There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Corbyn likes to whip up a mob. He surrounds himself with aggressive political advisors that peddle divisive politics and prefers to avoid MSM. His agenda, like Trumps, is very backward looking. He doesn't compromise...
I think you're right on a mistrust on mainstream media. I don't see his agenda as backward looking, but that's a personal preference. Clearly though his agenda is backwards looking in a different way to Trump. I agree Corbyn is stubborn/won't compromise on core beliefs but I see that as different to Trump who is widely said to have the views of the last person he talked to/last TV show he watched.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Leaving aside the fact you've fallen for his spin - because in reality he isn't many of those things and in particular a man who found this joke funny is neither respectful nor opposed to violence - I'm talking about the real impact of his policies. He wouldn't, for example, tax the wealthy. He would end up taxing the poor - the very ones who have least money to spare.
And it's dead easy to imagine him doing those things you say are unimaginable - just not for those groups. Try substituting 'privately educated' and 'Jew.'
Corbyn would tac the wealthy a lot he just would likely have to tax the poor a bit more too
Mr. Observer, how? There wasn't another election for years after that. In that election (2010) no party offered a renegotiation or referendum.
The reason we got a referendum was because UKIP was on the rise. But for that, we would've continued to have the political class make sceptical promises and EU-phile actions, binding us ever closer to the EU.
UKIP was around in 2010. You support first past the post, don’t you?
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
What about the civil liberties of Jewish people?
What about them?
I can't imagine Corbyn has ever voted against the specific civil liberties of Jewish people, unless you have a vote in mind....
Not on topic, because there is only one topic in town today.
A White Paper written by and for people who have been paying absolutely no attention to politics the last four decades. Here’s the truth what lies between.
there is no pragmatic compromise between being in or being free from EU, any attempt to compromise between the two can never create a satisfying or lasting settlement. what sits between them is a whole new beast, with the DNA of a vassal state, neither out enough to be free and much too costly for what we are getting when we were in. Making business more expensive without full return of sovereignty freedom and control, and without any light at the end of the tunnel, In other words, “chequers” that most jaundiced of agreements is every bit the bad deal, exactly the one someone warned us is worse than a no deal.
Here’s the disaster for the Tory party.
So now when May’s own brand of Brexit turns out unsatisfying or an outright disaster, it’s not the fault of remainers nor even fault of Vote Leave and leave voters, not Cameron, Clegg, Brown or Blair, now everyone can and will blame it all wholly and exactly on May and her cabinet, and their partisan agreement between themselves. some people on here and in the media think it political genius, May at last acting like a PM and having a good week. Her finest hour.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Corbyn likes to whip up a mob. He surrounds himself with aggressive political advisors that peddle divisive politics and prefers to avoid MSM. His agenda, like Trumps, is very backward looking. He doesn't compromise...
I think you're right on a mistrust on mainstream media. I don't see his agenda as backward looking, but that's a personal preference. Clearly though his agenda is backwards looking in a different way to Trump. I agree Corbyn is stubborn/won't compromise on core beliefs but I see that as different to Trump who is widely said to have the views of the last person he talked to/last TV show he watched.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Indeed!
Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.
Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.
That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Indeed!
Sovereignty means more than some transient opportunities. Opportunities come and go but once we're sovereign that [should] be forever. We can then use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account for what they do to give people better lives and opportunities rather than passing the buck to Brussels.
We were sovereign. That’s how we got to leave.
Sovereignty without exercising it is meaningless.
That's like saying someone in a domineering and controlling relationship who is told what to do by their partner all the time has free will as they can leave.
We exercised our sovereignty throughout our time in the EU. Choosing to pool sovereignty is a positive choice. It’s not as if we were constantly outvoted or overruled.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
May is the least interested PM in terms of having a 'special relationship' with the US probably since Ted Heath whose relationship with Nixon was never close and business like more than anything. Heath of course was far closer to the EEC and even preferred dealing with China than the USA
As the last week proved May in her heart was never a 'hard Brexiteer' especially once she found out it did not bring the electoral dividends she wanted, she was always a Remainer and has gone back to her instincts of sticking as close to the EU as possible while respecting the referendum result.
Boris on the other hand would be much closer to Trump as a more passionate Brexiteer and Americaphile (he was born in New York) and Trump too this week talked of his 'friend' Boris while giving May barely a mention
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs was pretty much unprecedented. Our position on Iran, our concerns about the war in Yemen, our opposition to moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem, our position on trade tariffs, I cannot recall a time when we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
Pretty much everyone sitting behind him.
Many of those who served under Blair voted in lots of anti terror legislation. Which is anti civil liberties, it curtails civil liberties on the basis of security.
Now I am not a zealot*, to have a functioning society you have to accept some rules and enforcement of those rules so there is an argument to be made rather than simply claiming civil liberties and everything that opposes that is wrong. So you can argue those people did the right thing supporting it and Corbyn the wrong thing opposing it.
However from a pure civil liberties angle, that puts them behind Corbyn.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Leaving aside the fact you've fallen for his spin - because in reality he isn't many of those things and in particular a man who found this joke funny is neither respectful nor opposed to violence - I'm talking about the real impact of his policies. He wouldn't, for example, tax the wealthy. He would end up taxing the poor - the very ones who have least money to spare.
And it's dead easy to imagine him doing those things you say are unimaginable - just not for those groups. Try substituting 'privately educated' and 'Jew.'
Honestly I think if I said Corbyn was old you'd come up with some theory to say he's actually 35. We clearly can't agree on even what Corbyn's views are, never mind what the impact of his policies would be, so there isn't much more to say really.
It's irritating because he does seem quite logical on other subjects but everything goes out the window when it comes to Corbyn.
Corbyn has that effect on people. I don't understand it. But I accept it exists. Its the main reason why I think Labour would do better under a similar leader without the baggage.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
Pretty much everyone sitting behind him.
Many of those who served under Blair voted in lots of anti terror legislation. Which is anti civil liberties, it curtails civil liberties on the basis of security.
Now I am not a zealot, to have a functioning society you have to accept some rules and enforcement of those rules so there is an argument to be made rather than simply claiming civil liberties and everything that opposes that is wrong. So you can argue those people did the right thing supporting it and Corbyn the wrong thing opposing it.
