TOPIC: Chickens starting to come home to roost

.....so, do we move on to flood defences ?

.....so, do we move on to flood defences ?

Depends how it's spun though loser. Some papers will lead with it and have it as a disgraceful consequence of what Farage was saying, and will have you believe all leave voters are racist maniacs. Others would print it on page 15 and say it is because Muslims want to ban Christmas.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

Depends how it's spun though loser. Some papers will lead with it and have it as a disgraceful consequence of what Farage was saying, and will have you believe all leave voters are racist maniacs. Others would print it on page 15 and say it is because Muslims want to ban Christmas.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

That's it in a nutshell! Markovitch says BLACK, silentone says WHITE, the truth is without doubt grey.

Dancingbear wrote: Thursday 23rd June , rate 1.31 euros to the pound , I didn't expect us to vote out or I certainly would have bought.then,

I also prefer Russians to Americans but that doesn't mean that one day Putin's tanks won't roll into the Baltic States.
We've just committed a further 650 ground troops to Estonia and Poland as part of our NATO commitment. NATO clearly believes Putin is a threat and I'd agree with them. I don't think it is a question of if but when. The Baltic States have significant Russian minorities and ethnic populations depleted by migration. Putin is going to have fun teasing NATO with military exercises and airspace incursions. Big question is whether NATO's Article 5 will hold if one of the Baltics is invaded or more probably when all three are. With only the UK in the EU maintaining the 2% of GDP spending on defence and us not forming part of a European Army, Putin may feel that the EU/NATO response will be that defending the Baltics is not worth the candle.

The EU can probably cope with Brexit but losing the Baltic States to Putin's tanks could be disastrous.

carwash wrote:
As part of our NATO commitment? Where in our Nato membership agreement does it say we have to provide these troops? How many troops will be German, Italian, Spanish or French? Where is their NATO commitment? Nope, just us and the US.

This is a voluntary agreement whereby we are providing military support to countries who have agreed to economic sanctions against Russia. And what the Daily Express is not telling you Is that there is a very generous aid package along with it (in addition to their right to supply us with cheap dairy products which is bankrupting our Cumbrian dairy farmers). Cameron in his role of Obama’s arse puppet is spending British tax payer’s money on political support for the US (in addition to the £100m spent in Latvia on bloody flood defences). The US spend more on its military than the next 12 countries combined, NATO has 10 times the number of troops and weapons that Russia has. Saying you are concerned about Russia invading is like saying Mourinho’s biggest fear in the FA Cup next year is meeting Carlisle. Russia is so far behind in numbers and technology that they would never invade- see the link below.

When people’s homes are destroyed in Carlisle next year and we have 400 mile round trips to home games we can be happy in the knowledge that Cameron and the Tories have made a decision that spending money on Polish infrastructure is more important than the Carlisle flood defences. We have the highest military spend of any country in Europe, maybe we could not send these troops and make British people's homes safe and dry?

www.rt.com/op-edge/350239-nato-russia-troops-disinformation/

In the US the army pays $20bn a year for air conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq alone. At the same time Americans are dying of toothache.
www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-t...-in-air-conditioning
abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-...he/story?id=14438171

Why does Obama permit this? Because the quid pro quo is that the war companies make huge donations to the Democratic Party and keep them in power. Cameron is simply replicating this process with the Tories so people in Carlisle can have annual wildfowl festivals in their living rooms but we must have troops in Poland of all places.

To perpetuate the myth the Daily Mail flip flops between the threat of Isis/ Al Qaeda/ Bin Laden (or whichever evil we have funded last) and Russia which has no ability or desire to invade. Spending money on armies is then presented in articles whereby we have a Nato commitment (which Cameron made voluntarily).

Here is comedian John Stewart talking about the benefits of education against military spending, very funny and topical. The ending though is the best part, Americans are now so poorly educated the army is complaining they can't use military weapons

BelleVueBoy wrote: Stop being such a bedwetter.... even the most anti-european brexit campaigner knew there will be short term pain post decision... it is purely caused by uncertainty... once the plan becomes clear and negotiations take place then it will all calm down. Our economy is still fundamentally strong... that won't change in the medium term.

