roar of triumph as Universal Credit came in.
Starmer wanted to kill old sick people because Esther Rantzen told him to.
Utterly puerile comment
In war situations and in many other matters evolve
All Governments tweak, amend, develop and have to be flexible to change.
Churchill made numerous changes in WW2, it was a strength
Idiotic right wing journalists use u turn for miniscule to major amendments that are exactly that
UK policy ike that of Iran, US, Israel. Everyone is changing
My disgust is not that he has changed policy but the policy he has changed. I think he's gone the wrong way when he could and should have followed Spain.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Brits can't vote for Irish head of state (President) because Irish can't vote for the British head of state (the Monarch)
Brits can't vote for Irish referenda (to change the Irish constitution) because Irish can't vote for British referenda (to change the British constitution)
Ireland uses referenda to change its constitution. I don't know if there's been a non-Constitution Irish referendum
2) Tell everyone we weren't involved and hope they leave us alone.
3) oh dear, they didn't leave us alone. They're shooting missiles at us.
4) claim that the only way to stop this and protect British citizens is to destroy the missiles at source.
5) allow the Americans to use our bases to destroy the missiles at source.
6) refuse to help destroy the missiles at source, even though we just said destroying them at source is the only way to end the threat to British citizens.
7) tell everyone we're not involved and hope they'll leave us alone.
2) Tell everyone we weren't involved and hope they leave us alone.
3) oh dear, they didn't leave us alone. They're shooting missiles at us.
4) claim that the only way to stop this and protect British citizens is to destroy the missiles at source.
5) allow the Americans to use our bases to destroy the missiles at source.
6) refuse to help destroy the missiles at source, even though we just said destroying them at source is the only way to end the threat to British citizens.
7) tell everyone we're not involved and hope they'll leave us alone.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
You have the correct interpretation. Two things can be true: it was stupid and illegal for the United States to bomb another country unprovoked and kill its head of state; it is legal and may be necessary to respond to attacks on your own country where you haven't been involved in the original actions against the attacking country.
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
You have the correct interpretation. Two things can be true: it was stupid and illegal for the United States to bomb another country unprovoked and kill its head of state; it is legal and may be necessary to respond to attacks on your own country where you haven't been involved in the original actions against the attacking country.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Starmer is being impressive at the moment imo with regard to his support for the American and Israeli action.
What support has he actually offered? Access to two airbases (finally), but only if they pinky promise they are for defensive actions only. And not the British base closest to Iran. And the UK will not actually do any strikes in Iran themselves.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Brits can't vote for Irish head of state (President) because Irish can't vote for the British head of state (the Monarch)
Brits can't vote for Irish referenda (to change the Irish constitution) because Irish can't vote for British referenda (to change the British constitution)
Ireland uses referenda to change its constitution. I don't know if there's been a non-Constitution Irish referendum
Personally I think we should end the arrangement completely. Britons should not be able to vote in Irish national.elections and the Irish shoukd not be able to vote in British national elections.
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
No, Carney had it right, the initial strikes were fully justified and should be fully supported.
To be fair though, the Americans can hardly complain about allies being late to the fight.
Justified is a defensible opinion, legal they were not. I realise this doesn't matter one iota in a world where 'might is right' and 'us v them' is now openly celebrated, but excuse me for not joining the chorus on that. Progress is the norm in most fields of human endeavour but in this one, international relations between people and countries, we are regressing.
I’m really starting to despise Starmer. He’s just so feeble. I’d rather have Rayner even though she is more left wing as at least she has a bit of a grit about her.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
Except we aren't....""We are not joining these strikes", "we will not join offensive action now"
You're right. But that makes me curious as to the value of these bases to the Americans. I don't want to go full Leon but are they going to start carpet bombing Tehran with B52s? That's what's based at Fairford.