However from a pure civil liberties angle, that puts them behind Corbyn.
Corbyn is very selective in his interpretation of civil liberties. It is also very easy to oppose everything. I don't give credit for that.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have lwhen we disagreed about so much and it seems unlikely these areas of disagreement are going to diminish.
We are fortunate enough to live in a quiet part of the world with no obvious strategic threats. But I do think that the working assumption that military action on our part is going to be based around US logistical support (which remains unmatched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
I think two factors. 1) partisanship, they are team republican normally, even as R party has gone far right. 2) some of them, as this polling shows, quite fancy a bit of Trump authoritarianism. And they admire it even though bad for UK.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Corbyn likes to whip up a mob. He surrounds himself with aggressive political advisors that peddle divisive politics and prefers to avoid MSM. His agenda, like Trumps, is very backward looking. He doesn't compromise...
I think you're right on a mistrust on mainstream media. I don't see his agenda as backward looking, but that's a personal preference. Clearly though his agenda is backwards looking in a different way to Trump. I agree Corbyn is stubborn/won't compromise on core beliefs but I see that as different to Trump who is widely said to have the views of the last person he talked to/last TV show he watched.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
I doubt Obama’s visit made any difference either way. And his warnings have turned out to be true
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
Farage would have been a Nazi collaborator? Hm, that seems like quite a slur.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
Farage would have been a Nazi collaborator? Hm, that seems like quite a slur.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
Pretty much everyone sitting behind him.
Many of those who served under Blair voted in lots of anti terror legislation. Which is anti civil liberties, it curtails civil liberties on the basis of security.
Now I am not a zealot, to have a functioning society you have to accept some rules and enforcement of those rules so there is an argument to be made rather than simply claiming civil liberties and everything that opposes that is wrong. So you can argue those people did the right thing supporting it and Corbyn the wrong thing opposing it.
However from a pure civil liberties angle, that puts them behind Corbyn.
Corbyn is very selective in his interpretation of civil liberties. It is also very easy to oppose everything. I don't give credit for that.
If you are going to bring up civil liberties with the emphasis on them being a good thing then yes you really should give him credit for being more consistent than most in opposing curtailing them.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
I don’t think you gave what you just wrote much thought. Evidence please.
British voters used to be relatively indifferent to Europe and the ramifications, but now they are 'woke' as the SJWs say. They'll not go back quickly to slumbering.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
Pretty much everyone sitting behind him.
Many of those who served under Blair voted in lots of anti terror legislation. Which is anti civil liberties, it curtails civil liberties on the basis of security.
Now I am not a zealot, to have a functioning society you have to accept some rules and enforcement of those rules so there is an argument to be made rather than simply claiming civil liberties and everything that opposes that is wrong. So you can argue those people did the right thing supporting it and Corbyn the wrong thing opposing it.
However from a pure civil liberties angle, that puts them behind Corbyn.
Corbyn is very selective in his interpretation of civil liberties. It is also very easy to oppose everything. I don't give credit for that.
If you are going to bring up civil liberties with the emphasis on them being a good thing then yes you really should give him credit for being more consistent than most in opposing curtailing them.
If you oppose everything, like a stopped clock occasionally you might be able to claim doing the right thing.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think thaten less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
Farage would have been a Nazi collaborator? Hm, that seems like quite a slur.
He shares platforms with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, andcendorses their electoral platforms. It seems pretty self-evident to me.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
It’s quite something to speculate about the silent majority being sanguine about Donald Trump immediately below a thread header with polling showing that 63% would not like to see a Prime Minister like him.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Agree. Taking an elderly relative to meet Boris or Farage would probably go OK, and I'm sure all my elderly relatives would like Mogg. But taking Trump would be a real gamble.
The thing is, we tend to judge people by their politics, but most people make a separate assessment about character (leaving aside mass murderers etc.). Trump alienates many people who are fine with loud-mouthed nationnalism because they Just Don't Like Him.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think thaten less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
Farage would have been a Nazi collaborator? Hm, that seems like quite a slur.
He shares platforms with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, andcendorses their electoral platforms. It seems pretty self-evident to me.
Are they actually Nazis, or is this just the left overusing the fascist term again?
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
He's one of the few MPs to stand up and oppose the excessive anti terror legislation that has passed through the years, even (some in) the security services have questioned the need for it all, it was of course done for political purposes so very few were prepared to vote against anti terror legislation for something as unimportant as civil liberties.
I doubt there are many in parliament with a better record on civil liberties than Corbyn.
Pretty much everyone sitting behind him.
Many of those who served under Blair voted in lots of anti terror legislation. Which is anti civil liberties, it curtails civil liberties on the basis of security.
Now I am not a zealot, to have a functioning society you have to accept some rules and enforcement of those rules so there is an argument to be made rather than simply claiming civil liberties and everything that opposes that is wrong. So you can argue those people did the right thing supporting it and Corbyn the wrong thing opposing it.
However from a pure civil liberties angle, that puts them behind Corbyn.
Corbyn is very selective in his interpretation of civil liberties. It is also very easy to oppose everything. I don't give credit for that.
If you are going to bring up civil liberties with the emphasis on them being a good thing then yes you really should give him credit for being more consistent than most in opposing curtailing them.
True. He has created an environment within the Labour Party whereby people feel at liberty to be anti-semitic.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
It’s quite something to speculate about the silent majority being sanguine about Donald Trump immediately below a thread header with polling showing that 63% would not like to see a Prime Minister like him.
There are probably more people who have a sneaking regard for Trump than would say so publicly, but nowhere near a majority.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
I doubt Obama’s visit made any difference either way. And his warnings have turned out to be true
And, besides, the episode is a reflection of outside 'comment' on our politics being generally unwelcome. It has nothing to say about Obama's considerable popularity as US president.
Occasionally,he also tells the truth. but it's a truth that polite people feel uncomfortable with. It's like speaking ill of the dead at a funeral. It's just not done.
OK, he's barmy too, but eccentric is fine as long as it's not overdone.
Is that it, really? It’s not to give people better lives and opportunities? The point is to be sovereign whatever that entails.
Did Indian (or Irish, or Jamaican, or Ghanaian) independence improve people's life chances, boost the economy, or get rid of corruption? No. In many cases, it made matters worse - two of those examples plunged into civil war on independence. But they took the Asquithian principle that self-government is better than good governance. So do Leavers.
