Skip to content

Will leaders be Hungary for the endorsement of Trump? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,173
edited April 12 in General
Will leaders be Hungary for the endorsement of Trump? – politicalbetting.com

Orban concedes defeat. The support of Trump, Vance, Putin, Lavrov, Weidel, Milei, Le Pen, Fico, Babis and many others could not overcome Hungarian anger at a stagnant, corrupt regimehttps://t.co/yfMCWUFk34

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809
    Were any other leaders keen on his endorsement? Several right wing leaders have seen very good chances evaporate from the Trump connection even though they did not ask for or receive endorsement from him.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,490
    I think they feel he is more of a Pest.
  • Wales focus groups are very interesting.

    Doesn’t really suggest a massive Reform win on the scale of what they were picking up when Johnson was at his height.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Can we get JD Vance to come and campaign for RefUK?

    Hey Scott you made an original post! More please.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,996
    Farage even talking about prosecuting Boris will not help him win Con/Ref waverers.

    Whatever people think of Boris, very, very few people think he should be prosecuted.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,323
    Can’t JD Vance come over to the UK to throw his support behind Farage !

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 6,305
    Curse of the new thread..
    Pro_Rata said:

    MikeL said:

    Tisza now 138!

    72% counted

    They are level with Fidesz on the proportional vote, 43 seats each, a balancing system for which the votes needed to win constituencies are subtracted. Says something about the size of the majorities that Tisza's excess votes from winning most constituencies are on a par with Fidesz's from winning very few.

    Let's just say Labour would have been heavily mullered on the proportional vote in that system.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809
    Gaussian said:

    Respect to Orban for conceding without further ado. Something to learn from for his chum in the White House.

    Shouldn't be a surprise in a fair system. But it unfortunately is.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 916
    MikeL said:

    Farage even talking about prosecuting Boris will not help him win Con/Ref waverers.

    Whatever people think of Boris, very, very few people think he should be prosecuted.

    What for? Fake bad haircuts?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,181

    Wales focus groups are very interesting.

    Doesn’t really suggest a massive Reform win on the scale of what they were picking up when Johnson was at his height.

    Plaid Greens will sweep through Wales
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,798
    Ha Ha Ha Trump! Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,398
    Here's hoping the voters of Texas rebel against Trump's endorsement for the Republican senate candidate.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,858
    MikeL said:

    Farage even talking about prosecuting Boris will not help him win Con/Ref waverers.

    Whatever people think of Boris, very, very few people think he should be prosecuted.

    Well, not for that at least...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,580
    Gaussian said:

    MikeL said:

    Farage even talking about prosecuting Boris will not help him win Con/Ref waverers.

    Whatever people think of Boris, very, very few people think he should be prosecuted.

    What for? Fake bad haircuts?
    The Boriswave.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,878
    edited April 12
    When did Trump or Vance ever endorse Polievre? Polievre is anti Putin unlike Orban too.

    Unlike the Liberals in Canada or Labor in Australia who won on anti Trump momentum, the winner in Hungary is clearly centre right, just not as nationalist right as Orban is. Indeed Magyar was once in Orban's party
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809
    Scott_xP said:

    Can we get JD Vance to come and campaign for RefUK?

    I don't think he can set foot in Europe without throwing up in disgust, so may not be likely. Hungary was a special case.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,588
    Unclassy tweets by Robert Ford there.

    Looks personal.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,580
    I see Ireland's Rory McIlroy is having an Arsenal like choke.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,878
    edited April 12

    Wales focus groups are very interesting.

    Doesn’t really suggest a massive Reform win on the scale of what they were picking up when Johnson was at his height.

    Nor UK wide, Boris and the Conservatives won in 2019 a voteshare of 43%, Reform even in England are polling about 15% below that
  • Unclassy tweets by Robert Ford there.

    Looks personal.

    Didn’t you once call for a particular restaurant to be closed down because they served vegan options
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809
    HYUFD said:

    When did Trump or Vance ever endorse Polievre? Polievre is anti Putin unlike Orban too.

    He might have even criticised him once. Didn't help.