B52s switched over to mass dropping precision munitions and missiles many years ago. The days of intevolmetering x hundred 500lbrs are long, long gone.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
Akrotiri is sovereign British territory. The UK very much is
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
But isn't the base British sovereign territory?
Oh yes ! How would this differ though from US bases in the Middle East . Are they just leased and not classed as US soil ?
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
Akrotiri is sovereign British territory. The UK very much is
Indeed. The combined Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (SBA), is a British Overseas Territory. A very small one admittedly, but sovereign British territory neverthless.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
But isn't the base British sovereign territory?
Oh yes ! How would this differ though from US bases in the Middle East . Are they just leased and not classed as US soil ?
Article V doesnt apply outside Europe/North America
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
Turkey's illegally occupying the northern half of Cyprus!
This is the point where the opponent gets their right of reply. Have no doubt the Iranian regime had a shitty first day but they are trying to reorganise,. not wholly succesfully so far but its better than it was yesterday.
They have said no to a ceasefire and will keep plugging away for now. The US was hoping for a pause point but it isnt happening so expect the air work to intensify from them. The Israelis on the other hand are flat out already knowing they have limited time in case Trump pulls the rug.
I've pointed out in posts in te recent days that it will be interesting to see if the Iranian missile response peters out after 2-3 days. They have other tools in the bag but a dramatic reduction of Iranian distance attack really does ease the issues for everyone else in this shooting match. As much as 24 hour media makes everything a big deal, in a full on conflict, the Iranian response so far hasn't been great or really effective in military terms.
The other thing I have mentioned is that the US military have prepared for weeks of conflict. The weight of that and indeed the Israelis in conventional conflict is just way too much for Iran in conventional warfare terms.
As regards the Brits stuck, largely in the UAE. Tourists evac yes, when you can.. Residents there, they can fuck off and wait in-situ
One other point, The Iranians havent really tried hard to shut the Straits of Hormuz or maybe they have and just plain can't but lets go with havent really tried hard. If that is so, the reason might be simple. the GCC will then deploy to attack Iranian assets. and thats just another headache.
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
You have the correct interpretation. Two things can be true: it was stupid and illegal for the United States to bomb another country unprovoked and kill its head of state; it is legal and may be necessary to respond to attacks on your own country where you haven't been involved in the original actions against the attacking country.
Just as Blair was (rightly or wrongly) despised for taking us into a war in Iraq, it loolks like Starmer is going to be despised for not taking us into a war in Iran. Or, perhaps, for joining too late. or joining in by accident.
One thing is for sure - whatever the outcome, whatever the reason, and whatever the cause, Starmer will be blamed.
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
You have the correct interpretation. Two things can be true: it was stupid and illegal for the United States to bomb another country unprovoked and kill its head of state; it is legal and may be necessary to respond to attacks on your own country where you haven't been involved in the original actions against the attacking country.
I never even considered that Khamenei might be assassinated - Iranian regime felt a lot more solid when I wrote this.
Hard to know who will become next supreme leader when the US and Israel can influence it with targeted assassinations. Don’t even know if Mojtaba Khamenei is still alive
Just as Blair was (rightly or wrongly) despised for taking us into a war in Iraq, it loolks like Starmer is going to be despised for not taking us into a war in Iran. Or, perhaps, for joining too late. or joining in by accident.
One thing is for sure - whatever the outcome, whatever the reason, and whatever the cause, Starmer will be blamed.
What Gordon Britas seems to have political genius for is this - give him an issue and he can get despised by everyone on every side of that issue.
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
You have the correct interpretation. Two things can be true: it was stupid and illegal for the United States to bomb another country unprovoked and kill its head of state; it is legal and may be necessary to respond to attacks on your own country where you haven't been involved in the original actions against the attacking country.
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
You have the correct interpretation. Two things can be true: it was stupid and illegal for the United States to bomb another country unprovoked and kill its head of state; it is legal and may be necessary to respond to attacks on your own country where you haven't been involved in the original actions against the attacking country.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
Turkey's illegally occupying the northern half of Cyprus!
