I know we're not supposed to make fun of those less fortunate than ourselves - and, let's face it, you have to be very unfortunate indeed to be as stupid Nadine Dorries - but, really? She's complaining that the deal being offered is no good because we will end up with no MEPs? What planet is this woman on?
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ag,o ? Cheers.
Your comment was a troll comment telling me to disappear.
You are a sad little troll. Get lost.
At least this is nicer than the message you just sent me calling me a see you next Tuesday. Lovely chap.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ago ? Cheers.
I’ve just removed it
@Stig Couldn't handle it and called in the big guns I see!
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
Don't need to sign in to see the ft article I don't think, I could see it and have never had an ft account.
Also the city is a vast segment, just because one small part can see money to be made, doesn't mean it's true for all. The Swiss for example have a very specific deal to ensure their financial sector works within the EU and they had to become part of Schengen as part of that deal, we're going to have to accept something many Brexiters want to give our financial sector the access they currently enjoy.
So Mr Randy , you still haven't explained how the Guardian article proves JRM and Leadsom, will profit financially from Brexit.
Once again for clarity, I'm not disputing your assertion, or trying to be awkward. It's just that the Guardian article provides no evidence to me. Yes they have overseas/offshore business, but that in itself doesn't prove they stand to profit. I'm quite sure someone can explain, I'm just wanting to understand these "assertions".
No worries, take a bit of hunting to find an article with actual detail on how JRM will.profit, rather than just the assertion he will.
FWIW I still think May has a chance of getting her deal through the commons.
I agree SHG, particularly if they change some of the 7 page ‘political intent’ wording. The ERG and co. are in severe danger of shooting themselves in the foot and their credibility with the public is nowhere near as high as they would like to believe it is.
I would still put her chance of getting the deal through the commons at less than 50%. She may well get the public on her side but I still can’t see how she’ll get the numbers. Maybe the DUP will have a change of heart but I can’t see the JRM crowd changing their minds. That would leave her relying on some Labour centrists and/or some SNP votes - at this stage it doesn’t seem likely but maybe it could change.
Can’t see there being a further referendum and, even less probably a general election so, when push comes to shove, how many MPs will vote this down preferring a no deal WTO Brexit?
Maybe the sentiment, come the vote, will be ‘we are where we are and this is better than no deal. Besides which it’s only a placeholder for the full EU trade deal’.
My ideal would be another vote but, failing that, I’d go along with this hopefully paving the way for a Norway style agreement. Wouldn’t please the hard brexiteers but how many of them truly are there? Certainly less than 52% and probably (and importantly) less than 50%.
When threatened with the possibility of losing their seats, the minds of many Tory backbenchers will become refocused. May will attempt to buy off the DUP with promises but it’s hard to see it working without a shift by the EU which won’t happen. Labour will three line whip but Hoey, Field and a few others will probably vote with the government. Scottish Tories will fall into line and SNP will vote against as will Lib Dem’s, Greens and Wales.
It’s going to be fagpaper thin with all still to play for. Can’t see 48 letters to be honest. ERG will be seriously damaged if they don’t hit the mark. All their cred will be shot. Boris is being worryingly quiet.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ag,o ? Cheers.
Your comment was a troll comment telling me to disappear.
You are a sad little troll. Get lost.
At least this is nicer than the message you just sent me calling me a see you next Tuesday. Lovely chap.
FWIW I still think May has a chance of getting her deal through the commons.
I agree SHG, particularly if they change some of the 7 page ‘political intent’ wording. The ERG and co. are in severe danger of shooting themselves in the foot and their credibility with the public is nowhere near as high as they would like to believe it is.
I would still put her chance of getting the deal through the commons at less than 50%. She may well get the public on her side but I still can’t see how she’ll get the numbers. Maybe the DUP will have a change of heart but I can’t see the JRM crowd changing their minds. That would leave her relying on some Labour centrists and/or some SNP votes - at this stage it doesn’t seem likely but maybe it could change.
Can’t see there being a further referendum and, even less probably a general election so, when push comes to shove, how many MPs will vote this down preferring a no deal WTO Brexit?
Maybe the sentiment, come the vote, will be ‘we are where we are and this is better than no deal. Besides which it’s only a placeholder for the full EU trade deal’.
