I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Were these awkward questions being asked by Mr Humphrys?
It's impossible to say at the moment whether that account is accurate, but what seems to be undeniable is that Khashoggi was killed by Saudi government agents. It seems the oddest place to carry out an extra-judicial killing: utterly baffling as well as horrendous.
I don't see what the Saudis gained by murdering him in the consulate, they could have kidnapped him from outside, run him over, stabbed him, gunned him down, or poisoned him, and then blamed some shadowy "other". Inside the consulate such claims are ludicrously implausible.
It's unclear, but it would make more sense if it was a bungled attempt to kidnap him and spirit him back to Saudi Arabia for a show trial.
A bungled kidnap attempt does not accidentally turn into a live dismemberment, beginning with the cutting off of fingers and ending with decapitation, all done by an expert doctor/butcher.
True, but you are assuming that that unsourced account is accurate. Perhaps it is, but you have to wonder how the source got the information.
All I was saying was that a bungled kidnap attempt might explain why they killed him in the consulate. It's hard to see any other explanation.
As unsourced accounts go, it seems pretty believable to me. No one involved has an interest in making this stuff up. It's hugely awkward for Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the USA.
Wouldn't that just mean the account could come from an opponent of those states - of which there are many?
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I've been pointing out this paradox for a while.
The EU is either bluffing, or lying. If the EU refuse to compromise and there is No Deal, the EU itself will be forced to put a Hard Border across Ireland, something the EU has expressly said cannot and will never happen.
Rightly or wrongly the EU think they will face the UK down, so the hard border never happens either as a result of divergence or a lack of a deal. The argument is that divergence will lead to a hard border anyway so you might as well not normalise it.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Which boils down to “don’t put up a hard border or we’ll put up a hard border”.
The Irish/EU position is entirely consistent. They don't want to legitimise a hard border through agreement. One that emerges through the absence of agreement has not been legitimised by them.
Whether you think that is a wise position is a different matter, but it is based on principle.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Which boils down to “don’t put up a hard border or we’ll put up a hard border”.
it show the total incosistency of the Irish position
" we're stirring up all these old hatreds up north so that there wont be any violence"
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Yet we still want to flog them bombs.
The UK government will do ANYTHING to keep the Eurofighter line running. They've scrapped an 8 month old Typhoon (only a 160m quid aircraft, no biggie) before now to keep it ticking over.
They also massively subsidise the BAE operation in Saudi by "seconding" active duty RAF officers to the company to provide highly skilled specialists (eg QFIs) at derisory salaries.
So they won't give a fuck how many journalists the Saudis dismember. MBS could do a massive diarhetic shite on the doorstep of No. 10 and May would say thank you and wipe it up with her wedding dress.
As unsourced accounts go, it seems pretty believable to me. No one involved has an interest in making this stuff up. It's hugely awkward for Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the USA.
It might be accurate, I keep an open mind on that. Clearly it's not made up by any of the countries involved, but it could be an individual who is fantasising.
If it's true, you'd expect traces of blood to have been found. It's not at all easy to clean up or conceal those.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Any human with a soul must despise Saudi Arabia, quite possibly the most despicable regime on earth alongside North Korea. However it is not hard to work out why realpolitik ensures we must pretend to be their friends.
What happens if the Saudi government is toppled? It won't turn into Norway. It will be taken over by jihadis - Wahhabists and Salafists, with access to endless oil billions and a huge military. Think ISIS with nukes.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I've been pointing out this paradox for a while.
The EU is either bluffing, or lying. If the EU refuse to compromise and there is No Deal, the EU itself will be forced to put a Hard Border across Ireland, something the EU has expressly said cannot and will never happen.
It's not a paradox and it's very simple.
1. Neither side wants a hard border; although 2. No Deal would mean (via WTO MFN shenanigans) a hard border; so it's obvious that 3. Threats of No Deal are a bluff by the EU/RoI; however 4. TMay cannot take the chance that matters will transpire so as to make a hard border possible still less probable; therefore 5. She will cave, whether that be via: one of 6. NI as an EU outpost; or 7. The whole of the UK in SM/CU; or 8. Something else.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Which boils down to “don’t put up a hard border or we’ll put up a hard border”.
The Irish/EU position is entirely consistent. They don't want to legitimise a hard border through agreement. One that emerges through the absence of agreement has not been legitimised by them.
Whether you think that is a wise position is a different matter, but it is based on principle.
If the UK and Ireland refuse a border is the EU going to build their own wall
It's impossible to say at the moment whether that account is accurate, but what seems to be undeniable is that Khashoggi was killed by Saudi government agents. It seems the oddest place to carry out an extra-judicial killing: utterly baffling as well as horrendous.
I don't see what the Saudis gained by murdering him in the consulate, they could have kidnapped him from outside, run him over, stabbed him, gunned him down, or poisoned him, and then blamed some shadowy "other". Inside the consulate such claims are ludicrously implausible.
It's unclear, but it would make more sense if it was a bungled attempt to kidnap him and spirit him back to Saudi Arabia for a show trial.
A bungled kidnap attempt does not accidentally turn into a live dismemberment, beginning with the cutting off of fingers and ending with decapitation, all done by an expert doctor/butcher.
True, but you are assuming that that unsourced account is accurate. Perhaps it is, but you have to wonder how the source got the information.
All I was saying was that a bungled kidnap attempt might explain why they killed him in the consulate. It's hard to see any other explanation.
As unsourced accounts go, it seems pretty believable to me. No one involved has an interest in making this stuff up. It's hugely awkward for Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the USA.
Wouldn't that just mean the account could come from an opponent of those states - of which there are many?
