A thank you to Brexiteers.

[Elpenor]

I worked with plenty of people from Staines and Woking and yes even Bracknell when I was working in Chertsey. They all seemed ok tbh and didn’t regard where they were from as a shithole. The people from Hounslow did though.

I never took to Chertsey as a place but it had lots of interesting characters.

 

[brogdale]

Yeah, i do get that brogdale. At the same time though i think it should be ok to talk about how come some places are crap, because the crapnesses, the problems, of Naples or Staines or Malawi or the UK say, its not the same as saying 'i look down upon your choice of trousers and laugh' its structural crapness & created by historical stuff and the decisions of powerful people, so its not like its the fault of people who live there.

Yeah, some places are more economically depressed, socially deprived, poor, culturally deprived, remote, inaccessible, environmentally damaged, inappropriately redeveloped etc. etc. but that doesn't mean that it helps for folk living in 'nice' areas to call them shitholes.

 

[gosub]

Yeah, some places are more economically depressed, socially deprived, poor, culturally deprived, remote, inaccessible, environmentally damaged, inappropriately redeveloped etc. etc. but that doesn't mean that it helps for folk living in 'nice' areas to call them shitholes.

Lived in economically depressed and socially deprived areas that were less shitty than 'nice' areas. All depends on the people

 

[bimble]

am reminded of donald trump calling a bunch of countries Shitholes, which did kind of spoil the word.

 

[ska invita]

Nah, that's just evidence that Johnson is happy to just tell an audience whatever it is it wants to hear.

I think the government has gone into this not really knowing how it would resolve itself and they are not really guided by objectives so much as just not taking responsibility.

It's difficult to know what will happen, but just not implementing the protocol (as opposed to talking tough and dragging your feet) still seems unlikely to me. The UK can't win a trade war with the EU. That's not to say there can't be one, obvs.

rings true to me

 

[bimble]

Spells it out helpfully here, that of course they never intended to keep to the agreement they negotiated and signed, as the whole point was to Cheat Foreigners.

 

[ska invita]

interesting what the EU response is - they surely also reasoned it was in bad faith but sounds like they wanted a compromise (half a border) - will be hard to compromise with this out there. Half a border would never have worked longterm as the UK "deviates" ( drops standards) in the future...

 

[Ax^]

I worked with plenty of people from Staines and Woking and yes even Bracknell when I was working in Chertsey. They all seemed ok tbh and didn’t regard where they were from as a shithole. The people from Hounslow did though.

I never took to Chertsey as a place but it had lots of interesting characters.

Hounslow not that bad at least they don't lie to themselves about with side of the Thames they live upon

 

[Raheem]

View attachment 292560
rings true to me

Yeah, I don't really buy the idea that, if you want the whole truth and nothing but, Cummings is your man.

These people are not geniuses. They signed up to the ni protocol because they had backed themselves into a corner and had no option. They didn't like it and they probably talked to each other in vague terms about how they would get round it at a later date, but I don't believe the idea that they have had some brilliant plan all along.

Now, all that's happening is they've backed themselves into a corner again. But just unilaterally ditching the protocol will be a disastrous move. They may be forced into it, but it cannot possibly be where they had intended to end up.

 

[ska invita]

Yeah, I don't really buy the idea that, if you want the whole truth and nothing but, Cummings is your man.

These people are not geniuses. They signed up to the ni protocol because they had backed themselves into a corner and had no option. They didn't like it and they probably talked to each other in vague terms about how they would get round it at a later date, but I don't believe the idea that they have had some brilliant plan all along.

Now, all that's happening is they've backed themselves into a corner again. But just unilaterally ditching the protocol will be a disastrous move. They may be forced into it, but it cannot possibly be where they had intended to end up.

Well you know I disagree.
The bind is on the EU to enforce it ... They basically can't apart from sanctions.

Let's say there is zero border because UK gov say Shan't the only way the EU can force a border is between Ireland and N I... Which they can't because of GFA.

UK gov can just say Try And Make Me, which can only lead to sanctions, which can be counteracted with sanctions the other way. Fairly strong position but leaves the UK gov looking like slippery cunts... Of which they are smirkingly proud

 

[bimble]

but in a war of sanctions we'd just lose, and even liz truss must know that.

 

[Chilli.s]

even liz truss must know that.

unlikely

 

[Badgers]

Farmers are suffering from Brexit - and Boris Johnson won't save their bacon

Brexit is causing a pile-up of pigs on farms - with farmers unable to afford to feed them.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk

While Johnson sizzles in Marbella, there’s no-one to save the bacon of the 4,500 porkers who the National Farmers’ Union say will be shot with bolt guns or given lethal injections before being incinerated this week. That will take the tally of pigs destroyed without entering the food chain to over 5,000, with possibly another 115,000 to come.

 

[kebabking]

but in a war of sanctions we'd just lose, and even liz truss must know that.

Economically, certainly - we only produce around 60% of our food for example - on the other hand it would be almost politically impossible for the UK to continue to provide military support through NATO to countries who were placing economic sanctions upon us. The UK provides more troops to the Enhanced Forward Presence (the NATO formations in the Baltic States and Poland) than any other NATO ally including the US, has a military presence in more NATO countries than any other European state, and is the largest NATO contributer in the Black Sea region.