    But Pollievre is a dead man walking - he lost from a big lead once, was given another go, and yet MPs keep quitting on him. Plus he does still have Trumpists in his party's support, so he cannot shake the connection.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,580

    Unclassy tweets by Robert Ford there.

    Looks personal.

    It is, Matt Goodwin really slags him off, they used to be good friends (they even wrote a book together.)

    You have call out bigotry when you see it.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 6,305
    ydoethur said:

    I think they feel he is more of a Pest.

    Orban wouldn't have got away with it even without those Pesci kids
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809

    Unclassy tweets by Robert Ford there.

    Looks personal.

    It might well be - what is twitter for if not for expressing personal beefs?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,464
    Still a few hard right twats skulking in the capitals of Europe.

    But hopefully this is the beginning of the end.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,363
    HYUFD said:

    When did Trump or Vance ever endorse Polievre? Polievre is anti Putin unlike Orban too.

    Unlike the Liberals in Canada or Labor in Australia who won on anti Trump momentum, the winner in Hungary is clearly centre right, just not as nationalist right as Orban is

    It’s not about right or left, it’s about being Putin-adjacent or not (and nowadays Trump adjacent).

    Wise hard-right leaders through history have known not to hitch their wagon too closely to divisive foreign extremists. Meloni’s exercising that judgment now, as Franco did in the 40s.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,588

    Unclassy tweets by Robert Ford there.

    Looks personal.

    It is, Matt Goodwin really slags him off, they used to be good friends (they even wrote a book together.)

    Very sad when good friends fall out like that.

    Not edifying for either of them.
  • kle4 said:

    Unclassy tweets by Robert Ford there.

    Looks personal.

    It might well be - what is twitter for if not for expressing personal beefs?
    Matthew Goodwin is the perfect example of why social media is a disaster for humanity.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,490
    Pro_Rata said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think they feel he is more of a Pest.

    Orban wouldn't have got away with it even without those Pesci kids
    It is Buda flesh wound.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,904
    kle4 said:

    Were any other leaders keen on his endorsement? Several right wing leaders have seen very good chances evaporate from the Trump connection even though they did not ask for or receive endorsement from him.

    Parochially:

    NEW: Anas Sarwar has said the Scottish Government should embrace business with Donald Trump 'regardless of what people think of his politics'

    🗣️ 'President Trump’s affinity for Scotland is real, regardless of what people think of his politics'

    https://x.com/scotnational/status/1909183702657101869?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,798
    Godwin identifying himself with Roger Scruton is vomit inducing.

    Scruton is rightly idolised in Eastern Europe for the tangible support he gave to dissidents resisting Soviet rule. He would never have identified with Putin.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,983

    I see Ireland's Rory McIlroy is having an Arsenal like choke.

    Whereas England's Justin Rose is about to take the lead...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,398
    Rose leads the Masters.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,181

    I see Ireland's Rory McIlroy is having an Arsenal like choke.

    Whereas England's Justin Rose is about to take the lead...
    Rory 1 behind now on -10
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,490
    Back down to 137. But still looking fairly comfortable for 2/3.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,848

    kle4 said:

    Were any other leaders keen on his endorsement? Several right wing leaders have seen very good chances evaporate from the Trump connection even though they did not ask for or receive endorsement from him.

    Parochially:

    NEW: Anas Sarwar has said the Scottish Government should embrace business with Donald Trump 'regardless of what people think of his politics'

    🗣️ 'President Trump’s affinity for Scotland is real, regardless of what people think of his politics'

    https://x.com/scotnational/status/1909183702657101869?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
    Trump's affinity for politics is less real.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 6,356
    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?

    I don't think there's much evidence that Trump affected the Hungarian elections either way.

    This time series shows that Magyar's party has led for about 10 points+/-MOE for the last year.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/hungary/

    Most foreign political endorsements seem to have about as much impact as celebrity endorsements.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,398
    81.49 counted - down to 137
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,490
    edited April 12
    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
  • Gaussian said:

    Respect to Orban for conceding without further ado. Something to learn from for his chum in the White House.

    I said on the last thread that of course Orban would concede

    He’s an oaf. Not a fascist
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,060
    edited April 12
    It's slipped back to 137 with 82% counted.