Recently I've been thinking the example of the formation of the Irish free state is relevant to what we are seeing here. In 1921 there wasn't a valid economic argument to be made against Ireland's continued membership of the UK, in fact Ireland was economically disadvantaged by this choice for 50 years. It just came down to a question of identity.
The internal battles in the conservative party echo the pro and anti treaty forces in 1920s. Let's hope we can do it without blood.
The difference is the EU is not yet a country and the UK had stayed out of most of the most Federal bits like the Euro and Schengen. In 1921 the UK the Irish Free State broke away from was very much a country
There's also the whole Ireland being incorporated into the United Kingdom by force and losing 2/3 of its population to famine and emigration aspect. Quite different to a voluntary union.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Agree. Taking an elderly relative to meet Boris or Farage would probably go OK, and I'm sure all my elderly relatives would like Mogg. But taking Trump would be a real gamble.
The thing is, we tend to judge people by their politics, but most people make a separate assessment about character (leaving aside mass murderers etc.). Trump alienates many people who are fine with loud-mouthed nationnalism because they Just Don't Like Him.
I think that if Trump had been a polite and respectful person he would not have won the Republican nomination and, if nominated, he would have lost the general by a landslide.
Mr. Doethur, worth also noting that the EU had and continues to have a drive to integrate ever more. It wasn't a case of 'this settlement forever or leaving' but 'leaving or more integration'. The shift to QMV, outright majority of the eurozone nations, and the ongoing shift to strip ever more vetoes from nations and hand ever more power to Brussels were all factors.
Mr. 43, those advocating we follow EU laws after we leave are also those who thought we shouldn't have left. [For the sake of fairness, it's worth noting some soft leavers appear ok-ish with the May-Chequers proposition. But many are furious, and even more are less than thrilled].
If the electorate vote to leave the EU and the political class decide that means we should continue to follow EU laws, that's not a flaw with those who want to leave but deliberately thwarting of the electorate's decision by those tasked with representing them.
There are inevitably going to be times when we have to follow other countries' rules. We have to follow US rules to sell goods and services into the US, for example.
My objection to the EU is to the whole push towards making it one state. I never wanted EU citizenship, but had it foisted on me.
That seems a reasonable motivation for leaving the EU, even if I don't agree with your assessment: I don't like the EU and so I leave and let the chips fall where they may.
My problem is with the idea of leaving the EU to take control. We can buccanneer! In fact we will never be less in control than when we leave the EU. By leaving the table we lose most of our influence to shape things in ways that benefit us, which is a key part of exercising sovereignty. That's why Leavers have never had a workable plan. Any such plan involves us doing what we are told. It's also why there are no good Brexit outcomes. We either choose to make ourselves poorer, which very few people including Leavers are willing to embrace, or we do what we are told with no say.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
Farage would have been a Nazi collaborator? Hm, that seems like quite a slur.
It is going too far to pin the label on an individual like that.
SO has a point, however, in that the historical record is clear that the centre and left in British politics had the longer and stronger track record of opposing fascism in Europe (and enabled Churchill to counter considerable opposition from within his own party), whereas the right, including mainstream Conservative opinion (at least until the war broke out, and in some cases not even then) favoured appeasement and/or accommodation. It seems fairly obvious from where any puppet government would have been drawn.
The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.
And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.
Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.
All of that is true at this point in time, but even as part of the EU we have little to no control of who forms the commission and therefore there is a genuine risk that at some point our masters may not be benign and the rules not decent. The recent power grab by Selmayr does little to reassure on this, and to deny that this is a realistic - if only slight - possibility is to ignore history.
This is why the argument that we should not Brexit "because it is too difficult to do" is such a bad one. What if there comes a point when it becomes absolutely essential to our interests to leave the EU?
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
That's surprising, but only on the low side. Only last year 39.99% of the British public voted for our answer to Trump. If you include Arlene Foster as a sort of pale imitation that figure would be higher.
Ahh yes the party with the actual Trump supporters isn't representing Trump but the one opposing them...
It is sort of the non Godwin breaking version of everyone I don't like is Hitler.
Corbyn to me is the opposite of Trump in almost everything. Whatever your view on his politics that seems to me to be utterly obvious.
He is polite, respectful, humble, anti-big business, in favour of higher taxes especially fr the wealthy, defender of civil liberties, totally opposed to torture, spend less on military, very stubborn in his views, prefers negotiation to conflict. He is loathed by our equivalents to Fox News. Its impossible to imagine him mocking a disabled reporter or calling for a Muslim ban to the UK.
Leaving aside the fact you've fallen for his spin - because in reality he isn't many of those things and in particular a man who found this joke funny is neither respectful nor opposed to violence - I'm talking about the real impact of his policies. He wouldn't, for example, tax the wealthy. He would end up taxing the poor - the very ones who have least money to spare.
And it's dead easy to imagine him doing those things you say are unimaginable - just not for those groups. Try substituting 'privately educated' and 'Jew.'
Honestly I think if I said Corbyn was old you'd come up with some theory to say he's actually 35. We clearly can't agree on even what Corbyn's views are, never mind what the impact of his policies would be, so there isn't much more to say really.
It's irritating because he does seem quite logical on other subjects but everything goes out the window when it comes to Corbyn.
If someone I know to be logical on everything else dissagreed with me on one thing, I like to think I would at least consider the idea that I was the one who had got it wrong.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
I don’t think you gave what you just wrote much thought. Evidence please.
It's an opinion to which I have given plenty of thought. Farage spends a lot of time in the company of white supremacists and anti-Semites. Indeed, he often campaigns alongside them and endorses them for electoral office.
I am surprised-almost shocked-that 20% of voters would want a creature like Trump as British PM. Having said that after Brexit there's nothing the Britsh electorate could do that should really surprise me.
When it comes to civil liberties, he's no defender of free speech.
Pretty much everyone sitting behind him.
Many of those who served under Blair voted in lots of anti terror legislation. Which is anti civil liberties, it curtails civil liberties on the basis of security.
Now I am not a zealot, to have a functioning society you have to accept some rules and enforcement of those rules so there is an argument to be made rather than simply claiming civil liberties and everything that opposes that is wrong. So you can argue those people did the right thing supporting it and Corbyn the wrong thing opposing it.