They'd have to be close enough to events to be a credible source. That would be remarkably opportune given that even the Saudis admit to a fair amount of nefariousness about the business.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Which boils down to “don’t put up a hard border or we’ll put up a hard border”.
The Irish/EU position is entirely consistent. They don't want to legitimise a hard border through agreement. One that emerges through the absence of agreement has not been legitimised by them.
Whether you think that is a wise position is a different matter, but it is based on principle.
That may well be true but it feels to me like a client wanting to take some pointless legal action "as a matter of principle". The result is still the same - a pointless mess.
Barnier & Co do not have to deliver ANYTHING. They did not start this. They have always bee clear that we have two options - stay or go.
All 29th March is about is whether we stay or go on that date. The choices are ours and always have been.
You are wrong.
Barnier and Co. all signed up to Article 50. That has an obligation in 50.2:
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Barnier and Co. have signed up to an OBLIGATION - "shall negotiate and conclude". Including within that arrangements relating to "its future relationship". A No Deal Brexit represents a breach of the EU's Treaty obligations.
Whilst that may be unenforceable in practice, it gives the UK some considerable moral high ground.
But they are negotiating. They have been since we served Article 50. It is just that we have less options available to us, but we knew that going in.
I am sure that having the moral high ground will be a great comfort to us, but absolutely no use otherwise.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I've been pointing out this paradox for a while.
The EU is either bluffing, or lying. If the EU refuse to compromise and there is No Deal, the EU itself will be forced to put a Hard Border across Ireland, something the EU has expressly said cannot and will never happen.
Rightly or wrongly the EU think they will face the UK down, so the hard border never happens either as a result of divergence or a lack of a deal. The argument is that divergence will lead to a hard border anyway so you might as well not normalise it.
but that fails to address the paradox of the EU position and it will have an impact on Varadkar’s electoral chances.
The government in Denmark is currently being blamed for letting talk of no deal become serious. It will hit them at the election even though Denmark has little said influence - opponents can always claim they would have done it better
May telling the EU she really does not have the parliamentary support for the options they are currently insisting upon is not bully ramming.
The EU27 know well the perilousness of May's parliamentary arithmetic, they're not idiots. However:
1) They feel that May's dismal position is entirely self-inflicted, and her attempts to use a mixture of weaponised pity and tabloid jingoism to try to bully the EU into thinking that it's somehow their problem has (rightly) fallen on deaf ears.
2) They have, like everyone else, "done the math", and realised that the best chance they've got of getting what they want is to ensure that May remains entirely isolated on all fronts, so her only way out is either SM/CU with Labour support, a second referendum, or a catastrophic Brexit.
I can see that that might not turn out well for them as well as for us.
Au Contraire - they can play that card up to 28th March 2019 and then help prevent a catastrophic exit by a last minute extension. In such a situation, facing a meltdown on both sides, I suspect that both sides would agree to an extra 6 months (or whatever)
The payback for the EU is to see if the UK "blinks" when faced with the WTO cliff-edge. If, a month or two out, we "blink" either Brexit will be stopped or we agree to the EU's terms.
They hold all the cards - as was said from day 1
sorry its the EU that has yet to look over the cliff.
To date May has rolled over on the major points. The best thiing can happen is the deal is taken off the table by us. Its the only way prgress will be made, Barnier and co have to deliver if they dont their parties will get hammered in the Euro elections. The last thing they want is a euro sceptic EU parliament. Already their numbers are looking bad as all the big countries are butchering their christian democrats and mainsteam socialists ( the core of the EU consensus ) and replacing them with more colourful alernatives.
Barnier & Co do not have to deliver ANYTHING. They did not start this. They have always bee clear that we have two options - stay or go.
All 29th March is about is whether we stay or go on that date. The choices are ours and always have been.
It's not that we're trying to leave that's the problem. It's that we're trying to leave while retaining some of the privileges of membership.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Were these awkward questions being asked by Mr Humphrys?
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
Saudis are planning to publicly behead human rights protesters, and are currently bombing famine victims. There is no difference of consequence between them and IS.
Miss Cyclefree, lot of barbarism to go around in the Middle East.
The one-time 'good guys' in Syria sometimes ate the hearts of their enemies.
Mr. Meeks, refusing to agree and then complaining there's no agreement isn't a great look.
That's a different point. Though it isn't a great look to go into a negotiation claiming that you hold all the cards only for it to turn out that you hold the Four of Diamonds and Mr Bun the Baker.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Yet we still want to flog them bombs.
The UK government will do ANYTHING to keep the Eurofighter line running. They've scrapped an 8 month old Typhoon (only a 160m quid aircraft, no biggie) before now to keep it ticking over.
They also massively subsidise the BAE operation in Saudi by "seconding" active duty RAF officers to the company to provide highly skilled specialists (eg QFIs) at derisory salaries.
So they won't give a fuck how many journalists the Saudis dismember. MBS could do a massive diarhetic shite on the doorstep of No. 10 and May would say thank you and wipe it up with her wedding dress.
Do you think your point is made by your use of unnecessary language
I enjoy reading your posts because you have a great knowledge, but I stop reading once you descend into the schoolboy stuff. Just make your arguments, often they are very good
Miss Cyclefree, lot of barbarism to go around in the Middle East.
The one-time 'good guys' in Syria sometimes ate the hearts of their enemies.
Mr. Meeks, refusing to agree and then complaining there's no agreement isn't a great look.
The whole of the Middle East is seemingly steeped in barbarism. I watched the Assad documentary the other day. Yuk.
There are days when I feel that if all the people there disappeared so that it was just sand, caves and some interesting wildlife the world as a whole would be in a better position.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Were these awkward questions being asked by Mr Humphrys?