Yes that’s why they won’t let Cyprus into NATO. Sadly there’s no sign of any deal to unify the island .
Starmer is tying himself in knots saying it is a defensive move to stop the missiles by allowing the US to use Diego Garcia to bomb the sites in Iran
It makes logical sense to me - UK allies and interests are being damaged; hit the source of that damage. I actually think Starmer has got it right here so far - the initial strike was damned reckless and we were right not take part; but now it's kicked off we've got to do what we must.
But I'm aware I'm in a tiny minority sitting between "level Tehran" and "Don't ever get involved in the Middle East again", which much more weight on the latter. Starmer's ratings can't tank because he's nearly bottomed out anyway.
You have the correct interpretation. Two things can be true: it was stupid and illegal for the United States to bomb another country unprovoked and kill its head of state; it is legal and may be necessary to respond to attacks on your own country where you haven't been involved in the original actions against the attacking country.
The UK aren't responding, they are allowing the US, if they pinky promise that they are only attacking for ultimately defensive purposes.
Starmer made it very clear, learned from Iraq, we aren't getting involved in attacking anybody in response.
The legal advice is specific. UK bases can only be used to attack Iranian facilities previously used for missile attacks on third parties.
And as I said, we aren't responding. He has picked the worst of all options, we are in by letting the US use two bases (not the most useful one), but not really helping the Americans by putting all these conditions on usage, but at the same time we are not in nor standing up for ourselves.
Its all madness and getting worse. The ME is aflame and who is putting it out?
> Hormuz is blockaded with tankers aflame > All the airports are shutdown and the Iranians will make sure they stay that way > Bases in Iraq, Qatar, Syria. Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait have been hit and continue to be hit > Israel is being hit consistently, every few hours more get through > Missiles are bing fired at USN ships, French bases, ABM radars > God know what’s happening in Iran with reports of mass casualties in mill bases, bombings of hospitals and 2000+ targets struck > Hezbollah have started shooting again
I don't think this is ending in a week, its an actual war and people seem to be treating it like a SMO. UK forces should be nowhere near this.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
That doesnt quite stack up though. Fairford is already in use, let no one tell you otherwise. The difference is the possibility of ferrying of the strategic bombers to operate from such locations which no one can miss but they aren't defensive. Exactly what 'defensive' forces would position in either of those airfields thousands of miles from the theater, I have no idea. Diego Garcia is further away than a large number of facilities the US is using in Europe. It isnt going to be air defence aircraft, it isnt going to be anti air missiles is it? So what exactly are those bases being used for?
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 43m No matter how the Prime Minister tries to redefine offensive as defensive, this is a slippery slope. He must not let Trump drag Britain into another prolonged war in the Middle East.
Starmer must come to Parliament tomorrow, set out the legal case in full, and give MPs a vote.
Its all madness and getting worse. The ME is aflame and who is putting it out?
> Hormuz is blockaded with tankers aflame > All the airports are shutdown and the Iranians will make sure they stay that way > Bases in Iraq, Qatar, Syria. Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait have been hit and continue to be hit > Israel is being hit consistently, every few hours more get through > Missiles are bing fired at USN ships, French bases, ABM radars > God know what’s happening in Iran with reports of mass casualties in mill bases, bombings of hospitals and 2000+ targets struck > Hezbollah have started shooting again
I don't think this is ending in a week, its an actual war and people seem to be treating it like a SMO. UK forces should be nowhere near this.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
That doesnt quite stack up though. Fairford is already in use, let no one tell you otherwise. The difference is the possibility of ferrying of the strategic bombers to operate from such locations which no one can miss but they aren't defensive. Exactly what 'defensive' forces would position in either of those airfields thousands of miles from the theater, I have no idea. Diego Garcia is further away than a large number of facilities the US is using in Europe. It isnt going to be air defence aircraft, it isnt going to be anti air missiles is it? So what exactly are those bases being used for?