My ideal would be another vote but, failing that, I’d go along with this hopefully paving the way for a Norway style agreement. Wouldn’t please the hard brexiteers but how many of them truly are there? Certainly less than 52% and probably (and importantly) less than 50%.
When threatened with the possibility of losing their seats, the minds of many Tory backbenchers will become refocused. May will attempt to buy off the DUP with promises but it’s hard to see it working without a shift by the EU which won’t happen. Labour will three line whip but Hoey, Field and a few others will probably vote with the government. Scottish Tories will fall into line and SNP will vote against as will Lib Dem’s, Greens and Wales.
It’s going to be fagpaper thin with all still to play for. Can’t see 48 letters to be honest. ERG will be seriously damaged if they don’t hit the mark. All their cred will be shot. Boris is being worryingly quiet.
FWIW I still think May has a chance of getting her deal through the commons.
I agree SHG, particularly if they change some of the 7 page ‘political intent’ wording. The ERG and co. are in severe danger of shooting themselves in the foot and their credibility with the public is nowhere near as high as they would like to believe it is.
I would still put her chance of getting the deal through the commons at less than 50%. She may well get the public on her side but I still can’t see how she’ll get the numbers. Maybe the DUP will have a change of heart but I can’t see the JRM crowd changing their minds. That would leave her relying on some Labour centrists and/or some SNP votes - at this stage it doesn’t seem likely but maybe it could change.
Can’t see there being a further referendum and, even less probably a general election so, when push comes to shove, how many MPs will vote this down preferring a no deal WTO Brexit?
Maybe the sentiment, come the vote, will be ‘we are where we are and this is better than no deal. Besides which it’s only a placeholder for the full EU trade deal’.
My ideal would be another vote but, failing that, I’d go along with this hopefully paving the way for a Norway style agreement. Wouldn’t please the hard brexiteers but how many of them truly are there? Certainly less than 52% and probably (and importantly) less than 50%.
When threatened with the possibility of losing their seats, the minds of many Tory backbenchers will become refocused. May will attempt to buy off the DUP with promises but it’s hard to see it working without a shift by the EU which won’t happen. Labour will three line whip but Hoey, Field and a few others will probably vote with the government. Scottish Tories will fall into line and SNP will vote against as will Lib Dem’s, Greens and Wales.
It’s going to be fagpaper thin with all still to play for. Can’t see 48 letters to be honest. ERG will be seriously damaged if they don’t hit the mark. All their cred will be shot. Boris is being worryingly quiet.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ago ? Cheers.
FWIW I still think May has a chance of getting her deal through the commons.
I agree SHG, particularly if they change some of the 7 page ‘political intent’ wording. The ERG and co. are in severe danger of shooting themselves in the foot and their credibility with the public is nowhere near as high as they would like to believe it is.
I would still put her chance of getting the deal through the commons at less than 50%. She may well get the public on her side but I still can’t see how she’ll get the numbers. Maybe the DUP will have a change of heart but I can’t see the JRM crowd changing their minds. That would leave her relying on some Labour centrists and/or some SNP votes - at this stage it doesn’t seem likely but maybe it could change.
Can’t see there being a further referendum and, even less probably a general election so, when push comes to shove, how many MPs will vote this down preferring a no deal WTO Brexit?
Maybe the sentiment, come the vote, will be ‘we are where we are and this is better than no deal. Besides which it’s only a placeholder for the full EU trade deal’.
My ideal would be another vote but, failing that, I’d go along with this hopefully paving the way for a Norway style agreement. Wouldn’t please the hard brexiteers but how many of them truly are there? Certainly less than 52% and probably (and importantly) less than 50%.
When threatened with the possibility of losing their seats, the minds of many Tory backbenchers will become refocused. May will attempt to buy off the DUP with promises but it’s hard to see it working without a shift by the EU which won’t happen. Labour will three line whip but Hoey, Field and a few others will probably vote with the government. Scottish Tories will fall into line and SNP will vote against as will Lib Dem’s, Greens and Wales.
It’s going to be fagpaper thin with all still to play for. Can’t see 48 letters to be honest. ERG will be seriously damaged if they don’t hit the mark. All their cred will be shot. Boris is being worryingly quiet.