It's impossible to say at the moment whether that account is accurate, but what seems to be undeniable is that Khashoggi was killed by Saudi government agents. It seems the oddest place to carry out an extra-judicial killing: utterly baffling as well as horrendous.
I don't see what the Saudis gained by murdering him in the consulate, they could have kidnapped him from outside, run him over, stabbed him, gunned him down, or poisoned him, and then blamed some shadowy "other". Inside the consulate such claims are ludicrously implausible.
It's unclear, but it would make more sense if it was a bungled attempt to kidnap him and spirit him back to Saudi Arabia for a show trial.
A bungled kidnap attempt does not accidentally turn into a live dismemberment, beginning with the cutting off of fingers and ending with decapitation, all done by an expert doctor/butcher.
True, but you are assuming that that unsourced account is accurate. Perhaps it is, but you have to wonder how the source got the information.
All I was saying was that a bungled kidnap attempt might explain why they killed him in the consulate. It's hard to see any other explanation.
As unsourced accounts go, it seems pretty believable to me. No one involved has an interest in making this stuff up. It's hugely awkward for Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the USA.
One thing that I've become aware of as I've got older is that atrocity stories are more likely to be true than false.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
Saudis are planning to publicly behead human rights protesters, and are currently bombing famine victims. There is no difference of consequence between them and IS.
The war in Yemen also seems to be ... underreported, particularly for a Middle Eastern conflict.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Any human with a soul must despise Saudi Arabia, quite possibly the most despicable regime on earth alongside North Korea. However it is not hard to work out why realpolitik ensures we must pretend to be their friends.
What happens if the Saudi government is toppled? It won't turn into Norway. It will be taken over by jihadis - Wahhabists and Salafists, with access to endless oil billions and a huge military. Think ISIS with nukes.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Why are the RAF training their pilots? Why?
The RAF don't do the type conversion. They used to but completely fucked it all up in the mid noughties. RSAF now do their Typhoon courses in Spain. They do provide instructors for standards and concurrency on the squadrons in kingdom.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Were these awkward questions being asked by Mr Humphrys?
May telling the EU she really does not have the parliamentary support for the options they are currently insisting upon is not bully ramming.
The EU27 know well the perilousness of May's parliamentary arithmetic, they're not idiots. However:
1) They feel that May's dismal position is entirely self-inflicted, and her attempts to use a mixture of weaponised pity and tabloid jingoism to try to bully the EU into thinking that it's somehow their problem has (rightly) fallen on deaf ears.
2) They have, like everyone else, "done the math", and realised that the best chance they've got of getting what they want is to ensure that May remains entirely isolated on all fronts, so her only way out is either SM/CU with Labour support, a second referendum, or a catastrophic Brexit.
I can see that that might not turn out well for them as well as for us.
Au Contraire - they can play that card up to 28th March 2019 and then help prevent a catastrophic exit by a last minute extension. In such a situation, facing a meltdown on both sides, I suspect that both sides would agree to an extra 6 months (or whatever)
The payback for the EU is to see if the UK "blinks" when faced with the WTO cliff-edge. If, a month or two out, we "blink" either Brexit will be stopped or we agree to the EU's terms.
They hold all the cards - as was said from day 1
I don't see what an extension to A50 gets, if there's been no agreement beforehand. No reason why no deal was done will have changed. Also, a six-month extension would mean the UK participating in European parliament elections. Hello again, UKIP, big-time.
The *only* way I see an extension to A50 being requested and agreed is if an agreement has already been done before March 29 but there's not been time to ratify it. In that case, a few more weeks to tidy up the paperwork would be sensible.
It is Brinksmanship Mr Herdson - it pushes "No Deal" further back and allows preparation time. If it got to that point and we really were prepared to walk over the cliff, then the extension gives both sides time to put the No Deal infrastructure in place.
Basically, it allows the work which should already be done, to get done.
There's a difference between overthrowing the Saudi government and refusing to sell them weapons. The Saudi government is by any measure as bad or worse as many of the other governments we refuse to sell arms to.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
Saudis are planning to publicly behead human rights protesters, and are currently bombing famine victims. There is no difference of consequence between them and IS.
Agreed. They probably fund IS as well. Some of the royals funded the 9/11 bombers. The idea that they are allies in any meaningful sense is delusional.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Were these awkward questions being asked by Mr Humphrys?
May telling the EU she really does not have the parliamentary support for the options they are currently insisting upon is not bully ramming.
The EU27 know well the perilousness of May's parliamentary arithmetic, they're not idiots. However:
1) They feel that May's dismal position is entirely self-inflicted, and her attempts to use a mixture of weaponised pity and tabloid jingoism to try to bully the EU into thinking that it's somehow their problem has (rightly) fallen on deaf ears.
2) They have, like everyone else, "done the math", and realised that the best chance they've got of getting what they want is to ensure that May remains entirely isolated on all fronts, so her only way out is either SM/CU with Labour support, a second referendum, or a catastrophic Brexit.
I can see that that might not turn out well for them as well as for us.
Au Contraire - they can play that card up to 28th March 2019 and then help prevent a catastrophic exit by a last minute extension. In such a situation, facing a meltdown on both sides, I suspect that both sides would agree to an extra 6 months (or whatever)
The payback for the EU is to see if the UK "blinks" when faced with the WTO cliff-edge. If, a month or two out, we "blink" either Brexit will be stopped or we agree to the EU's terms.
They hold all the cards - as was said from day 1
I don't see what an extension to A50 gets, if there's been no agreement beforehand. No reason why no deal was done will have changed. Also, a six-month extension would mean the UK participating in European parliament elections. Hello again, UKIP, big-time.