    Tisza can afford to lose another four.

    In one seat, Tisza is ahead by just 11 votes out of 34,000 with 88% counted.

    There are six seats where the lead is less than 1,000. Tisza has the precarious lead in four of these six.
  • biggles said:

    https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2043401320053252449

    NEW: Nigel Farage will tomorrow pledge a national inquiry into the ‘Boriswave’

    It would mainly investigate Boris Johnson and Priti Patel over migrants entering the UK between 2021-2024

    Party sources say the inquiry would consider “whether their gross negligence in office amounted to criminal conduct”

    The Trump playbook = paint your enemies as criminals.

    C***
    Yup. Zero mystery here. Boris was just quite relaxed about immigration. It’s just that his voters weren’t, and he may have promised them one or two things he never meant.
    Boris never promised low migration.

    Indeed, he explicitly axed the "tens of thousands" pledge that Cameron and May both made.

    Its just that others projected onto him views that he never expressed and promises he never made.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,858
    ydoethur said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    ydoethur said:

    I think they feel he is more of a Pest.

    Orban wouldn't have got away with it even without those Pesci kids
    It is Buda flesh wound.
    It is a goulash defeat for Orban.
  • Leon said:

    Gaussian said:

    Respect to Orban for conceding without further ado. Something to learn from for his chum in the White House.

    I said on the last thread that of course Orban would concede

    He’s an oaf. Not a fascist
    Had he lost by only a few seats he might not have conceded.

    But a blowout like this?

    Good night for First Past the Post.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 6,356
    edited April 12
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
    Yes I was thinking of the swap loan last year.
  • Still a few hard right twats skulking in the capitals of Europe.

    But hopefully this is the beginning of the end.

    Delusional. Unless you think the immigration, asylum, Islamist, demographic problems are all going to magically disappear, then no, the populist right is not going anywhere

    Indeed, I suspect that with the crisis heading our way, politics is about to get even MORE polarised - both ways. With voters going hard left as well as hard right. We see it here in the UK with the rise of the ridiculous Islamo-Greens
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,591
    Back out to 138 now.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,996
    Back to 138

    85% counted
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,398
    Back up to 138
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,363
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
    Argentina is also a very very different country, notably not in Putin’s or Trump’s backyard.
  • MikeL said:

    Back to 138

    85% counted

    Orban is almost perfectly Snookered.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,490

    MikeL said:

    Back to 138

    85% counted

    Orban is almost perfectly Snookered.
    He will be forgotten. Mythologised, perhaps, by a few supporters in remote valleys reflecting on their glory days.

    Just an Orban legend.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,789
    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Back to 138

    85% counted

    Orban is almost perfectly Snookered.
    He will be forgotten. Mythologised, perhaps, by a few supporters in remote valleys reflecting on their glory days.

    Just an Orban legend.
    I came up with that months ago!
  • MelonB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
    Argentina is also a very very different country, notably not in Putin’s or Trump’s backyard.
    And has a history of its own authoritarian leaders to reject.

    Milei is a breath of fresh air compared to the usual Peronists.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,547
    MelonB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
    Argentina is also a very very different country, notably not in Putin’s or Trump’s backyard.
    And Milei's policies are very different from either Trump or Orban
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,659
    Scott_xP said:

    Can we get JD Vance to come and campaign for RefUK?

    Maybe Vance could apply his Midas touch to American politics? He is heir apparent after all...

    (Appropriately autocorrected Vance -> cancer when I typed it in just now)
  • Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,231
    edited April 12
    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,490
    edited April 12

    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Back to 138

    85% counted

    Orban is almost perfectly Snookered.
    He will be forgotten. Mythologised, perhaps, by a few supporters in remote valleys reflecting on their glory days.

    Just an Orban legend.
    I came up with that months ago!
    Are you claiming to be the Viktor of this contest?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,323
    “Europe’s heart is beating stronger in Hungary tonight.”

    “Hungary has chosen Europe. Europe has always chosen Hungary. Together, we are stronger. A country reclaims its European path. The Union grows stronger.”