This is a long term project.... it is to give this country the opportunity to trade with the world.... it will take time to do those deals though. Interestingly several countries have already contacted us stating that they want to begin negotiation asap. Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Canada, and India.... the Speaker of the House of representatives in the US has urged America to begin trade negotiations asap. The problem is these things never get reported on the TV and in most media as they were massively pro-EU during the campaign, with a few exceptions. For example, the BBC led with a story of Easyjet moving staff to Europe... this was massively misleading as they made it sound like thousands would have to move... in reality it is just the legal office that will move so that they are technically seen as being based in the EU... we are talking about a handful of jobs. At the same time Huawei confirmed that they will still go ahead with their 1.3 billion pound investment in the UK despite the brexit vote...not even a mention on the BBC.

Although there has been an impact to currency that really isn't such a bad thing... yes your two weeks in Benidorm may cost you an extra 50 quid but in the grand scheme of things that isn't much of an issue. The massive positive is that our exports are now more competitive which will drive export sales.

Pretty much everybody who voted leave knew there would be a few years of slower growth and that it will take us time to negotiate a new deal with the EU and set up deals with other economies around the world.... but the longer term benefits are huge. WE get to make our own legal and political decisions, we get to make business easier by removing huge amounts of red tape, we have the freedom to set our own taxation levels, we get to trade with some massive markets that we would never be able to sell to in the EU, we get to continue having our own armed services that can be deployed in the interests of this country, we get to control the numbers and skill levels of migrants entering the country,.... a bit of short term pain is well worth that for me. Others may disagree. This is a time for us to hold our nerve as a country and ensure we get the negotiated deal with the EU that we want... because one thing is absolutely certain, the EU can't afford not to do a deal, and the longer we wait without triggering article 50 the more the pressure comes on their governments... cracks are already beginning to appear and the powerful German car industry is already becoming a big influencer on Merkle. She needs to do a deal for her own political future, with an election looming in Germany in the not too distant future. Personally I don't give a toss that the housing market is down a bit.... the price of houses is ridiculous in this country and we could do with a fall in house prices to allow young people to get access to the housing market.

edited to add link
moneyweek.com/the-uks-potential-new-trade-agreements/

Northumbrian wrote:
So you voted leave knowing they could not deliver their promises or even do anything? Just out of mild interest, what did you expect to happen then? All the page long posts about new trade deals, if Boris could not negotiate them then who? Feck it lets just wing it and see what happens, with the lives of 60m people at stake? Jesus Christ man, really?

Who has Russia invaded? South Ossetia, Syria and Novorossiya, they were invited into all of them by the local parliaments. Poland, the Baltics during the last war, invited into all of them. Afghanistan ok, but there are British troops there and they were never invited either. Britain also has Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sierra Leone and Mali, all active duty and all invasion forces. Britain is currently much more aggressive than Russia. And where does destroying the Cumbrian dairy industry help to protect my poor old mum from the evil bolshies? So you think it is more important to build flood defences in Latvia than in Carlisle. Maybe want to reflect on that during the 400m round trip drive to a hime game from Northumberland. Especially the fact that one mortar and the things are rendered useless

Russia Today is biased but no more than the Daily Telegraph. The DT was fined £30000 in January for telling subscribers to vote Tory, so not much bias there then huh!!

Nato has invited Georgia to join. Georgia which is not in the north and not near the Atlantic so Nato is pushing ahead with enlargement- or surrounding Russia if you want the RT take on it.

Gorbachev was promised when Germany reunited that Nato would not spread east of Poland. That promise was broken when the Americans stationed troops in Ukraine. When Putin complained about broken promises Rasmussen told him the promise was never made. Jack Matlock the US Ambassador to Russia in 1990 then issued a statement confirming that the promise was made. If Nato is going to lie to the world why would Russia trust them? And if Britain is stationing troops along Russia's border who is the aggressor? Of course of they are just building flood defences then there is no aggression, but why is Latvia getting flood defences and not Carlisle?