The *only* way I see an extension to A50 being requested and agreed is if an agreement has already been done before March 29 but there's not been time to ratify it. In that case, a few more weeks to tidy up the paperwork would be sensible.
It is Brinksmanship Mr Herdson - it pushes "No Deal" further back and allows preparation time. If it got to that point and we really were prepared to walk over the cliff, then the extension gives both sides time to put the No Deal infrastructure in place.
Basically, it allows the work which should already be done, to get done.
Making no deal more likely, because they would feel more prepared?
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I've been pointing out this paradox for a while.
The EU is either bluffing, or lying. If the EU refuse to compromise and there is No Deal, the EU itself will be forced to put a Hard Border across Ireland, something the EU has expressly said cannot and will never happen.
Rightly or wrongly the EU think they will face the UK down, so the hard border never happens either as a result of divergence or a lack of a deal. The argument is that divergence will lead to a hard border anyway so you might as well not normalise it.
but that fails to address the paradox of the EU position and it will have an impact on Varadkar’s electoral chances.
The government in Denmark is currently being blamed for letting talk of no deal become serious. It will hit them at the election even though Denmark has little said influence - opponents can always claim they would have done it better
It's not a paradox. If the UK including NI diverges from the EU there will be a hard border in Ireland. If the UK except NI diverge there will be a border in the Irish Sea. If the UK doesn't diverge there will be no hard border. The EU is offering the the UK a choice of the last two options. If the UK doesn't take either, there will also be a hard border in Ireland, but the EU can make that choice so expensive for the UK, it is unlikely to take it.
Off topic, but pertinent - a couple of interesting articles in Die Welt highlight the EU's challenges, and show how the status quo might change (and might have to):
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Any human with a soul must despise Saudi Arabia, quite possibly the most despicable regime on earth alongside North Korea. However it is not hard to work out why realpolitik ensures we must pretend to be their friends.
What happens if the Saudi government is toppled? It won't turn into Norway. It will be taken over by jihadis - Wahhabists and Salafists, with access to endless oil billions and a huge military. Think ISIS with nukes.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Emotionally I agree with you. I despise Saudi Arabia. But look what's happened almost everywhere else in the Muslim world when autocrats have been toppled, either by their own people or with our "help".
Jihadists have moved in.
Saudi Arabia is the HQ of jihadism, the cradle of Waahabism. They are the only credible opposition to the royals. They would take over. And that WOULD be worse.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
The only realistic option to one Saudi prince is another Saudi prince. But western governments tread in a minefield if they get involved in palace coups there given the sensitivity of the control of Mecca and Medina.
I fully agree that becoming less reliant on ME oil is a big part of the answer - though that of itself may starve the tiger that the Saudi royals are riding.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
Are we? I thought I heard recently that global oil production hit a new high. I suppose that means Middle East oil is a lower percentage, but that's not the same as stopping to need to use it.
If we want to stop buying their oil (or Qatari gas) we have a lot to do.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Any human with a soul must despise Saudi Arabia, quite possibly the most despicable regime on earth alongside North Korea. However it is not hard to work out why realpolitik ensures we must pretend to be their friends.
What happens if the Saudi government is toppled? It won't turn into Norway. It will be taken over by jihadis - Wahhabists and Salafists, with access to endless oil billions and a huge military. Think ISIS with nukes.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Why are the RAF training their pilots? Why?
Not just training, but assisting in operational control.
I have been watching the fascinating Black Earth Rising, which explores the nature of evil justice and Western complicity in the Rwandan genocide and later Congolese wars. Saudi/Yemen seems much the same now, yet we refuse to learn from previous mistakes.
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Were these awkward questions being asked by Mr Humphrys?
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Any human with a soul must despise Saudi Arabia, quite possibly the most despicable regime on earth alongside North Korea. However it is not hard to work out why realpolitik ensures we must pretend to be their friends.
What happens if the Saudi government is toppled? It won't turn into Norway. It will be taken over by jihadis - Wahhabists and Salafists, with access to endless oil billions and a huge military. Think ISIS with nukes.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Emotionally I agree with you. I despise Saudi Arabia. But look what's happened almost everywhere else in the Muslim world when autocrats have been toppled, either by their own people or with our "help".
Jihadists have moved in.
Saudi Arabia is the HQ of jihadism, the cradle of Waahabism. They are the only credible opposition to the royals. They would take over. And that WOULD be worse.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
The only realistic option to one Saudi prince is another Saudi prince. But western governments tread in a minefield if they get involved in palace coups there given the sensitivity of the control of Mecca and Medina.
I fully agree that becoming less reliant on ME oil is a big part of the answer - though that of itself may starve the tiger that the Saudi royals are riding.
The whole House of Saud is rotten. A palace coup is not enough.
Barnier & Co do not have to deliver ANYTHING. They did not start this. They have always bee clear that we have two options - stay or go.
All 29th March is about is whether we stay or go on that date. The choices are ours and always have been.
You are wrong.
Barnier and Co. all signed up to Article 50. That has an obligation in 50.2:
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Barnier and Co. have signed up to an OBLIGATION - "shall negotiate and conclude". Including within that arrangements relating to "its future relationship". A No Deal Brexit represents a breach of the EU's Treaty obligations.
Whilst that may be unenforceable in practice, it gives the UK some considerable moral high ground.
But they are negotiating. They have been since we served Article 50. It is just that we have less options available to us, but we knew that going in.
I am sure that having the moral high ground will be a great comfort to us, but absolutely no use otherwise.
Show me how the EU has in any sense "negotiated". They haven't budged an inch, at least for public consumption.
And I would suggest that it will be pretty useful to have that moral hgh ground in domestic politics.