Unfortunately that is one of the possible outcomes I see. There are other possibilities though, anything could happen.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ag,o ? Cheers.
Your comment was a troll comment telling me to disappear.
You are a sad little troll. Get lost.
At least this is nicer than the message you just sent me calling me a see you next Tuesday. Lovely chap.
Cabbles can you remove this one as well please ? Plus all the other one he's flagged in the last hour, including the one you've already removed. There are 4 now. Also, can you block him sending me abusive posts ?
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
Don't need to sign in to see the ft article I don't think, I could see it and have never had an ft account.
Also the city is a vast segment, just because one small part can see money to be made, doesn't mean it's true for all. The Swiss for example have a very specific deal to ensure their financial sector works within the EU and they had to become part of Schengen as part of that deal, we're going to have to accept something many Brexiters want to give our financial sector the access they currently enjoy.
So Mr Randy , you still haven't explained how the Guardian article proves JRM and Leadsom, will profit financially from Brexit.
Once again for clarity, I'm not disputing your assertion, or trying to be awkward. It's just that the Guardian article provides no evidence to me. Yes they have overseas/offshore business, but that in itself doesn't prove they stand to profit. I'm quite sure someone can explain, I'm just wanting to understand these "assertions".
No worries, take a bit of hunting to find an article with actual detail on how JRM will.profit, rather than just the assertion he will.
Thanks randy andy. I understand now. It's an assumed profit that he will make as he's a backer/owner of an emerging markets company. If we do less business with the EU, we will do more business with emerging markets.
This is exceptional writing and very honest on the English in particular
‘if England is not an imperial power, it must be the only other thing it can be: a colony’. Not quite, but almost. Fintan O'Toole on the anxieties of British national sovereignty
I know we're not supposed to make fun of those less fortunate than ourselves - and, let's face it, you have to be very unfortunate indeed to be as stupid Nadine Dorries - but, really? She's complaining that the deal being offered is no good because we will end up with no MEPs? What planet is this woman on?
Sunday Express reckons Davis & Johnson deciding amongst themselves who should be next PM and Mogg to be Chancellor. WTF. How do I get out of here if the borders are closed by the army?
Sunday Express reckons Davis & Johnson deciding amongst themselves who should be next PM and Mogg to be Chancellor. WTF. How do I get out of here if the borders are closed by the army?
The poor will register at assembly centres, bring one suitcase and all your valuables.
Prague Did you join the Prague protests? (I saw the headings and thought you'd been upsetting loads of people) ;-)
:-)
Of course, mate, I am always there on Nov 17. My wife was one of those students who got whacked with a truncheon ( and didn't know how much worse it might get) so I always go, to remind myself of how it became possible that I happily live here.
The Czechs bring brilliant, sophisticated humour to their protests. However, my Swedish buddy was here with us too, and he made one prescient remark. "Where is the politician who can really provide the leadership for these people?". He was thinking about this country specifically but if you take "these people" as a bloc of reasonable "centrist" outward looking well educated voters, the question resonates right across Europe, and to the States.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
This is one of the most absurd things I've read on here. No wonder you're living in Europe as you plainly hate being British.
Try watching The Falklands Play....banned by the BBC for a number of years.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
This is one of the most absurd things I've read on here. No wonder you're living in Europe as you plainly hate being British.
Try watching The Falklands Play....banned by the BBC for a number of years.
Thought we were done with all that nonsense about British people living abroad hating their country, being traitors/cowards etc. The idea that you can't criticise the direction of the country or things that have happened to it, or even not live there and still be proud of it is one of the completely simplistic Brexit = patriotism ideas that seems to have replaced proper critical thinking about the UK's place in the modern world.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
This is one of the most absurd things I've read on here. No wonder you're living in Europe as you plainly hate being British.
Try watching The Falklands Play....banned by the BBC for a number of years.
Two things.
1. You'd be surprised at the identity of the Lifer who in PMs has shared with me with his actual professional experience from the time that leads him to the same conclusion as mine.
2. You completely failed to read properly what I wrote. I bow to no one in my pride in the professionalism of our armed forces. My problem is wi craven cowardly politicians abusing that professionalism for their own purposes.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
This is one of the most absurd things I've read on here. No wonder you're living in Europe as you plainly hate being British.