However from a pure civil liberties angle, that puts them behind Corbyn.
Corbyn is very selective in his interpretation of civil liberties. It is also very easy to oppose everything. I don't give credit for that.
If you are going to bring up civil liberties with the emphasis on them being a good thing then yes you really should give him credit for being more consistent than most in opposing curtailing them.
True. He has created an environment within the Labour Party whereby people feel at liberty to be anti-semitic.
That is why he refused to have an enquiry into the problem and instead attacked the main representative group the problem is with extremists...
Although I guess technically I am arguing against my own point here, I guess in this department the Conservatives do have the edge, Corbyn will infringe on members by calling for an enquiry rather than counter accusations of extremism. Labour have had members kicked out whilst Tories come back in after a quick suspension when their vote is needed on a council and such....
I guess this is one of those times I'm not too zealous and willing to give up a little civil liberties.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Agree. Taking an elderly relative to meet Boris or Farage would probably go OK, and I'm sure all my elderly relatives would like Mogg. But taking Trump would be a real gamble.
The thing is, we tend to judge people by their politics, but most people make a separate assessment about character (leaving aside mass murderers etc.). Trump alienates many people who are fine with loud-mouthed nationnalism because they Just Don't Like Him.
I think your elderly relative test is excellent. But I hope your last sentence is wrong. It would seem to indicate Trump would do even better if he were more reasonable sounding which is a scary prospect.
I kind of think it's the reverse, some people are attracted to the loud mouth who sounds tough and generates headlines, regardless of the nationalism (which in any case is fairly inconsistent, a real nationalist would surely not be so pro-Putin).
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
After Blair, US presidents are justified in assuming that the UK is their bitch no matter what, so why waste time on the pretence? It will take another Vietnam and another Wilson to change their mind about that.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Agree. Taking an elderly relative to meet Boris or Farage would probably go OK, and I'm sure all my elderly relatives would like Mogg. But taking Trump would be a real gamble.
The thing is, we tend to judge people by their politics, but most people make a separate assessment about character (leaving aside mass murderers etc.). Trump alienates many people who are fine with loud-mouthed nationnalism because they Just Don't Like Him.
I think your elderly relative test is excellent. But I hope your last sentence is wrong. It would seem to indicate Trump would do even better if he were more reasonable sounding which is a scary prospect.
I kind of think it's the reverse, some people are attracted to the loud mouth who sounds tough and generates headlines, regardless of the nationalism (which in any case is fairly inconsistent, a real nationalist would surely not be so pro-Putin).
Trump is pro-Trump. Nothing else is really very important to him.
Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.
Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.
Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
It requires FOM, so it is of no use to the UK just on that basis.
I thought the Swiss had a referendum about FOM as they don't like it???
From my understanding the Swiss system does not allow immigrants access to their benefit system (or at least restricts it massively) until they have been resident for several years. Were we to adopt a similar system I imagine FOM would become a much more palatable option.
That is why he refused to have an enquiry into the problem and instead attacked the main representative group the problem is with extremists...
Although I guess technically I am arguing against my own point here, I guess in this department the Conservatives do have the edge, Corbyn will infringe on members by calling for an enquiry rather than counter accusations of extremism. Labour have had members kicked out whilst Tories come back in after a quick suspension when their vote is needed on a council and such....
I guess this is one of those times I'm not too zealous and willing to give up a little civil liberties.
Who is talking about the Conservatives here? Do you really want me to google the times Labour MPs have pointed out Labour's anti-semitism problem? Corbyn has unambiguously presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened.
Of course he's going to have as many judge-led enquiries as he thinks will keep those irritating voices quiet. But them's the facts.
Now of course you could say that why shouldn't members of the Labour Party express anti-semitic sentiments and that it is a suppression of their civil liberties not to allow them to do so. But that is an argument you don't seem to be advancing. Or are you?
Trump being crude, brash or impolite is not the problem. It's the stream of very personal attacks, exclusively divisive rhetoric and cruelty to those less fortunate than him that set his politics apart. His volatility, ego and lack of concern for others makes him dangerous.
Is "a politician like Trump [as British PM]" perhaps seen as code for Boris?
Bloody Hell, over a quarter of Conservative voters would like to see someone like Trump as British PM.
I think most people over here don't understand how bad Trump is. If you only watch British news you might think Trump is merely a controversial and gaffe prone President, but if you follow US news closely you quickly realise it is much worse than that.
Trump is a inverterate liar, a racist, a moron, a misogynist; he is up to his neck in sleeze, his closest associates are in all sorts of legal hot water, and it may well turn out that Trump himself committed some very serious crimes during his Presidential campaign, and perhaps before and after it.
Trump is by far the worst US President in living memory.
How bad is Trump? If I had to choose between Corbyn and Trump, I'd pick Corbyn without any hesitation.
Obviously Donald is exceptionally unpopular with certain parts of Britain but then I suspect the "silent majority" are probably fairly sanguine about him.
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
It’s quite something to speculate about the silent majority being sanguine about Donald Trump immediately below a thread header with polling showing that 63% would not like to see a Prime Minister like him.
Well I wouldn't want him to be PM in Britain either (and I'd have voted for Hilary in 2016) but that doesn't mean I'll be heading down to London to throw rotten eggs at him all day.
What is this poll saying? Brits wouldn't want a foreigner as PM? Absolutely bloody right. Not sure it has everything to do with Trump's Trumpness. I wouldn't particularly want the Dalai Lama is our Prime Minister either.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Agree. Taking an elderly relative to meet Boris or Farage would probably go OK, and I'm sure all my elderly relatives would like Mogg. But taking Trump would be a real gamble.
The thing is, we tend to judge people by their politics, but most people make a separate assessment about character (leaving aside mass murderers etc.). Trump alienates many people who are fine with loud-mouthed nationnalism because they Just Don't Like Him.
Re paragraph 2 - Not me and Trump is obnoxious, and I am deemed elderly
I kind of think it's the reverse, some people are attracted to the loud mouth who sounds tough and generates headlines, regardless of the nationalism (which in any case is fairly inconsistent, a real nationalist would surely not be so pro-Putin).