"We tried. They were utterly unreasonable - indeed, on the issue of the Irish border, impervious to reason. This is in breach of their Treaty obligations. By their actions, they will have reinforced that the people's sensibilities in not wanting to be inside the EU were profoundly correct. So, regretably, the UK will have to make the best of the bad job the EU have imposed upon us...."
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
Saudis are planning to publicly behead human rights protesters, and are currently bombing famine victims. There is no difference of consequence between them and IS.
The war in Yemen also seems to be ... underreported, particularly for a Middle Eastern conflict.
It's basically too dangerous for journalists to get to. Yemen hasn't been safe for years and now it's multiple levels above unsafe.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
Mr. Pulpstar, no need to worry, comrade. Once Comrade Corbyn is installed as chairman of the Cabinet Committee the Approve List of People's Reporters will ensure only those of impeccable truth-bearing credentials will be deemed worthy of informing the proletariat of Comrade Corbyn's wisdom.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
Saudis are planning to publicly behead human rights protesters, and are currently bombing famine victims. There is no difference of consequence between them and IS.
The war in Yemen also seems to be ... underreported, particularly for a Middle Eastern conflict.
It's basically too dangerous for journalists to get to. Yemen hasn't been safe for years and now it's multiple levels above unsafe.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
Saudis are planning to publicly behead human rights protesters, and are currently bombing famine victims. There is no difference of consequence between them and IS.
The war in Yemen also seems to be ... underreported, particularly for a Middle Eastern conflict.
It's basically too dangerous for journalists to get to. Yemen hasn't been safe for years and now it's multiple levels above unsafe.
What has happened in Yemen is deeply tragic. It all started to go wrong when the Yemenis had the temerity to sign up for democracy, which the neighbouring Saudis felt an existential threat. When I was going there in the 90's, the Saudis were already meddling to destabilise the place.
And it was a very safe place to be: I remember happily walking around the old city of Sana'a, everybody armed with (initially) AK47s, and when they later required an expensive permit to carry in public, everyone still had the ceremonial jambiya knife tucked in their waistband. And I never had any issues with personal safety at all.
Mr. Pulpstar, no need to worry, comrade. Once Comrade Corbyn is installed as chairman of the Cabinet Committee the Approve List of People's Reporters will ensure only those of impeccable truth-bearing credentials will be deemed worthy of informing the proletariat of Comrade Corbyn's wisdom.
Here's the worrying thing, James O'Brien is many things, but certainly NOT a Corbynista; I know it sounds like something that Momentum would come out with but this whole implicit deplatforming/wrongthink has gone beyond the hard left now.
So we're all agreed we should get fracking to reduce dependency on the Middle East?
No, renewables.
Fossil fuels are destroying the planet, and we need to phase them out.
Replacing a source of fuel is far easier and quicker than switching over to renewables. It’s not as if we can switch to all electric cars tomorrow, for example (not to mention the question of where this power comes from, typically it’s just displaced emissions).
I think Varadkar, for one, would be very badly damaged by No Deal. Perhaps unfairly, but it would be a terrible outcome for Ireland, that happened on his watch, and that is never a good thing for any leader. He would get blamed (as well as the Brits and Brussels).
There was an interesting moment on the Today programme this morning when Simon Coveney was asked the obvious question: Wouldn't No Deal mean exactly the hard border you are trying to avoid? He seemed flummoxed by it.
I was half asleep when that interview was on. He seemed a bit hysterical. Would that be fair?
He started off quite well, but couldn't really handle questions about the logical inconsistency of the Irish/EU position.
Were these awkward questions being asked by Mr Humphrys?
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
If not the Italians, then Viktor Orban's Hungary. For the shitz and giggles.
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
.
You've answered your own question.
I don't quite buy that. This was apparently a professional hit squad with expert doctors etc.
Did they go mad? Extra judicial killing is bad enough, a la Putin, but this horror is more like an ISIS execution. Perhaps someone on the team was hoping to discredit Riyadh?
Ugh.
IS and the Saudis share the same ideology. It is hardly a surprise to find them committing the same sort of barbaric acts.
Saudis are planning to publicly behead human rights protesters, and are currently bombing famine victims. There is no difference of consequence between them and IS.
The war in Yemen also seems to be ... underreported, particularly for a Middle Eastern conflict.
It's basically too dangerous for journalists to get to. Yemen hasn't been safe for years and now it's multiple levels above unsafe.
We should thank our lucky stars every morning that we were lucky enough to be born in Britain
The EU is, perhaps unknowingly, guaranteeing that Britain will never rejoin the EU. This upsets me greatly.
A ‘no deal’ will simply lead to an unstoppable wave of resentment of the EU. It doesn’t matter if its unjustified.
It’s acting like a superpower rather than as a collection of nations.
I am/was an EU federalist but this whole escapade has really disappointed me.
It's going to be a brutal display of power diplomacy, but I don't think we should expect the EU to behave differently. It's there to protect the interests of its members. Brexit threatens the Irish interest because of the border issue. The EU has the power to act on its member's interest. It will take it.
Mr. Pulpstar, no need to worry, comrade. Once Comrade Corbyn is installed as chairman of the Cabinet Committee the Approve List of People's Reporters will ensure only those of impeccable truth-bearing credentials will be deemed worthy of informing the proletariat of Comrade Corbyn's wisdom.
Here's the worrying thing, James O'Brien is many things, but certainly NOT a Corbynista; I know it sounds like something that Momentum would come out with but this whole implicit deplatforming/wrongthink has gone beyond the hard left now.
O'Brien divides the world into the good (left wing Europhiles) and the bad (everyone else).