For defensive purposes, Cyprus is most useful
It might not stack up from a military perspective, but Starmer and Hermer are trying to ride the "we only do things by international law" / "we don't want another Iraq", while appearing to do something. Or they are bloody useless and briefed the media incorrectly. Take your pick.
Ed Davey @EdwardJDavey · 43m No matter how the Prime Minister tries to redefine offensive as defensive, this is a slippery slope. He must not let Trump drag Britain into another prolonged war in the Middle East.
Starmer must come to Parliament tomorrow, set out the legal case in full, and give MPs a vote.
Starmer is being impressive at the moment imo with regard to his support for the American and Israeli action.
Because you are a right wing Farage supporter. I don't think your view will be shared by his party or MPs
Your characterisation of Andy may or may not be off, and I'm hardly likely to agree with you on most issues, but I suspect you are closer to being correct about the reaction to Starmer from many Labour MPs than he is.
That complicates things . If it’s a Hezbollah attack aligned with Iran but not Iran itself what does the UK government do.
Flap about and not really do anything of consequence?
It's not exactly much of a distinction in any case given the widely accepted interpretation of Hezbollah as Iranian proxies, and the UK already viewing them as a terrorist group, which for decades has been treated as basically allowing anything.
I am assuming the US told the UK there would be severe consequences if they couldn't use our bases, and given the lunatic in the White House who knows what that might be, so Starmer is trying to dress that diplomatic (perceived) necessity up in more secure and legalistic framing.
What this conflict should do, though anyone watching Ukraine should have seen it already, is understand that the lowly one way drone is an absolute bollocks to deal with. SHORAD (short range air defences) in all its forms (ground and air) and so often neglected in Western militaries these days is critical.
Its no secret that Ukrainian experts have been drafted in to give advice , via European allies, to the Gulf states. Problem is you can transfer knowledge of tactics but ya cant just get the weapons designed to provide layered defence in days. That leaves electronic countermeasures given Iranian drones use commercial satnav and occasionally mobile SIMS for guidance and control.
The launchers are a pain because unlike proper ballistic missiles you can launch these off the back of a flat bed with the appropriate rail kit so targeting is difficult.
He's an arch Zionist. He has more loyalty to Israel than he does to the US. As a legal opinion ignore.
5 minutes ago you were asking us to listen to a podcast with the man deemed the mouthpiece of the Iran Regime abroad.....
The advice is ludicrous. At face value you could attack any country you deemed not to be to your taste. It needen't even have anything to do with you.
Didn't the Obama White House (or possibly Bush) define the words 'imminent threat' in respect of a legal standard to mean there didn't have to be a specific threat, nor did it need to be imminent? Very creative, these legal types.
I have been laying the Greens most seats to an average of about 10/1, but a controversial war could see them actually do it. They’re 11/2 now, I thought that crazy, but maybe not
Its all madness and getting worse. The ME is aflame and who is putting it out?
> Hormuz is blockaded with tankers aflame > All the airports are shutdown and the Iranians will make sure they stay that way > Bases in Iraq, Qatar, Syria. Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait have been hit and continue to be hit > Israel is being hit consistently, every few hours more get through > Missiles are bing fired at USN ships, French bases, ABM radars > God know what’s happening in Iran with reports of mass casualties in mill bases, bombings of hospitals and 2000+ targets struck > Hezbollah have started shooting again
I don't think this is ending in a week, its an actual war and people seem to be treating it like a SMO. UK forces should be nowhere near this.
Well, we have a base in the general vicinity, but if the PM can keep any involvement to tokenistic (it's about all we have the capability for anyway) then that is probably best.
He's an arch Zionist. He has more loyalty to Israel than he does to the US. As a legal opinion ignore.
5 minutes ago you were asking us to listen to a podcast with the man deemed the mouthpiece of the Iran Regime abroad.....