Try watching The Falklands Play....banned by the BBC for a number of years.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
This is one of the most absurd things I've read on here. No wonder you're living in Europe as you plainly hate being British.
Try watching The Falklands Play....banned by the BBC for a number of years.
It’s not actually absurd at all. The Falkands were “neglected” in terms of visible UK support for years. Now I’m not suggesting that that’s good enough reason for the Argentinians to invade but the signals that it sent were certainly ones that implied that the islands were not important to us. Certainly The Junta misread the resolve following the invasion but nonetheless the lead up to that point the U.K. seemed very indifferent to protecting the islanders. I think im right in saying that prior to The Falklands War the only regular contact that the islanders had was a monthly visit from a British Antarctic Survey ship. Famously one of the British tabloids published a map showing the unknowing British public exactly where The Falkland Islands were. The general opinion was that they were located off the Scottish mainland.
It’s a totally different argument to suggest that Thatchers motives were more about polls than people but you can’t dig out Prague for citing that theory when it’s mainstream and widely argued still to this day.
Somebody said the Falklands was two bald men fighting over a comb. Trouble is it wasn't a joke and too many people were killed...for what? I have met Simon Weston and thought he was a man of immense calibre, but all the time wondered why he had to suffer. Whether the conflict was necessary or not, the right wing media and Thatcher rode it for all they could squeeze from it.
Comments
I know we're not supposed to make fun of those less fortunate than ourselves - and, let's face it, you have to be very unfortunate indeed to be as stupid Nadine Dorries - but, really? She's complaining that the deal being offered is no good because we will end up with no MEPs? What planet is this woman on?
Try this one:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/jacob-rees-mogg-line-huge-personal-windfall-britain-exits-single-market/07/02/amp/
It’s going to be fagpaper thin with all still to play for. Can’t see 48 letters to be honest. ERG will be seriously damaged if they don’t hit the mark. All their cred will be shot. Boris is being worryingly quiet.
Johnson looking out for himself as usual. He’ll do a deal with anyone if it’s to his own interest.
Plus all the other one he's flagged in the last hour, including the one you've already removed. There are 4 now.
Also, can you block him sending me abusive posts ?
It's an assumed profit that he will make as he's a backer/owner of an emerging markets company.
If we do less business with the EU, we will do more business with emerging markets.
‘if England is not an imperial power, it must be the only other thing it can be: a colony’. Not quite, but almost. Fintan O'Toole on the anxieties of British national sovereignty
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/brexit-paranoid-fantasy-fintan-otoole
WTF. How do I get out of here if the borders are closed by the army?
Of course, mate, I am always there on Nov 17. My wife was one of those students who got whacked with a truncheon ( and didn't know how much worse it might get) so I always go, to remind myself of how it became possible that I happily live here.
The Czechs bring brilliant, sophisticated humour to their protests. However, my Swedish buddy was here with us too, and he made one prescient remark. "Where is the politician who can really provide the leadership for these people?". He was thinking about this country specifically but if you take "these people" as a bloc of reasonable "centrist" outward looking well educated voters, the question resonates right across Europe, and to the States.
Try watching The Falklands Play....banned by the BBC for a number of years.
1. You'd be surprised at the identity of the Lifer who in PMs has shared with me with his actual professional experience from the time that leads him to the same conclusion as mine.
2. You completely failed to read properly what I wrote. I bow to no one in my pride in the professionalism of our armed forces. My problem is wi craven cowardly politicians abusing that professionalism for their own purposes.
It’s a totally different argument to suggest that Thatchers motives were more about polls than people but you can’t dig out Prague for citing that theory when it’s mainstream and widely argued still to this day.
Trouble is it wasn't a joke and too many people were killed...for what?
I have met Simon Weston and thought he was a man of immense calibre, but all the time wondered why he had to suffer.
Whether the conflict was necessary or not, the right wing media and Thatcher rode it for all they could squeeze from it.
Or is such a thing is a geographical accident of birth.
Oh dear. Moggie nearly on his uppers. Needs to get on with this ‘hard brexit’ to replenish the coffers!