I think "Nationalist" here is being used as a polite euphemism
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
There is no doubt that Trump is putting a bigger strain on our atlantic alliance than any President in my lifetime, even GWB. When this is combined with the increasing lack of interest that the US has in European affairs we see that one of the bedrocks of our security has lost its moorings.
I have little doubt that we will continue to work closely with the US in intelligence gathering and politically in the UN but our common interests are fewer and weaker than they have been since WW2. Most PMs, of whatever stripe, have thought that the national interest required them to cosy up to the President of the day. May does not feel that need or, perhaps, just finds Trump too repulsive in his views.
We are seeing this increasingly often. Her very blunt criticism of his policies on breaking up would be immigrant families at PMQs tched and unparalleled) is no longer valid and we need to start shaping our forces so that they are more autonomous.
The trade and foreign policy that Trump pursues is overtly hostile to UK interests. The puzzle is how few on the right call him out on this. If the uppity half African Obama had been threatening NATO’s ongoing existence and putting punitive tariffs on British goods I’m not sure Boris Johnson would have been suggesting he deserves a Nobel peace prize.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
Initiating a trade war is a hostile act. No previous US president has even begun to contemplate dismantling NATO. I agree, though, that by not even paying lip service to it Trump has brutally exposed the reality of the Special Relationship. Again, it perplexes me that so many on the Right here do not seem to see this.
Though if it went to WTO terms with the EU many hard Brexiteers would hope to unite with Trump in a tariff war with the EU and leave continental and Eastern Europe in particular to deal with any threat from Putin on its own.
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Yep, hard Brexiteers are particularly unhinged.
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
Corbyn is not Trump but the UK Bernie Sanders. The UK Trump is a combination of Boris and Farage with a dash of Mogg
I agree, think the Bernie parallels are clear. I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
Agree. Taking an elderly relative to meet Boris or Farage would probably go OK, and I'm sure all my elderly relatives would like Mogg. But taking Trump would be a real gamble.
The thing is, we tend to judge people by their politics, but most people make a separate assessment about character (leaving aside mass murderers etc.). Trump alienates many people who are fine with loud-mouthed nationnalism because they Just Don't Like Him.
I think that if Trump had been a polite and respectful person he would not have won the Republican nomination and, if nominated, he would have lost the general by a landslide.
Correct. Trump was elected to Kick Ass by an electorate that is aware of his character flaws but feels things aren't going the way it should and should be given a good shake up. Kicking ass is a big motivator in American politics. It was a large driver behind the second Iraq War following the Twin Towers attack, even though anyone with the slightest awareness would know that was illogical as Saddam was a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism.
Electorates choose their leaders according to their motivators. Kicking ass isn't much of a thing for us, so we wouldn't go for Trump.
It is going too far to pin the label on an individual like that.
SO has a point, however, in that the historical record is clear that the centre and left in British politics had the longer and stronger track record of opposing fascism in Europe (and enabled Churchill to counter considerable opposition from within his own party), whereas the right, including mainstream Conservative opinion (at least until the war broke out, and in some cases not even then) favoured appeasement and/or accommodation. It seems fairly obvious from where any puppet government would have been drawn.
Ah, so the Tories would have been the collaborators. Glad we cleared that up
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
"As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured."
Yes, but polite people don't bring it up in public. It embarrasses people. Possibly it gets more results than being diplomatic? Just think what he'd be like if he was a 'proud Yorkshireman'?
"As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured."
Yes, but polite people don't bring it up in public. It embarrasses people. Possibly it gets more results than being diplomatic? Just think what he'd be like if he was a 'proud Yorkshireman'?
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
After Blair, US presidents are justified in assuming that the UK is their bitch no matter what, so why waste time on the pretence? It will take another Vietnam and another Wilson to change their mind about that.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
After Blair, US presidents are justified in assuming that the UK is their bitch no matter what, so why waste time on the pretence? It will take another Vietnam and another Wilson to change their mind about that.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Let's get behind this analogy. Most clubs have different subscription rates for different categories (weekend, peak time, by age, etc).
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
After Blair, US presidents are justified in assuming that the UK is their bitch no matter what, so why waste time on the pretence? It will take another Vietnam and another Wilson to change their mind about that.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Let's get behind this analogy. Most clubs have different subscription rates for different categories (weekend, peak time, by age, etc).
So those paying less towards NATO only get Article 5 protections on weekdays?
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
If Trump merely cultivates his garden in isolationist style and doesn't suddenly declare war on someone and try to drag us all in, we should count ourselves lucky.
That is why he refused to have an enquiry into the problem and instead attacked the main representative group the problem is with extremists...
Although I guess technically I am arguing against my own point here, I guess in this department the Conservatives do have the edge, Corbyn will infringe on members by calling for an enquiry rather than counter accusations of extremism. Labour have had members kicked out whilst Tories come back in after a quick suspension when their vote is needed on a council and such....
I guess this is one of those times I'm not too zealous and willing to give up a little civil liberties.
Who is talking about the Conservatives here? Do you really want me to google the times Labour MPs have pointed out Labour's anti-semitism problem? Corbyn has unambiguously presided over a Labour Party within which anti-semites feel emboldened.
Of course he's going to have as many judge-led enquiries as he thinks will keep those irritating voices quiet. But them's the facts.
Now of course you could say that why shouldn't members of the Labour Party express anti-semitic sentiments and that it is a suppression of their civil liberties not to allow them to do so. But that is an argument you don't seem to be advancing. Or are you?
We were talking about civil liberties. If we are going to discuss the merits of Corbyn's civil liberties than we need some kind of measure and the best measure would surely be his opponents which are the only other group likely to form the next government.
Also the only statistical analysis I've seen shows there being less incidents per member than there was pre Corbyn. I guess that is why we tend to avoid actual analysis and say well it is obvious and look these people that have criticised Corbyn for a bunch of other stuff have also mentioned it... In fact statistics have shown that there was more anti-semitism among the Tories. I guess that is only really a problem if anti semitism is the problem with Corbyn though...
Clearly Corbyn has failed in this regard as the Conservatives offer far more civil liberties as they won't even have judge-led enquiries to keep those irritating voices quiet. But them's the facts.