The advice is ludicrous. At face value you could attack any country you deemed not to be to your taste. It needen't even have anything to do with you.
Didn't the Obama White House (or possibly Bush) define the words 'imminent threat' in respect of a legal standard to mean there didn't have to be a specific threat, nor did it need to be imminent? Very creative, these legal types.
It’s what they are paid for.
Lawyers are not the guardians of Lord Bingham’s Sacred Flame.
I have been laying the Greens most seats to an average of about 10/1, but a controversial war could see them actually do it. They’re 11/2 now, I thought that crazy, but maybe not
They have, to my view, an oversimplified stance on difficult geopolitical issues, but that is the kind of thing most people like, nice and straightforward, and despite the view of many on here the Greens seem to be generally positive regarded by a lot of people, or seen as harmless at any rate, so can easily pick up new voters once they get momentum.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
Britain is in NATO and the bases are sovereign British territory, not leased.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
One of the Acts in (I think) 1948 states that "Ireland is in no way a foreign country". The separation was entirely justified but was also traumatic and people needed time to work it out.
There is a shit-ton of Irish, Irish-descended or Irish-identified people in GB and the first party to suggest removing their vote involuntarily loses big time. There is a shit-ton of Irish, Irish-descended, Irish-identified, British, British-descended or British-identified people in NI and the first party to suggest removing their vote involuntarily (without a referendum) spends the rest of their life looking under their car with a mirror. Even Goodwin isn't that stupid.
Utter rubbish.
And yet true. Did you not know this?
Ireland Act 1949
Section 2: Republic of Ireland not a foreign country. Subsection (1): "...It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, and references in any Act of Parliament, other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, to foreigners, aliens, foreign countries, and foreign or foreign-built ships or aircraft shall be construed accordingly..."
Irish-identified people in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales)
"...White Irish is an ethnicity classification used in the census in the United Kingdom for England, Scotland and Wales. In the 2021 census, the White Irish population was 564,342 or 0.9% of Great Britain's total population..."
2) Tell everyone we weren't involved and hope they leave us alone.
3) oh dear, they didn't leave us alone. They're shooting missiles at us.
4) claim that the only way to stop this and protect British citizens is to destroy the missiles at source.
5) allow the Americans to use our bases to destroy the missiles at source.
6) refuse to help destroy the missiles at source, even though we just said destroying them at source is the only way to end the threat to British citizens.
7) tell everyone we're not involved and hope they'll leave us alone.
Correct approach.
Britain should stay as far as possible from the mad king's war because nobody knows what the plan is if such a thing exists and even if it does nobody knows whether that will still be the plan tomorrow.
When attacked as collateral from the said mad king's war the UK response can't really be nothing. But it should be the closest available option to nothing, which is what is described here.
2) Tell everyone we weren't involved and hope they leave us alone.
3) oh dear, they didn't leave us alone. They're shooting missiles at us.
4) claim that the only way to stop this and protect British citizens is to destroy the missiles at source.
5) allow the Americans to use our bases to destroy the missiles at source.
6) refuse to help destroy the missiles at source, even though we just said destroying them at source is the only way to end the threat to British citizens.
7) tell everyone we're not involved and hope they'll leave us alone.
Correct approach.
Britain should stay as far as possible from the mad king's war because nobody knows what the plan is if such a thing exists and even if it does nobody knows whether that will still be the plan tomorrow.
When attacked as collateral from the said mad king's war the UK response can't really be nothing. But it should be the closest available option to nothing, which is what is described here.
On the plus side The Madness of King Trump should be one heck of a movie in 30 years. I predict 10 Oscars.
The history of writing down thoughts and feelings could be tens of thousands of years older than previously believed, surprising archaeologists who made the discovery.
The researchers discerned patterns of meaning in lines, notches, dots, and crosses on objects like mammoth tusks as old as 45,000 years in caves in Germany.