    What lovely words from UVDL .

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809

    MelonB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
    Argentina is also a very very different country, notably not in Putin’s or Trump’s backyard.
    And Milei's policies are very different from either Trump or Orban
    It's easy to call people the Trump of X, maybe they could even lean into it in style, but whether he's done ok or not (I have no idea) Milei seems to have some fundamental economic ideals which are not mutable in the way any of Trump's policies would be.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,464
    Leon said:

    Still a few hard right twats skulking in the capitals of Europe.

    But hopefully this is the beginning of the end.

    Delusional. Unless you think the immigration, asylum, Islamist, demographic problems are all going to magically disappear, then no, the populist right is not going anywhere

    Indeed, I suspect that with the crisis heading our way, politics is about to get even MORE polarised - both ways. With voters going hard left as well as hard right. We see it here in the UK with the rise of the ridiculous Islamo-Greens
    I'm not expecting these movements to go away. Just diminish so that they no longer hold power anywhere in Europe.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,659
    edited April 12
    I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,878

    MelonB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
    Argentina is also a very very different country, notably not in Putin’s or Trump’s backyard.
    And Milei's policies are very different from either Trump or Orban
    Milei is an economic libertarian Thatcherite, not a white nationalist like Trump or Orban
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 56,858

    MelonB said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "Pierre Poilievre will attest I get the feeling the intervention of Donald Trump in foreign election is sub-optimal for the sides he wants to win"

    Will Javier Milei confirm that?.

    He came to power before Trump2 and the tariffs/Greenland/Venezuela/Iran/Epstein clusterfucks.
    Argentina is also a very very different country, notably not in Putin’s or Trump’s backyard.
    And has a history of its own authoritarian leaders to reject.

    Milei is a breath of fresh air compared to the usual Peronists.
    Milei is very different to Orban, Trump or Putin.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,789
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Back to 138

    85% counted

    Orban is almost perfectly Snookered.
    He will be forgotten. Mythologised, perhaps, by a few supporters in remote valleys reflecting on their glory days.

    Just an Orban legend.
    I came up with that months ago!
    Are you claiming to be the Viktor of this conquest?
    Did you hear about the psephologist from Hungary who moved to a house by a lake?

    He made sure it was Ballot-on.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809
    Leon said:

    Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46

    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime

    That could require being in for the long haul.

    If all that was offered as packages to the government, one wonders what Trump's cut was proposed to be.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,789

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Literally dickless??
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,490

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    MikeL said:

    Back to 138

    85% counted

    Orban is almost perfectly Snookered.
    He will be forgotten. Mythologised, perhaps, by a few supporters in remote valleys reflecting on their glory days.

    Just an Orban legend.
    I came up with that months ago!
    Are you claiming to be the Viktor of this conquest?
    Did you hear about the psephologist from Hungary who moved to a house by a lake?

    He made sure it was Ballot-on.
    I'm sure he made his mark.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,580
    Leon said:

    Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46

    From somebody with 5,000 Twitter followers, I think we need a link to a reputable news source.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,231
    Leon said:

    Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46

    *Spits out wine*
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,464

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Just as long as you say railway station and number of people, I'm with you, comrade.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,659

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
  • FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.

    We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,231
    ...

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.

    We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
    So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,464
    FF43 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
    How can literally mean "not literally"?



  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,627

    ...

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.

    We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
    So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
    It means s/he wetted themselves

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,231
    geoffw said:

    ...

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.

    We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
    So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
    It means s/he wetted themselves

    It does, but Barty and FF43 would argue otherwise, so what do they think it means?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,878
    FF43 said:

    I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?

    I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,983

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
    How can literally mean "not literally"?

    How can inflammable mean flammable?
  • ...

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Words absolutely can mean both things, whether you like it or not.

    We use context to ascertain intended meaning all the time.
    So what does 'Peter Kay was so funny I literally pissed myself' mean?
    Given context, I would assume it was being humorously used to mean figuratively, and did not literally involve someone urinating on themselves.

    Are you going to ban sarcasm and all other times when words are used to convey the opposite of their literal meaning too?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,491

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
    How can literally mean "not literally"?