Mr. Pulpstar, O'Brien seems to be a fundamentalist for Remain, which may be colouring his view.
I do agree that the normalising of this bloody insanity, where people try and win arguments by silencing opposition and playing victim cards at every opportunities, is an infectious disease. Pluckrose et al. did excellent work getting a feminist rewriting of Mein Kampf accepted by an academic journal, to highlight the madness.
The EU is, perhaps unknowingly, guaranteeing that Britain will never rejoin the EU. This upsets me greatly.
A ‘no deal’ will simply lead to an unstoppable wave of resentment of the EU. It doesn’t matter if its unjustified.
It’s acting like a superpower rather than as a collection of nations.
I am/was an EU federalist but this whole escapade has really disappointed me.
It's going to be a brutal display of power diplomacy, but I don't think we should expect the EU to behave differently. It's there to protect the interests of its members. Brexit threatens the Irish interest because of the border issue. The EU has the power to act on its member's interest. It will take it.
the EU is not protecting the interest of its memebers, its currently protecting the interest of the commission.
So we're all agreed we should get fracking to reduce dependency on the Middle East?
No. Perhaps we ***UGH*** and this cuts deeply into my soul... need to get on with the hideously expensive Hinkley Point and other overpriced nuclear facilities whilst we develop the capability to build them ourselves for a reasonable price once more. That and renewables. Between the Saudis, fracking and Hinkley point I'm afraid it has to be Hinkley though.
The EU is, perhaps unknowingly, guaranteeing that Britain will never rejoin the EU. This upsets me greatly.
A ‘no deal’ will simply lead to an unstoppable wave of resentment of the EU. It doesn’t matter if its unjustified.
It’s acting like a superpower rather than as a collection of nations.
I am/was an EU federalist but this whole escapade has really disappointed me.
It's going to be a brutal display of power diplomacy, but I don't think we should expect the EU to behave differently. It's there to protect the interests of its members. Brexit threatens the Irish interest because of the border issue. The EU has the power to act on its member's interest. It will take it.
Yet a no-deal Brexit massively threatens the Irish interest. They are about to discover what Brussels' Tough Love looks like.
The EU is, perhaps unknowingly, guaranteeing that Britain will never rejoin the EU. This upsets me greatly.
A ‘no deal’ will simply lead to an unstoppable wave of resentment of the EU. It doesn’t matter if its unjustified.
It’s acting like a superpower rather than as a collection of nations.
I am/was an EU federalist but this whole escapade has really disappointed me.
It's going to be a brutal display of power diplomacy, but I don't think we should expect the EU to behave differently. It's there to protect the interests of its members. Brexit threatens the Irish interest because of the border issue. The EU has the power to act on its member's interest. It will take it.
And its “protection” of their interests could lead to exactly what they don’t want.
As an aside, my current view is that May will try her best to capitulate and sacrifice Northern Ireland to regulatory annexation by the EU. It remains to be seen if the DUP and Conservative front- and backbenchers will manage to see that off a second time.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
If not the Italians, then Viktor Orban's Hungary. For the shitz and giggles.
I can see a much more lively EU Parlt,
I reckon we could have up to 40% of Brussels composed of anti establishment parties.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
Are we? I thought I heard recently that global oil production hit a new high. I suppose that means Middle East oil is a lower percentage, but that's not the same as stopping to need to use it.
If we want to stop buying their oil (or Qatari gas) we have a lot to do.
There is actually a reasonable argument in favour of fracking.
It is going to take a couple of decades to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, even with a massive government commitment to wind, solar and tidal power (which IF planned right, makes a great deal of economic sense). In the meantime we are better off morally and economically to be burning our own gas.
Mr. Pulpstar, no need to worry, comrade. Once Comrade Corbyn is installed as chairman of the Cabinet Committee the Approve List of People's Reporters will ensure only those of impeccable truth-bearing credentials will be deemed worthy of informing the proletariat of Comrade Corbyn's wisdom.
Here's the worrying thing, James O'Brien is many things, but certainly NOT a Corbynista; I know it sounds like something that Momentum would come out with but this whole implicit deplatforming/wrongthink has gone beyond the hard left now.
O'Brien divides the world into the good (left wing Europhiles) and the bad (everyone else).
Yes, hence why I make the point that whilst he is many things, he isn't a Corbynite
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Any human with a soul must despise Saudi Arabia, quite possibly the most despicable regime on earth alongside North Korea. However it is not hard to work out why realpolitik ensures we must pretend to be their friends.
What happens if the Saudi government is toppled? It won't turn into Norway. It will be taken over by jihadis - Wahhabists and Salafists, with access to endless oil billions and a huge military. Think ISIS with nukes.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
Emotionally I agree with you. I despise Saudi Arabia. But look what's happened almost everywhere else in the Muslim world when autocrats have been toppled, either by their own people or with our "help".
Jihadists have moved in.
Saudi Arabia is the HQ of jihadism, the cradle of Waahabism. They are the only credible opposition to the royals. They would take over. And that WOULD be worse.
The best thing we can do is slowly wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil (which we are doing) and pray that over time the fires ofworldwide jihadism simply burn out. I think they surely will (all things must pass) but it could take decades.
The only realistic option to one Saudi prince is another Saudi prince. But western governments tread in a minefield if they get involved in palace coups there given the sensitivity of the control of Mecca and Medina.
I fully agree that becoming less reliant on ME oil is a big part of the answer - though that of itself may starve the tiger that the Saudi royals are riding.
The whole House of Saud is rotten. A palace coup is not enough.