Surely Labour MPs won't put up with Starmer joining this illegal invasion? At least Blair knew what he was doing albeit it ruined his reputation forever
If Iran has deliberately targeted an RAF base in Cyprus then the legal side becomes pretty straightforward.
Indeed, and draws in the entirety of NATO
It might come as a surprise but Cyprus isn’t in NATO . Turkey refuse to let them join .
Britain is in NATO and the bases are sovereign British territory, not leased.
They are therefore the only place in Britain where the Euro, rather than Pound Sterling, is legal tender.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
The history of writing down thoughts and feelings could be tens of thousands of years older than previously believed, surprising archaeologists who made the discovery.
The researchers discerned patterns of meaning in lines, notches, dots, and crosses on objects like mammoth tusks as old as 45,000 years in caves in Germany.
I'm on holiday at the moment and haven't been following this so I'm catching up, but why on earth are we having anything to do with this?
I can see that if Akrotiri has been attacked then we have a justification for taking action, but if it was in retaliation for 'support' then morally that undermines the case.Once again weak and subservient to a dangerous cretin in the White House. Starmer should go - I hope the Labour Party do the right thing.
And I say this as someone totally opposed to the Iranian regime. But this doesn't help, there is no plan beyond the USA deciding it's had enough and stopping firing. keep well away.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
Hermer, a frequent target in the press and often criticised for that very lack of political experience, has now had his moment. Starmer has taken his advice. The prime minister has drawn a distinction between defensive and offensive action, attempted to reassure the British public of the difference and published the legal thinking behind the action: all the while saying explicitly that he does not want a repeat of the mistakes of Iraq. He has also taken an approach of moving in lockstep with the other E3 countries (France and Germany) rather than the US.
Hermer, a frequent target in the press and often criticised for that very lack of political experience, has now had his moment. Starmer has taken his advice. The prime minister has drawn a distinction between defensive and offensive action, attempted to reassure the British public of the difference and published the legal thinking behind the action: all the while saying explicitly that he does not want a repeat of the mistakes of Iraq. He has also taken an approach of moving in lockstep with the other E3 countries (France and Germany) rather than the US.
How long will the distinction between “defensive” and offensive hold? If Iran strikes British military personnel or British bases in Cypus or elsewhere, Britain could soon find itself dragged in far deeper.
Genuinely shameful. The joke is basically nothing more sophisticated than “people with serious disabilities make it up.” That’s before they compare a disabled man, mocked his entire life, to Bill Cosby. Whole thing deserves to become infamous.
Second US tv show to imply that Tourette Syndrome is made up as part of their joke, while going OTT about big and brave those millionaire celebs have been having faced hearing a bad word.
Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 14h Refusing Trump permission to use British bases in Fairford Gloucestershire, Cyprus and Diego Garcia to mount a unilateral attack on Iran against international law takes some courage. Few mourn the murderous Ali Khamenei. But international law must be kept alive even in dark days
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
Comments
btw "All your bases are belong to us" might be a phrase uttered by Trump before long
In war situations and in many other matters evolve
All Governments tweak, amend, develop and have to be flexible to change.
Churchill made numerous changes in WW2, it was a strength
Idiotic right wing journalists use u turn for miniscule to major amendments that are exactly that
UK policy ike that of Iran, US, Israel. Everyone is changing
My disgust is not that he has changed policy but the policy he has changed. I think he's gone the wrong way when he could and should have followed Spain.
New: From tomorrow, all refugees arriving in Britain will only get temporary status.
It marks the start of Shabana Mahmood's radical law changes to asylum laws, which she is pressing ahead with despite a mounting backlash from MPs
https://x.com/DXW_KC/status/2028086953476784135
Other opinions are of course valid.