    How can inflammable mean flammable?
    How can "woman" include people with penises?

    You got to move the the times, daddy-o.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,060

    Leon said:

    Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46

    From somebody with 5,000 Twitter followers, I think we need a link to a reputable news source.
    Jess labels herself a Zionist Firebrand. I wonder how she got access to the phone call between Trump and bin Salman with all that detail. Who benefits?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,809

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
    How can literally mean "not literally"?

    Crazy modern usage when people use it to express emphasis and don't use the word literally, well, literally.

    Unless there's a counter reformation we'll need to come up with a new word to express the same feeling.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,464

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
    How can literally mean "not literally"?

    How can inflammable mean flammable?
    Because it isn't unflammable.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,231
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?

    I don't remember Ceausescu winning 4 elections like Orban and Orban has conceded this election tonight while Ceaucescu was shot by firing squad after a revolution. Even now Orban's party still got 37% of the vote in defeat
    I know nothing about Orban. But UVDL crowing about a member state's election results isn't a particularly good look.
  • Leon said:

    Still a few hard right twats skulking in the capitals of Europe.

    But hopefully this is the beginning of the end.

    Delusional. Unless you think the immigration, asylum, Islamist, demographic problems are all going to magically disappear, then no, the populist right is not going anywhere

    Indeed, I suspect that with the crisis heading our way, politics is about to get even MORE polarised - both ways. With voters going hard left as well as hard right. We see it here in the UK with the rise of the ridiculous Islamo-Greens
    I'm not expecting these movements to go away. Just diminish so that they no longer hold power anywhere in Europe.
    You are going to be very disappointed by the next few years
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 992
    FF43 said:

    I can't remember last time a politician's downfall was so universally celebrated. Maybe Ceausescu?

    Trump in 2020?
  • FF43 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
    How can literally mean "not literally"?



    Quite easily.

    Words are used to mean their inverse quite often in English.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,398

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    Literally dickless??
    Yes it's true, this man has no dick.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7OJR9ALVnc
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,520
    @russbengtson.bsky.social‬

    they should paint little people on the side of jd vance like he was a ww2 bomber
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,491

    Leon said:

    Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46

    *Spits out wine*
    I don't buy the Ashdod thing for a second: it's a container port that is already operating at capacity. It would be absurd to try and make it into an oil export terminal too.

    It would be much easier to create a new port, than take an existing busy import terminal.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,464
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Britain could adopt single market rules without MPs’ vote as part of UK-EU reset

    Exclusive: Ministers planning new legislation for alignment without full parliamentary scrutiny if in national interest


    Ministers are planning to fundamentally reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with new legislation that could result in the UK signing up to EU single market rules without a normal parliamentary vote.

    In a major development in the prime minister’s push for closer ties with the continent in after the Iran war, the Guardian understands ministers are bracing to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

    After weeks of Donald Trump’s war with Iran that have exposed the fragility of the UK’s damaged special relationship with the US, ministers argue the move will add billions to the UK economy and to help temper the cost of the conflict and boost sluggish productivity.

    A new bill, which will bring into force the food and drink trade deal with the EU, will contain powers enabling the government to dynamically align with Europe on areas where it has already made agreements. But it will also allow the UK to quickly implement evolving single market rules if it determines it is in the national interest, without having to face full parliamentary scrutiny each time.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/12/britain-single-market-rules-uk-eu-reset

    Starmer must go ahead.

    Turn GE in to a closer integration with Europe Poll

    Watch Reform and Tories eat each other apart

    Watch Tories literally implode.

    Put real pressure on Green vote, their core vote will want it but will realise only a Labour led Government can deliver it.

    Similar pressure on LDs

    By 2029 seriously possible could be 60 : 40 in favour of closer ntegration.

    Even higher if Trump stops democratic process in US
    "Literally"?
    "Literally" can be a contranym and actually mean "figuratively", but I think he means "actually", figuratively speaking.
    No it can't.
    The English language is an evolving thing that changes as people use it differently. We lost the battle on this one. Literally is now often used simply as an indicator of emphasis, rather than for its prior, literal, meaning.
    That's because more people are getting it wrong.