So Corbyn is great on civil liberties in comparison to his opponents apart from on racism in his own party where he has a poor record compared to his opponents, you got me there. When I'm boasting about Corbyn's civil liberties record in future I won't quickly forget your points about him thrashing the liberties of racist members compared to his opponents.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Given that Trump repeatedly boasts about how much the US spends on defence I don't think the cost of Nato to the US is what is behind Trump's rhetoric. Trump's real goal is use the spending target to bash his Nato allies, and that was amplified by his apparent demand for a 4% target, and for the 2% target to be reached immediately. Trump is attempting to set targets he knows can not be achieved so that he can keep on attacking Nato.
Even if no concrete steps are taken by the DoD we are openly questioning US support for Nato, because of Trump, and that makes Eastern Europe in particular less safe.
Those Remainers who constantly say that Leavers never had their own plan for Brexit will no doubt be supporting the efforts by Tory backbenchers to force the Government to release the Brexit White Paper that was prepared by DexEU which, of course, contained the detailed Leaver plan for Brexit that they all wanted to see!
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
If Trump merely cultivates his garden in isolationist style and doesn't suddenly declare war on someone and try to drag us all in, we should count ourselves lucky.
Well there you go - one tick in the box for a non-LOTFW US.
I think your elderly relative test is excellent. But I hope your last sentence is wrong. It would seem to indicate Trump would do even better if he were more reasonable sounding which is a scary prospect.
I kind of think it's the reverse, some people are attracted to the loud mouth who sounds tough and generates headlines, regardless of the nationalism (which in any case is fairly inconsistent, a real nationalist would surely not be so pro-Putin).
Well, there's both, surely. And as Big G points out, plenty who dislike both.
Putin is often a reasonable-sounding man who is also a nationalist expansionist - in his interviews, he ranges from the forensically calm to the mildly irritated. Doesn't make him a nice guy, but he doesn't attract the level of personal distaste that Trump engenders. Which, as you say, is perhaps scarier.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
After Blair, US presidents are justified in assuming that the UK is their bitch no matter what, so why waste time on the pretence? It will take another Vietnam and another Wilson to change their mind about that.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Let's get behind this analogy. Most clubs have different subscription rates for different categories (weekend, peak time, by age, etc).
So those paying less towards NATO only get Article 5 protections on weekdays?
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
I think the foreign policy decline began, willingly or otherwise, under Obama.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
It's worth noting just how alarmed people on both sides of the political divide in the US are by Trump's NATO rhetoric. Pax Americana has endured for so long principally because it has been so good for America. Why did Europe become less important for US administrations? Because it was seen as stable and not needing of so much attention. If that changes, the economic fall-out will undoubtedly cause substantial harm not just here, but everywhere. It will also embolden regimes in the Middle East. If the US has no European presence, then Israel's safety becomes much harder to guarantee.
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
After Blair, US presidents are justified in assuming that the UK is their bitch no matter what, so why waste time on the pretence? It will take another Vietnam and another Wilson to change their mind about that.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Let's get behind this analogy. Most clubs have different subscription rates for different categories (weekend, peak time, by age, etc).
So those paying less towards NATO only get Article 5 protections on weekdays?
I don't think that they are overtly hostile. I think that they are just indifferent. Which is uncomfortable enough. We have got very used to US Presidents at least pretending that the cared. Some of what Trump has done is simply removing the varnish and fluff showing the underlying reality. They never did care all that much. But they care even less now.
After Blair, US presidents are justified in assuming that the UK is their bitch no matter what, so why waste time on the pretence? It will take another Vietnam and another Wilson to change their mind about that.
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Let's get behind this analogy. Most clubs have different subscription rates for different categories (weekend, peak time, by age, etc).
So those paying less towards NATO only get Article 5 protections on weekdays?
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
How does the average US citizen benefit from middle eastern willy waving ?
We were talking about civil liberties. If we are going to discuss the merits of Corbyn's civil liberties than we need some kind of measure and the best measure would surely be his opponents which are the only other group likely to form the next government.
Also the only statistical analysis I've seen shows there being less incidents per member than there was pre Corbyn. I guess that is why we tend to avoid actual analysis and say well it is obvious and look these people that have criticised Corbyn for a bunch of other stuff have also mentioned it... In fact statistics have shown that there was more anti-semitism among the Tories. I guess that is only really a problem if anti semitism is the problem with Corbyn though...
Clearly Corbyn has failed in this regard as the Conservatives offer far more civil liberties as they won't even have judge-led enquiries to keep those irritating voices quiet. But them's the facts.
So Corbyn is great on civil liberties in comparison to his opponents apart from on racism in his own party where he has a poor record compared to his opponents, you got me there. When I'm boasting about Corbyn's civil liberties record in future I won't quickly forget your points about him thrashing the liberties of racist members compared to his opponents.
So civil liberties is a relative phenomenon is it? Why vs any other group likely to form the next government? Why not Putin or Mao Ze Dong?
Interesting that there is statistical analysis on the number of anti-semitic incidents in the Labour Party. I mean why would anyone commission statistical analysis on something that doesn't exist? Would love to see it, btw.
And then you are back to the Conservatives. Who undoubtedly have plenty of fruitcakes, loonies and out and out racists. Inexcusable and as far as I have seen (I haven't seen any statistical analysis) it is dealt with as it is discovered. And dealt with quite conclusively. Is Ken, for example, in or out of the Labour Party?
But what sticks in the craw is that it is Corbyn, this supposed paragon of civil liberties who bangs on about, er, civil liberties, who has presided over this environment in the Labour Party whereby anti-semites feel emboldened.
Wonder whether Plato (formally of this parish) will be trying to get a glimpse of her hero today?
Plato has been suspended from Twitter. She was becoming more and more barking by the minute.
Good Lord. I wonder what one has to do to get suspended from Twitter...
They've been suspending a lot of accounts that look like bots. Their algorithms probably can't tell the difference between a bot that automatically retweets coordinated alt-right propaganda 24/7 and a human who does the same thing.
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
How does the average US citizen benefit from middle eastern willy waving ?
Instability in the Middle East has traditionally not been great for the US economy, to say the least. Energy self-sufficiency could well change that, of course, and embolden Israel's enemies. But that would have a profound impact on the European economy - refugees, oil supply, etc - which, in turn, would have an adverse impact on the US. In short, it's a very interconnected world and that is not going to change.
Wonder whether Plato (formally of this parish) will be trying to get a glimpse of her hero today?