- Brits can't vote for Irish head of state (President) because Irish can't vote for the British head of state (the Monarch)
- Brits can't vote for Irish referenda (to change the Irish constitution) because Irish can't vote for British referenda (to change the British constitution)
Ireland uses referenda to change its constitution. I don't know if there's been a non-Constitution Irish referendumSumming up the British approach to Iran here:
1) US asks to use British bases, we say no.
2) Tell everyone we weren't involved and hope they leave us alone.
3) oh dear, they didn't leave us alone. They're shooting missiles at us.
4) claim that the only way to stop this and protect British citizens is to destroy the missiles at source.
5) allow the Americans to use our bases to destroy the missiles at source.
6) refuse to help destroy the missiles at source, even though we just said destroying them at source is the only way to end the threat to British citizens.
7) tell everyone we're not involved and hope they'll leave us alone.
The distinction shouldn't be hard to understand.
Its not one nor the other.
Const:
SNP: 34% (+2)
RFM: 18% (+1)
LAB: 14% (-6)
GRN: 11% (+2)
CON: 10% (=)
LDM: 10% (=)
Reg:
SNP: 28% (-1)
RFM: 19% (+1)
GRN: 16% (+6)
LAB: 14% (-7)
CON: 10% (=)
LDM: 10% (=)
ALBA: 1% (-2)
Via YouGov / Scottish Elections Study, 11-18 Feb.
Changes w/ 13-19 Jun.
SNP: 55 (-9)
RFM: 22 (+22)
GRN: 18 (+10)
LAB: 14 (-8)
LDM: 11 (+7)
CON: 9 (-22)
Changes w/ 2021.
Kinabalu
NW3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia
The ME bases are leased though, yes
They have said no to a ceasefire and will keep plugging away for now. The US was hoping for a pause point but it isnt happening so expect the air work to intensify from them. The Israelis on the other hand are flat out already knowing they have limited time in case Trump pulls the rug.
I've pointed out in posts in te recent days that it will be interesting to see if the Iranian missile response peters out after 2-3 days. They have other tools in the bag but a dramatic reduction of Iranian distance attack really does ease the issues for everyone else in this shooting match. As much as 24 hour media makes everything a big deal, in a full on conflict, the Iranian response so far hasn't been great or really effective in military terms.
The other thing I have mentioned is that the US military have prepared for weeks of conflict. The weight of that and indeed the Israelis in conventional conflict is just way too much for Iran in conventional warfare terms.
As regards the Brits stuck, largely in the UAE. Tourists evac yes, when you can.. Residents there, they can fuck off and wait in-situ
One other point, The Iranians havent really tried hard to shut the Straits of Hormuz or maybe they have and just plain can't but lets go with havent really tried hard. If that is so, the reason might be simple. the GCC will then deploy to attack Iranian assets. and thats just another headache.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/summary-of-the-uk-government-legal-position-the-legality-of-defensive-action-in-respect-of-iranian-regional-attacks
One thing is for sure - whatever the outcome, whatever the reason, and whatever the cause, Starmer will be blamed.
The UK aren't responding, they are allowing the US, if they pinky promise that they are only attacking for ultimately defensive purposes.
Starmer made it very clear, learned from Iraq, we aren't getting involved in attacking anybody in response.
The US/UK/Great/Little Satan thing was one of Khomeni’s signature pieces from his death-by-boredom speeches in the 80s.
https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/09/24/persepolis-now-looking-at-the-future-of-iran/
I never even considered that Khamenei might be assassinated - Iranian regime felt a lot more solid when I wrote this.