    You can say that you think the fact that more people are ill-educated should mean that their mistake enters the lexicon, I say otherwise.

    It's really as simple as that.
    You accept that language has changed over time, right? That we no longer use words the same way, spell them the same way, pronounce them the same way?

    So I'm not sure who has declared you the arbiter of the English language, a one man Academie Francais.

    I'm personally sympathetic to specific example you're complaining about here, but you seem to be just denying that language can change because you personally don't like it, and that's not stubborn insistence to the 'correct' way of doing things, it's just ignoring how languages work.

    I assumed this was just a bit, but I guess not.
    The language has not changed. The meaning of the word has not been lost in the sands of time over centuries or decades; we have ample resources where the correct meaning is explained.

    That is quite different from an evolution of the language. I see this as more like the modern mullet - a silly trend that will clearly be seen as rather embarrassing when looking back. Rather than changing the entire meaning of a useful word (is there now no word that means 'literally' according to you?) people who make the mistake should just be corrected - it is just a feature of our current political miasma that we don't feel we can correct people any more because it might upset them.
    Literally still means literally. It just means other things too. You have to use context to work out which. This is one of the things that can make English a difficult, but fun language.

    Perhaps prime will find a different way to qualify literally to emphasise that they mean literally literally? I guess we'll find out, in time.
    Therein lying the issue. If the word retains its original meaning, that stands in opposition to its meaning when used in error. The word cannot mean both things. Disinterested (another error) can mean both unbiased and uninterested for the most part, because the instances when the word is used are usually different. Literally isn't like that. In fact, what even is its meaning when used in error? Really but not.

    The language has not changed, people are just being dickless about correcting others because they don't want to appear behind the times. That's fine, go ahead. I will continue to say it is wrong, because it is.
    The word literally does mean both things.
    How can literally mean "not literally"?

    Crazy modern usage when people use it to express emphasis and don't use the word literally, well, literally.

    Unless there's a counter reformation we'll need to come up with a new word to express the same feeling.
    We have a perfectly good word to express emphasis. Fucking.

  • Leon said:

    Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46

    From somebody with 5,000 Twitter followers, I think we need a link to a reputable news source.
    We do. Which is why I caveatted it. But it is certainly interesting
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,090

    I see Ireland's Rory McIlroy is having an Arsenal like choke.

    Whereas England's Justin Rose is about to take the lead...
    I wanted an early night.

    I have a meeting tomorrow morning at 8am.

    At 9am I need to sack the person who scheduled the 8am meeting.
    If you sleep in does he get a repreive?
  • Leon said:

    Make of this what you will



    NEW: An urgent phone call from Saudi Crown Prince MBS changed Trump’s decision at the last minute:

    President Trump had intended to declare a complete ceasefire and end the fighting against Iran in exchange for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz.

    However, a tense phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dramatically changed the plan.

    According to White House sources, bin Salman begged Trump not to stop the war:
    “This is a historic opportunity – we must finish the job and weaken the Iranian regime once and for all.”

    In exchange for continuing the fighting, Saudi Arabia offered an unprecedented package of economic and strategic incentives.

    Key points in the offer:
    • $100 billion transferred directly to finance American war costs
    • Full and immediate normalization with Israel after the fall of the regime
    • Direct oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia to the port of Ashdod, turning Israel into a major energy hub
    • Investment of approximately $1 trillion in the U.S. economy + purchase of $500 billion in American weapons
    • Establishment of a new regional defense alliance, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other moderate countries under an American umbrella
    • Joint naval force to control the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb
    • Funding of strategic U.S. bases in Israel
    • Joint reconstruction fund for a post-regime “secular and moderate” Iran

    In the end, Trump announced a temporary ceasefire, not an end to the war as was expected.

    Senior diplomatic sources describe the move as “a historic turning point” marking the beginning of a new regional order.“

    https://x.com/jess_ih_ka/status/2043340820607279572?s=46

    From somebody with 5,000 Twitter followers, I think we need a link to a reputable news source.
    Yep, seems like a wishlist not reality.

    If something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
This discussion has been closed.