You have kids. If there is a war will you send them?

www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-...moscow-a-663315.html

Here is a map for you of US bases around Russia
www.fort-russ.com/2015/09/russian-bases-in-syria-window-to.html

Gorbachev made a speech on Russian national TV telling the people to prepare for a Nato invasion, this is the English variant

www.rt.com/news/350434-nato-war-russia-warsaw/

In other news, you can add Leadsom to the list of names of leavers (Johnson, Farage) without the backbone to actually...you know....help us leave.
Or maybe it's that lot who are the "bewdwetters"?

deeksme wrote: Or maybe the Conservative party are trying to avoid the the turmoil that is engulfing the Labour party currently. It isn't ideal if your leader has the support of the grass roots but not that of the parliamentary party. Leadsom's decision avoids weeks of infighting, creates an opportunity for earlier stability, and might actually bring the party together after a particularly damaging referendum campaign. I'm not sure if it was planned that way but the end result is that the Conservative party will come out of this far stronger than the Labour party, who are on the verge of imploding. If we see Leadsom getting a decent cabinet post then that might suggest a deal has been done. Expect May to be approved by the 1922 committee and the result will be a new PM sooner rather than later, which will help stabilise the markets, avoid any calls for another election and speed up our exit from the EU. The Tories will be laughing their heads off at Corbyn and Eagles and the growing chasm between the two sides of the Labour party.

Northumbrian wrote:

Dreamland.

People complaining that we need to leave because the EU is undemocratic, have left the country with a PM chosen by less than 200 people, who isn't really that keen on leaving.

"Avoid any calls for another election"?! Hilarious!

Shambolic form the right. As ever.

Got a mate who has done one of the counts in Manchester, he's hoping for another GE soon, easy money he reckons!

Labour will demand a GE but after Brown failed to go to the country they haven't got a leg to stand on really, even though that would be the right thing to do probably.
Is election fatigue a real thing? Oh and I don't think May did a deal - I think they both knew who was going to win.

Here is a map for you of US bases around Russia
www.fort-russ.com/2015/09/russian-bases-in-syria-window-to.html

Gorbachev made a speech on Russian national TV telling the people to prepare for a Nato invasion, this is the English variant

www.rt.com/news/350434-nato-war-russia-warsaw/

Aberdeen man lost at sea. The headline in the Press & Journal when the Titanic sank

On what grounds am I going to waste my time with someone so stupid they don't know how a map works. You made the claim, its you that has to prove it not me, show its not just another figment of your delusion like your magical trade agreements that we are going to sign

Markovitch wrote:
Sadly not true either.....

www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/201...wspapers-the-titanic

I see the bed wetters where in the crowd at Wimbledon yesterday.Booing David Cameron how sad really when are the going to grow up the spoilt brats of Britain .On the brexit team who led the campaign when will people see it was just a campaign that they fronted and that they were not in government .So it was the government who should have had a plan on how to leave the EU but they didn't because they fought it wouldn't happen.

Markovitch wrote:
Lol. I knew it... the phantom Bullshitter strikes again. I know how a map works... which is why I pointed out that the map you linked to doesn't support your own argument in the slightest.... only you could post a link to something that contradicts your own argument.

Lets see if the trade deals end up being magical or not... bearing in mind several major countries have already contacted us to start the process.... I'm pretty confident I'll be proved right on that one in the fullness of time. Why would other countries not want to negotiate a deal with one of the largest economies in the world who actually want to put a deal in place?

You just stick to re-hashing conspiracy theories from the internet and your obsession with how amazing Russia is Citizen Smith.

Northumbrian wrote:

You know I’m sorry and I apologise, to you and to Dancing Bear. I sit in the stand at BP and I suppose I just assume that the people around me have an interest in international politics, an enquiring mind and a desire to learn new things. Thinking about it there is no reason why that would be the case and that is my failing.

It’s a shame. This week the Chilcot Report into the invasion of Iraq came out. To me a fascinating report that shows what we already know which is that Bush and Blair lied to us all supported by such erstwhile newspapers at the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. Using my logic if the mainstream now accepts that we were duped in Iraq shouldn’t we question 9/11, Syria, Isis, bases around Russia?

But then maybe not. Why would we want to know? Life is good.

So I’m sorry. If you want to take the Express or Mail at face value and decry other sources of information, then it is arrogant of me to criticise. Vote Tory and believe. Live a happy life, who cares what happens outside

The truth is Leadsom's arse fell out, she couldn't handle the pressure from the press and knew her past would be raked over. She must be the only person in the world who thinks it was a great thing to be a leading banker during that particular crisis.

This isn't that much like the Blair/Brown thing or the Wilson/Callaghan one or even the Thatcher/Major one. This is entirely different on the back of the EU vote. But like it or not, those other three are precedents and with loathsome pulling out, May will be tory leader, and quite rightly Prime Minister.