That's easy to say (and may well be right). All the same, if you want to topple the House of Saud, you need to say what you want to replace it with, and how. To me, it's pretty damn clear that if the Saudi state loses control of the Peninsula, there's little that the Islamic extremists would love more than to occupy Mecca and establish their supposed new caliphate there. Good luck sorting that out.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
If not the Italians, then Viktor Orban's Hungary. For the shitz and giggles.
I can see a much more lively EU Parlt,
I reckon we could have up to 40% of Brussels composed of anti establishment parties.
a shame were leaving in a way :-)
Yes, we may well have left before a newer looser arrangement developed.
Though we should not forget that in Italy as in Greece, the popularity of the Euro is high. They justvwant looser fiscal policy with it.
So we're all agreed we should get fracking to reduce dependency on the Middle East?
No. Perhaps we ***UGH*** and this cuts deeply into my soul... need to get on with the hideously expensive Hinkley Point and other overpriced nuclear facilities whilst we develop the capability to build them ourselves for a reasonable price once more. That and renewables. Between the Saudis, fracking and Hinkley point I'm afraid it has to be Hinkley though.
This Government should be beaten around the head on a daily basis with an inflated puffer fish, until they agree to pursue a series of tidal barrages.....
The latest account of Khashoggi's alleged killing is more disturbing than ever:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-khashoggi-829291552 ...Salah Muhammad al-Tubaigy, who has been identified as the head of forensic evidence in the Saudi general security department, was one of the 15-member squad who arrived in Ankara earlier that day on a private jet.
Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi’s body up on a table in the study while he was still alive, the Turkish source said.
The killing took seven minutes, the source said.
As he started to dismember the body, Tubaigy put on earphones and listened to music. He advised other members of the squad to do the same....
Jesus Christ. Why?? What do they gain dismembering him alive? Apart from some sadistic pleasure?
Killing him by itself is surely enough to frighten dissidents into silence. This just makes the Saudi regime look psychotic, worse than North Korea, and deserving of similar isolation.
Any human with a soul must despise Saudi Arabia, quite possibly the most despicable regime on earth alongside North Korea. However it is not hard to work out why realpolitik ensures we must pretend to be their friends.
What happens if the Saudi government is toppled? It won't turn into Norway. It will be taken over by jihadis - Wahhabists and Salafists, with access to endless oil billions and a huge military. Think ISIS with nukes.
That's why we prop up the Saudi royals. Because the alternative, incredibly, is even WORSE.
No it isn't. It is never worth propping up such a regime.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
Heres hoping that you can Jazz hands shortly! Incidentally, worth noting this:
Show me how the EU has in any sense "negotiated". They haven't budged an inch, at least for public consumption.
What has that to do with anything? Both sides meet, set out their positions and then try and reach some agreement. Nothing says it has to be equitable or even successful. The Treaty obligations are fulfilled and that is that.
Exciting times, Salvini-Conte-Di Maio are a popular trio in Italy, they have an absolute shit ton of domestic capital at their disposal.
if thats so then it will be a bumpy ride to christmas
I see a very significant chance that Italy rejects A50 extension.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
thats a fair point, Currently Italy is registered as heavily eurosceptic with only 44% of Italians wanting to stay in the EU. The government is increasing its polling with each fight with Brussels. Tipping the whole apple cart may be quite attractive.
If not the Italians, then Viktor Orban's Hungary. For the shitz and giggles.
I can see a much more lively EU Parlt,
I reckon we could have up to 40% of Brussels composed of anti establishment parties.
a shame were leaving in a way :-)
Yes, we may well have left before a newer looser arrangement developed.
Though we should not forget that in Italy as in Greece, the popularity of the Euro is high. They justvwant looser fiscal policy with it.
Its probably the case, but I doubt we would be getting the looser arrangement without the Leave vote. Others get the prize we wanted, thats life.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
Good luck. I'm reminded of the Tommy Cooper joke. A man goes into the doctor and says "Doctor, it hurts when I put my hand up like this...."
The EU is, perhaps unknowingly, guaranteeing that Britain will never rejoin the EU. This upsets me greatly.
A ‘no deal’ will simply lead to an unstoppable wave of resentment of the EU. It doesn’t matter if its unjustified.
It’s acting like a superpower rather than as a collection of nations.
I am/was an EU federalist but this whole escapade has really disappointed me.
It's going to be a brutal display of power diplomacy, but I don't think we should expect the EU to behave differently. It's there to protect the interests of its members. Brexit threatens the Irish interest because of the border issue. The EU has the power to act on its member's interest. It will take it.
And its “protection” of their interests could lead to exactly what they don’t want.
Only if the UK doesn't agree anything with the EU ever, which is unlikely. Bear in mind an agreed deal with a diverging UK also leads to a hard border, so on that measure they are no worse off, while leaving the issue open to be resolved later. There are risks for the EU and Ireland, but more for us.
Comments
Whether you think that is a wise position is a different matter, but it is based on principle.
" we're stirring up all these old hatreds up north so that there wont be any violence"
They also massively subsidise the BAE operation in Saudi by "seconding" active duty RAF officers to the company to provide highly skilled specialists (eg QFIs) at derisory salaries.
So they won't give a fuck how many journalists the Saudis dismember. MBS could do a massive diarhetic shite on the doorstep of No. 10 and May would say thank you and wipe it up with her wedding dress.
If it's true, you'd expect traces of blood to have been found. It's not at all easy to clean up or conceal those.
1. Neither side wants a hard border; although
2. No Deal would mean (via WTO MFN shenanigans) a hard border; so it's obvious that
3. Threats of No Deal are a bluff by the EU/RoI; however
4. TMay cannot take the chance that matters will transpire so as to make a hard border possible still less probable; therefore
5. She will cave, whether that be via: one of
6. NI as an EU outpost; or
7. The whole of the UK in SM/CU; or
8. Something else.
The one-time 'good guys' in Syria sometimes ate the hearts of their enemies.
