Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[fireburning]

Originally Posted by ********

He's dangerous because he will do anything to get what he wants, no matter the cost or consequences to anyone else.

People said the same thing about Trump and he seems a safer pair of hands than say Hillary Clinton. Treason May has united the left, centre and right in their unbridled hatred towards her. A common purpose, self hating woman with no substance, I doubt she's even had an orgasm. Even Thatcher was more charismatic, fucking hell even John Major was, Tessa May might as well wear a Labour badge and be done with it.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by fireburning

People said the same thing about Trump and he seems a safer pair of hands than say Hillary Clinton

Safe pair of hands? Oh man.
"People better wake up to what’s going on.” - Bob Woodward

According to Bob Woodward during the most tense time of the crisis Trump drafted this tweet
‘We are going to pull our dependents from South Korea – family members of the 28,000 people there,’"

He was only stopped at the last minute by Mattis as the Pentagon knew this would make Kim believe a first strike was imminent and start war on the peninsula and even World War 3.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/10/trump-almost-sent-tweet-north-korea-imminent-attack

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

When old style 20th century armies go up against modern armies, they get cut to shreds, very fast

They had the same problem 100 years before, when people tried to attack machine guns with spears. Of course it didn't work. This is nothing new

However, one thing will always be true: you can win an invasion, but you can't win a war without support of the local population -- unless you outnumber them, meaning you have more men than the locals, as in colonization of America, Canada & Australia when immigrants flooded everything

Technology & military superiority will give an advantage, but on its own it's not enough. Witness all America's wars since WW2. They've lost every single one, even against "charlies" & "ragheads", as you correctly point out

Back to brexit. We read the UK govt has sent letters to 27 member states, asking them for individual deals concerning air traffic & haulage, although it knows none of the members can legally do this

Is there no end to the silliness?

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by palo5

Is there no end to the silliness?

Some people think this man is worth voting for.



...so I'm guessing not.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by bloke57

Some people think this man is worth voting for.



...so I'm guessing not.

He looks like a mortician

[Mal Hombre]

That's Jacob Rees Mogg MP,Well known for campaigning with His nanny...

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by palo5

Witness all America's wars since WW2. They've lost every single one, even against "charlies" & "ragheads", as you correctly point out

They didn't lose those wars.

The objectives and rationalizations sold to the American public ("nation-building" in Iraq or "curtailing communism" in Vietnam) weren't met, but the actual main objective - further enriching and empowering the military-intelligence-industrial complex - were fully met each and every time.

Think about it this way: If, say, the Iraq war had been a success regarding the goals put in front of the American public (nation-building, spreading democracy and stability throughout the region), would that have been better or worse for the American arms corporations than the never-ending forever war the US has been pursuing throughout the region for the last 17 years?

You know the answer. The United States doesn't wage war to put one in the win column like a football team, or to conquer territory like a traditional empire, but to make money for the people who own the country by blowing stuff up and rebuilding stuff afterwards, by accessing new markets. If you look at the US less like a country and more like a business, with its political caste being the PR department, much of the absurdities of American politics and culture become clearer.

[jacques22]

Brexit will be a race to the bottom.
Here's what post-Brexit deals between the UK and the rest of the world will look like according to today's Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ade-deal-nhs):

A radical blueprint for a free trade deal between the UK and the US that would see the NHS opened to foreign competition, a bonfire of consumer and environmental regulations and freedom of movement between the two countries for workers, is to be launched by prominent Brexiters.
(...)
The authors argue for a free trade agreement that would loosen government controls on capital and data flows and be “more liberalising than any other free trade agreement in the world”. They say that it could become a model for future deals post-Brexit. It would remove tariffs and throw out the precautionary principle that has guided much EU regulation on GM foods, chlorine-washed chicken, hormones in meat, pesticides and chemicals in cosmetics.
(...)
The proposals are likely to meet fierce opposition from trade experts on the left. Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said: “The measures supported in this paper represent a free trade utopia, entirely divorced from economic reality. The authors view good government as ‘getting out of the way’ of business, and letting profit drive every aspect of our society. If carried out, these policies would destroy huge swathes of our economy, including farming, and they would lay waste to public services.”

[seany65]

The page you linked to isn't showing up for me, jacques22.

I don't know who wrote the 'radical blueprint' nor whether it would be the official govt. line. I suspect the possibility that it's just some men's idea of what we should do, or what we could do. The last paragraph in your post makes me think the authors are quite likely to be on the right-wing of the Conservative party, who aren't known for their caring attitude to anything but making money.

I have just noticed that in your first paragraph it says the authors want 'free movement' of people between the UK and the USA. This would be a little puzzling if the proposals are from Brexiters who wanted to stop free movement of people from the EU.

[jacques22]

So many lies about EU expats were said during the Brexit campaign (i.e. EU expats take jobs away from the Brits, they claim benefits and are a burden on the UK economy).

Here's finally a government-commissioned report debunking all those myths in today's Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...8543121.html):

The document found EU citizens have little impact on UK workers’ wages, pay more in taxes, have no adverse impact on young Britons’ schooling, are not linked to increasing crime and contribute “much more” to the NHS than they consume.
(...)
But the benefits to the public purse were clear with the report concluding that EU migrants contribute £2,300 more to the exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult.
Over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits, while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero.
The impact of migrants on the NHS is often cited by those arguing for lower immigration, but the MAC report said: “EEA migrants contribute much more to the health service and the provision of social care in financial resources and through work than they consume in services.