Plato has been suspended from Twitter. She was becoming more and more barking by the minute.
Good Lord. I wonder what one has to do to get suspended from Twitter...
They've been suspending a lot of accounts that look like bots. Their algorithms probably can't tell the difference between a bot that automatically retweets coordinated alt-right propaganda 24/7 and a human who does the same thing.
She moved to GAB after Twitter as a lot of the Alt-right seem to have done, but suddenly stopped posting a few months ago. Some of her stuff on twitter and GAB did come over as being cult like. I hope all is ok.
Now that the World Cup factor has been eliminated from the Brexit equation things will move much more quickly. The next question is what Trump will say. It's a high risk strategy as the thread header suggests. Even the much more popular Obama seems to have provoked a backlash against Remain with his intervention. Trump's could be equally unpredictable. Given the NeoBrexiters are working on a tight timeline ahead of the recess expect major trouble in time for the Sunday Papers and political shows. I never thought I'd say it but this is now so serious I wouldn't rule out resignations *during* Trump's visit breaking all the normal rules. The fact the NeoBrexiters are now, at least superficially, targeting the NI backstop as well as Chequers shows they are prepared to advance into enemy territory not just play defensively.
Destroying the NI backstop is fundamental to a proper Brexit. It is great news that the Leavers have realised this and intend to hang this around May's neck, given that everyone (except Robbins) seems to have told her not to agree to it.
Given that the Chequers agreement does not help at all with the NI backstop text, she has a HUUUUUUGE problem.
Just as a matter of interest, what's so terrible about the Swiss arrangement with the EU? Are they unhappy or impoverished by it?
Isn't it generally accepted to be off the table from the EU side due to the lack ECJ oversight ?
Also, doesn't it come with freedom of movement ?
The current May proposal is basically the Swiss deal.
And migration could be tackled in exactly the same way the Swiss do, by requiring the compulsory purchase of health insurance. Plans for foreigners start - IIRC - at about CHF4,000/year, which removes the vast majority of low skilled immigrants, and largely prevents people from hanging around looking for a job.
Fundamentally the UK economy is based around services. Strategically, we need to enter into FTAs to allow other countries to import goods to us tariff free in return for us gaining access to their markets for our services.
The Chequers plan does the exact opposite. It grants the EU free access for their goods and restricts our abilities to export services and then restricts our ability to strike these types of FTAs. Like the EU, it a strategy locked in the past.
I could imagine the kind of deal where we traded open goods access, including integrated supply chains, for open service access in the other direction, across a whole continent...
That would be great - a continent wide trading relationship without any political baggage
We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.
Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.
No we could not. Not without charging British citizens the NHS insurance fee too - is that what you're proposing?
The USA is entitled to ask for other NATO members to increase their defence spending substantially if it is comfortable seeing its own military dominance in Europe eroded. That has not been the American calculation since the end of the Second World War but the USA under Trump is apparently abdicating its Leader Of The Free World role in order to take more short term advantages.
Thing is, it's criticised as much for trying to act as LOTFW (ie when it, er, leads by saying "you lot come with us to the ME"), and is also criticised for moves towards a more isolationist foreign policy.
It’s entitled to make its own calculation on the subject. Abdicating its previous role looks like an admission of decline to me but perhaps that’s a recognition of reality.
How does the average US citizen benefit from middle eastern willy waving ?
It hastens the day when Jesus returns and throws the Antichrist and the False Prophet into the lake of fire and the Battle of Armageddon is complete. There will be a great wedding feast celebration of Christ being united with his people (Revelation 21), to the benefit of middle-income working Americans.
It may sound like I'm taking the piss, but this is the actual reason that's driving evangelical attitudes to the Middle East, and evangelical attitudes to the Middle East are driving Republican foreign policy.
We could have done a great deal of what you suggest while still in the EU, and saved a load of hassle.
Vassal State Brexit is not such a bad outcome. The EU makes decent rules and will be a benign master. Of course it would have been better to stay in and have a way in writing the rules, but re joining to do that will be much simpler with Mats proposal.
No we could not. Not without charging British citizens the NHS insurance fee too - is that what you're proposing?
Outside the EU we could*. Inside the EU we can't.
* Subject to what is agreed
That was my point. Foxy was claiming we could/should have done that within the EU though which would mean doing it to British citizens too.
Comments
I can't imagine Corbyn has ever voted against the specific civil liberties of Jewish people, unless you have a vote in mind....
A White Paper written by and for people who have been paying absolutely no attention to politics the last four decades. Here’s the truth what lies between.
there is no pragmatic compromise between being in or being free from EU, any attempt to compromise between the two can never create a satisfying or lasting settlement. what sits between them is a whole new beast, with the DNA of a vassal state, neither out enough to be free and much too costly for what we are getting when we were in. Making business more expensive without full return of sovereignty freedom and control, and without any light at the end of the tunnel, In other words, “chequers” that most jaundiced of agreements is every bit the bad deal, exactly the one someone warned us is worse than a no deal.
Here’s the disaster for the Tory party.
So now when May’s own brand of Brexit turns out unsatisfying or an outright disaster, it’s not the fault of remainers nor even fault of Vote Leave and leave voters, not Cameron, Clegg, Brown or Blair, now everyone can and will blame it all wholly and exactly on May and her cabinet, and their partisan agreement between themselves. some people on here and in the media think it political genius, May at last acting like a PM and having a good week. Her finest hour.
Yeah. It’s certainly a game changer. RAOTFLMFAO
I think there is a rudeness about Trump that none of your three capture. Maybe someone like Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins needs to be added.
As the last week proved May in her heart was never a 'hard Brexiteer' especially once she found out it did not bring the electoral dividends she wanted, she was always a Remainer and has gone back to her instincts of sticking as close to the EU as possible while respecting the referendum result.
Boris on the other hand would be much closer to Trump as a more passionate Brexiteer and Americaphile (he was born in New York) and Trump too this week talked of his 'friend' Boris while giving May barely a mention
Now I am not a zealot*, to have a functioning society you have to accept some rules and enforcement of those rules so there is an argument to be made rather than simply claiming civil liberties and everything that opposes that is wrong. So you can argue those people did the right thing supporting it and Corbyn the wrong thing opposing it.