Mr. Meeks, refusing to agree and then complaining there's no agreement isn't a great look.
That may well be true but it feels to me like a client wanting to take some pointless legal action "as a matter of principle". The result is still the same - a pointless mess.
I am sure that having the moral high ground will be a great comfort to us, but absolutely no use otherwise.
The government in Denmark is currently being blamed for letting talk of no deal become serious. It will hit them at the election even though Denmark has little said influence - opponents can always claim they would have done it better
Simple average: Approve 43%, Disapprove 52%
I enjoy reading your posts because you have a great knowledge, but I stop reading once you descend into the schoolboy stuff. Just make your arguments, often they are very good
There are days when I feel that if all the people there disappeared so that it was just sand, caves and some interesting wildlife the world as a whole would be in a better position.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1052463798110449665
Basically, it allows the work which should already be done, to get done.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/current-arms-embargoes-and-other-restrictions
A touch sinister.
I would say the EU have got the bases covered.
https://www.zeit.de/politik/2018-06/european-union-integration-eu-new-constitution-law-asylum
https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2018-07/european-union-germany-challenges-loyalty-solidarity
I fully agree that becoming less reliant on ME oil is a big part of the answer - though that of itself may starve the tiger that the Saudi royals are riding.
If we want to stop buying their oil (or Qatari gas) we have a lot to do.
They are quite prepared, indeed already have, gummed up EU business in defence of their own position and they would see this as a massive, massive lever.
I have been watching the fascinating Black Earth Rising, which explores the nature of evil justice and Western complicity in the Rwandan genocide and later Congolese wars. Saudi/Yemen seems much the same now, yet we refuse to learn from previous mistakes.
And I would suggest that it will be pretty useful to have that moral hgh ground in domestic politics.
"We tried. They were utterly unreasonable - indeed, on the issue of the Irish border, impervious to reason. This is in breach of their Treaty obligations. By their actions, they will have reinforced that the people's sensibilities in not wanting to be inside the EU were profoundly correct. So, regretably, the UK will have to make the best of the bad job the EU have imposed upon us...."
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1052555420827639810
A ‘no deal’ will simply lead to an unstoppable wave of resentment of the EU. It doesn’t matter if its unjustified.
It’s acting like a superpower rather than as a collection of nations.
I am/was an EU federalist but this whole escapade has really disappointed me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-45888848/yemen-air-strike-the-school-that-s-lost-42-children
Fossil fuels are destroying the planet, and we need to phase them out.
And it was a very safe place to be: I remember happily walking around the old city of Sana'a, everybody armed with (initially) AK47s, and when they later required an expensive permit to carry in public, everyone still had the ceremonial jambiya knife tucked in their waistband. And I never had any issues with personal safety at all.
like you I could have happily lived in a Confederation, but the increasingly authoritarian nature of Brussels is what put me off.
that should be the priority
I do agree that the normalising of this bloody insanity, where people try and win arguments by silencing opposition and playing victim cards at every opportunities, is an infectious disease. Pluckrose et al. did excellent work getting a feminist rewriting of Mein Kampf accepted by an academic journal, to highlight the madness.
Yes you can run heat pumps, but the British obsession with period (read: old) properties means that this isn’t viable for a vast majority.
What do you then suggest? Biomass?
That and renewables.
Between the Saudis, fracking and Hinkley point I'm afraid it has to be Hinkley though.
https://news.sky.com/story/john-major-rips-into-boris-johnson-and-fellow-brexiteers-saying-theyll-never-be-forgiven-11527629
... and they're not even the 'bastards'.
I reckon we could have up to 40% of Brussels composed of anti establishment parties.
a shame were leaving in a way :-)
It is going to take a couple of decades to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, even with a massive government commitment to wind, solar and tidal power (which IF planned right, makes a great deal of economic sense).
In the meantime we are better off morally and economically to be burning our own gas.
They say, quite rightly, that Britain chose Brexit and therefore things cannot be as they were when Britain was a member. It will be a third country and be in a less favourable position than it was before.
And yet at the same time it is saying that nothing must change in Ireland, that things must stay exactly as they were, as if Britain were still an EU member.
This really cannot be, can it. It's a prime example of cherry-picking, surely.
They are saying, as Simon Coveney said this morning, that NI is a special case and must be treated differently, even though the country of which it is an integral part, voted to leave. That seems to me absurd, though I understand why he says it and why the Irish do view NI as a special place.
But in effect he - and the EU - are saying that NI should be detached from Britain because this will benefit Ireland and the EU, regardless of the expressed wishes of Britain and, indeed, NI.
If NI voters were to agree to it, then fine. But that is not on offer though it might provide one way out of the impasse.
But then if that is a solution for NI, why not for Scotland or London or other areas which voted Remain?
If the integrity of the SM is inviolable then the integrity of the UK is also inviolable.
I see no way out, if Parliamentary arithmetic won't permit, other than either another referendum or a NI vote on whether the Barnier proposal is a runner.
But there is a risk that not only will this stir up passions in Ireland but that this is doing no good for any future British/EU relationship either.
It is a mess and I fear that our current government - or any possible alternative - is simply not up to the task of sorting it out.
Anyway off to the hospital to find out if I'll ever be able to raise my right arm ever again without pain. Wish me luck!!
Though we should not forget that in Italy as in Greece, the popularity of the Euro is high. They justvwant looser fiscal policy with it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/common-nhs-shoulder-surgery-no-better-placebo-relieving-pain/
Sometimes there are no winners.
To which the doctor replies:
"Don't do it then."