Hard to know who will become next supreme leader when the US and Israel can influence it with targeted assassinations. Don’t even know if Mojtaba Khamenei is still alive
> Hormuz is blockaded with tankers aflame
> All the airports are shutdown and the Iranians will make sure they stay that way
> Bases in Iraq, Qatar, Syria. Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait have been hit and continue to be hit
> Israel is being hit consistently, every few hours more get through
> Missiles are bing fired at USN ships, French bases, ABM radars
> God know what’s happening in Iran with reports of mass casualties in mill bases, bombings of hospitals and 2000+ targets struck
> Hezbollah have started shooting again
I don't think this is ending in a week, its an actual war and people seem to be treating it like a SMO. UK forces should be nowhere near this.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
https://cyprus-mail.com/2026/03/02/security-threat-declared-at-uk-cyprus-bases
For defensive purposes, Cyprus is most useful
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2028247973721739638
@EdwardJDavey
·
43m
No matter how the Prime Minister tries to redefine offensive as defensive, this is a slippery slope. He must not let Trump drag Britain into another prolonged war in the Middle East.
Starmer must come to Parliament tomorrow, set out the legal case in full, and give MPs a vote.
https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/2028242346219856039
Its no secret that Ukrainian experts have been drafted in to give advice , via European allies, to the Gulf states. Problem is you can transfer knowledge of tactics but ya cant just get the weapons designed to provide layered defence in days. That leaves electronic countermeasures given Iranian drones use commercial satnav and occasionally mobile SIMS for guidance and control.
The launchers are a pain because unlike proper ballistic missiles you can launch these off the back of a flat bed with the appropriate rail kit so targeting is difficult.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZlzEdfQArx8
Lawyers are not the guardians of Lord Bingham’s Sacred Flame.
Britain should stay as far as possible from the mad king's war because nobody knows what the plan is if such a thing exists and even if it does nobody knows whether that will still be the plan tomorrow.
When attacked as collateral from the said mad king's war the UK response can't really be nothing. But it should be the closest available option to nothing, which is what is described here.
The history of writing down thoughts and feelings could be tens of thousands of years older than previously believed, surprising archaeologists who made the discovery.
The researchers discerned patterns of meaning in lines, notches, dots, and crosses on objects like mammoth tusks as old as 45,000 years in caves in Germany.
Traditionally historians date the first written words to proto-cuneiform scripts made around 5,000 years ago in ancient Iraq, or Mesopotamia.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgknj7yyv2o
I can see that if Akrotiri has been attacked then we have a justification for taking action, but if it was in retaliation for 'support' then morally that undermines the case.Once again weak and subservient to a dangerous cretin in the White House. Starmer should go - I hope the Labour Party do the right thing.
And I say this as someone totally opposed to the Iranian regime. But this doesn't help, there is no plan beyond the USA deciding it's had enough and stopping firing. keep well away.
Gideon Rachman
@gideonrachman
Interesting that @JDVance still has not tweeted in favour of the Iran war. It’s almost as if he has misgivings about it
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
Hermer, a frequent target in the press and often criticised for that very lack of political experience, has now had his moment. Starmer has taken his advice. The prime minister has drawn a distinction between defensive and offensive action, attempted to reassure the British public of the difference and published the legal thinking behind the action: all the while saying explicitly that he does not want a repeat of the mistakes of Iraq. He has also taken an approach of moving in lockstep with the other E3 countries (France and Germany) rather than the US.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2026/03/can-keir-starmer-avoid-the-mistakes-of-iraq
How long will the distinction between “defensive” and offensive hold? If Iran strikes British military personnel or British bases in Cypus or elsewhere, Britain could soon find itself dragged in far deeper.
Armed rioters attempted to seize the U.S. Consulate in Pakistan. U.S. Marines opened fire, leaving 22 attackers dead.
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/2028259031924474042?s=20
Second US tv show to imply that Tourette Syndrome is made up as part of their joke, while going OTT about big and brave those millionaire celebs have been having faced hearing a bad word.
Will Hutton
@williamnhutton
·
14h
Refusing Trump permission to use British bases in Fairford Gloucestershire, Cyprus and Diego Garcia to mount a unilateral attack on Iran against international law takes some courage. Few mourn the murderous Ali Khamenei. But international law must be kept alive even in dark days
https://x.com/williamnhutton/status/2028051728742908194
Or the activity is at a different base.
No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.