However from a pure civil liberties angle, that puts them behind Corbyn.
Edit: *Some of the time...
Farage for example is pro Trump and largely pro Putin
Remember Obama was supposed to be wildly popular here... So much so Cameron thought that by flying him in and getting him to threaten Brit's with being "at the back of the queue" we'd all fall to out feet, see the light and vote remain.
Didn't quite work out...
People like Farage would have run the Nazi puppet government that would have been set up in the UK had the Germans won WW2.
British voters used to be relatively indifferent to Europe and the ramifications, but now they are 'woke' as the SJWs say. They'll not go back quickly to slumbering.
The thing is, we tend to judge people by their politics, but most people make a separate assessment about character (leaving aside mass murderers etc.). Trump alienates many people who are fine with loud-mouthed nationnalism because they Just Don't Like Him.
Occasionally,he also tells the truth. but it's a truth that polite people feel uncomfortable with. It's like speaking ill of the dead at a funeral. It's just not done.
OK, he's barmy too, but eccentric is fine as long as it's not overdone.
My problem is with the idea of leaving the EU to take control. We can buccanneer! In fact we will never be less in control than when we leave the EU. By leaving the table we lose most of our influence to shape things in ways that benefit us, which is a key part of exercising sovereignty. That's why Leavers have never had a workable plan. Any such plan involves us doing what we are told. It's also why there are no good Brexit outcomes. We either choose to make ourselves poorer, which very few people including Leavers are willing to embrace, or we do what we are told with no say.
SO has a point, however, in that the historical record is clear that the centre and left in British politics had the longer and stronger track record of opposing fascism in Europe (and enabled Churchill to counter considerable opposition from within his own party), whereas the right, including mainstream Conservative opinion (at least until the war broke out, and in some cases not even then) favoured appeasement and/or accommodation. It seems fairly obvious from where any puppet government would have been drawn.
Although I guess technically I am arguing against my own point here, I guess in this department the Conservatives do have the edge, Corbyn will infringe on members by calling for an enquiry rather than counter accusations of extremism. Labour have had members kicked out whilst Tories come back in after a quick suspension when their vote is needed on a council and such....
I guess this is one of those times I'm not too zealous and willing to give up a little civil liberties.
But I hope your last sentence is wrong. It would seem to indicate Trump would do even better if he were more reasonable sounding which is a scary prospect.
I kind of think it's the reverse, some people are attracted to the loud mouth who sounds tough and generates headlines, regardless of the nationalism (which in any case is fairly inconsistent, a real nationalist would surely not be so pro-Putin).
As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured. To pursue the golf club analogy so popular in brexit debates, if you want to belong to the club you pay the full subscription. You don't assume that the chairman will pay for everything because he happens to be richer than you are. Nobody likes being freeloaded off. The 4% hike is a whole other issue, of course.
Of course he's going to have as many judge-led enquiries as he thinks will keep those irritating voices quiet. But them's the facts.
Now of course you could say that why shouldn't members of the Labour Party express anti-semitic sentiments and that it is a suppression of their civil liberties not to allow them to do so. But that is an argument you don't seem to be advancing. Or are you?
Trump is a inverterate liar, a racist, a moron, a misogynist; he is up to his neck in sleeze, his closest associates are in all sorts of legal hot water, and it may well turn out that Trump himself committed some very serious crimes during his Presidential campaign, and perhaps before and after it.
Trump is by far the worst US President in living memory.
How bad is Trump? If I had to choose between Corbyn and Trump, I'd pick Corbyn without any hesitation.
Well I wouldn't want him to be PM in Britain either (and I'd have voted for Hilary in 2016) but that doesn't mean I'll be heading down to London to throw rotten eggs at him all day.
https://www.facebook.com/StopDjTrump/videos/2003947193208468/
Electorates choose their leaders according to their motivators. Kicking ass isn't much of a thing for us, so we wouldn't go for Trump.
"As for NATO I think Trump sorta has a point in asking for the 2% commitment to be honoured."
Yes, but polite people don't bring it up in public. It embarrasses people. Possibly it gets more results than being diplomatic? Just think what he'd be like if he was a 'proud Yorkshireman'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY4tD2Hbg_A
Also the only statistical analysis I've seen shows there being less incidents per member than there was pre Corbyn. I guess that is why we tend to avoid actual analysis and say well it is obvious and look these people that have criticised Corbyn for a bunch of other stuff have also mentioned it... In fact statistics have shown that there was more anti-semitism among the Tories. I guess that is only really a problem if anti semitism is the problem with Corbyn though...
Clearly Corbyn has failed in this regard as the Conservatives offer far more civil liberties as they won't even have judge-led enquiries to keep those irritating voices quiet. But them's the facts.
So Corbyn is great on civil liberties in comparison to his opponents apart from on racism in his own party where he has a poor record compared to his opponents, you got me there. When I'm boasting about Corbyn's civil liberties record in future I won't quickly forget your points about him thrashing the liberties of racist members compared to his opponents.
Even if no concrete steps are taken by the DoD we are openly questioning US support for Nato, because of Trump, and that makes Eastern Europe in particular less safe.
Putin is often a reasonable-sounding man who is also a nationalist expansionist - in his interviews, he ranges from the forensically calm to the mildly irritated. Doesn't make him a nice guy, but he doesn't attract the level of personal distaste that Trump engenders. Which, as you say, is perhaps scarier.
Interesting that there is statistical analysis on the number of anti-semitic incidents in the Labour Party. I mean why would anyone commission statistical analysis on something that doesn't exist? Would love to see it, btw.
And then you are back to the Conservatives. Who undoubtedly have plenty of fruitcakes, loonies and out and out racists. Inexcusable and as far as I have seen (I haven't seen any statistical analysis) it is dealt with as it is discovered. And dealt with quite conclusively. Is Ken, for example, in or out of the Labour Party?
But what sticks in the craw is that it is Corbyn, this supposed paragon of civil liberties who bangs on about, er, civil liberties, who has presided over this environment in the Labour Party whereby anti-semites feel emboldened.
* Subject to what is agreed
People regularly get suspended for responding to harassment of themselves.
It may sound like I'm taking the piss, but this is the actual reason that's driving evangelical attitudes to the Middle East, and evangelical attitudes to the Middle East are driving Republican foreign policy.