Sanctions might look like a viable option in Paris and in the Guardian Editors office, but in Estonia they look like a good chance to experience national oblivion.

 

[brogdale]

 

[gosub]

but in a war of sanctions we'd just lose, and even liz truss must know that.

But would she mind? We'd be forced to eat our own cheese

 

[Yossarian]

Economically, certainly - we only produce around 60% of our food for example - on the other hand it would be almost politically impossible for the UK to continue to provide military support through NATO to countries who were placing economic sanctions upon us. The UK provides more troops to the Enhanced Forward Presence (the NATO formations in the Baltic States and Poland) than any other NATO ally including the US, has a military presence in more NATO countries than any other European state, and is the largest NATO contributer in the Black Sea region.

Sanctions might look like a viable option in Paris and in the Guardian Editors office, but in Estonia they look like a good chance to experience national oblivion.

If Britain is going to try to use this troop presence to get its way in trade disputes by arguing that its troops are the only thing preventing eastern Europe from a Russian invasion, maybe it's time for a reshuffle to replace the British presence with troops from a more reliable ally.

 

[Pickman's model]

If Britain is going to try to use this troop presence to get its way in trade disputes by arguing that its troops are the only thing preventing eastern Europe from a Russian invasion, maybe it's time for a reshuffle to replace the British presence with troops from a more reliable ally.

or to just stockpile vodka there and hand out bottles to the advancing russian troops

 

[kebabking]

If Britain is going to try to use this troop presence to get its way in trade disputes by arguing that its troops are the only thing preventing eastern Europe from a Russian invasion, maybe it's time for a reshuffle to replace the British presence with troops from a more reliable ally.

You can name one?

It's amusing how the interdependence that those on the remain side (which included me) said was impossible to unpick, is, so suddenly, possible to unpick and replace...

 

[Ax^]

you think the russian wanted nato troops out of the balkin states

*scratchs chin

 

[Yossarian]

You can name one?

It's amusing how the interdependence that those on the remain side (which included me) said was impossible to unpick, is, so suddenly, possible to unpick and replace...

Britain has a lot on its plate at the minute so it only seems fair for the other 29 countries in NATO to share more of the load - do they all share the view that Britain is the irreplaceable linchpin of Europe's defense?

 

[Badgers]

 

[Raheem]

Economically, certainly - we only produce around 60% of our food for example - on the other hand it would be almost politically impossible for the UK to continue to provide military support through NATO to countries who were placing economic sanctions upon us. The UK provides more troops to the Enhanced Forward Presence (the NATO formations in the Baltic States and Poland) than any other NATO ally including the US, has a military presence in more NATO countries than any other European state, and is the largest NATO contributer in the Black Sea region.

Sanctions might look like a viable option in Paris and in the Guardian Editors office, but in Estonia they look like a good chance to experience national oblivion.

This is completely delusional. UK troops in NATO forces are mainly a strategic/diplomatic asset to the UK. Threatening to withdraw them would just be threatening self-harm. The troops themselves are replaceable.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is completely delusional. UK troops in NATO forces are mainly a strategic/diplomatic asset to the UK. Threatening to withdraw them would just be threatening self-harm. The troops themselves are replaceable.

war is of course the pursuit of diplomacy by other means

 

[kebabking]

Britain has a lot on its plate at the minute so it only seems fair for the other 29 countries in NATO to share more of the load - do they all share the view that Britain is the irreplaceable linchpin of Europe's defense?

No one would like them to share more of the load than me - yet the German army is now smaller than the British Army, and it's Air Force barely exists.

If they dip their hands in their pockets they'll reduce their dependency, and it's not the uK stopping them doing so...

 

[Pickman's model]

No one would like them to share more of the load than me - yet the German army is now smaller than the British Army, and it's Air Force barely exists.

If they dip their hands in their pockets they'll reduce their dependency, and it's not the uK stopping them doing so...

the german air force is comprised of about 27,600 personnel with 465 aircraft; the raf has 33,200 active personnel and 832 operational aircraft

 

[kebabking]

This is completely delusional. UK troops in NATO forces are mainly a strategic/diplomatic asset to the UK. Threatening to withdraw them would just be threatening self-harm. The troops themselves are rereplaceable

Yes and no - I disagree with your first point, but agree with your second.

I do not think the UK should threaten to remove it's NATO commitments, nor should it tie those commitments to other issues - however I think it would be a difficult sell to say that we will spend our resources defending people who refuse to sell us food.

 

[kebabking]

the german air force is comprised of about 27,600 personnel with 465 aircraft; the raf has 33,200 active personnel and 832 operational aircraft

What they have is one thing, what they have that flies with any regularity is something very different....

 

[bimble]

Yes and no - I disagree with your first point, but agree with your second.

I do not think the UK should threaten to remove it's NATO commitments, nor should it tie those commitments to other issues - however I think it would be a difficult sell to say that we will spend our resources defending people who refuse to sell us food.

Does this mean essentially that you think the EU would not dare to get into a trade war with us because of how well tooled up we are militarily?

 

[philosophical]

Are Richard Tice and Isabel Oakshott shagging?
I wish they were, and at it like bonobo monkeys in order to stay away from the media.