Re: The break up of the Union : Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:29 pm  

King Street Cat wrote:

Yes. I'm just trying to normalise him, and make him sound like a man of the people.

I don't recall ever seeing him claiming to be one.?

Re: The break up of the Union : Mon Dec 23, 2019 8:33 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

We have seen what happens when Parliament start reviewing deals mid deal - members act in their best interest not in the interest of the country as a whole. They have shot themselves in the foot.

Well surely thats the idea of having elected representatives from different areas of the country.

If there are aspects of a deal which could disproportionately affect areas in the north or midlands, where they have just elected Conservative MPs, why should those MPs not be able to scrutinise and use their own influence on the government to fight for their constituents?

In the EU all member states and the European Parliament will have the chance to scrutinise a deal with the UK, and in the US any deal with the UK would go before Congress, and you can be sure there will be some horsetrading to get certain members from certain states on board because of issues/industries that are important in their state. So why should the British regions not get the same representation?

If it isn't scrutinised then basically you are just putting your trust in the first deal that the civil servants in Whitehall come up with, and see it get rammed through Parliament unchallenged.

Re: The break up of the Union : Tue Dec 24, 2019 2:29 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Yes, the "Special Relationship" has always been one-sided.

The classic example was at the supposed height of the relationship when Reagan and Thatcher were the leaders, and Argentina invaded the Falklands.

Reagan declared the US neutral and said "it's difficult for us because we're friends with both countries".

That was Galtieri's military junta launching an illegal invasion of British sovereign territory where the citizens steadfastly did not want to be under Argentinian control. And America was 'neutral'.

It's the type of relationship that you may have with a bully that is stealing your dinner money.
We do as we are told but, we can ask for help if anything happens that may jeopardise us being able to hand over our cash (assets)

One thing it isn't is equal in any form but, it can legitimately be described as "special" (unique).

Re: The break up of the Union : Tue Dec 24, 2019 5:03 pm  

Exactly, and it is nauseating to see how the likes of Fox, Raab, Farage and Johnson, who were happy to talk tough about Britain standing confident in its place in the world and not going cap in hand to Europe, act as arselickers to Donald Trump and the US.

When it comes to negotiating with the EU, they tell us that we will be fine with no deal, and we can trade with the EU on WTO terms like the rest of the world does.

But when it comes to negotiating with the US and people are getting concerned about being forced to sign up to the Americans' terms for food standards, environmental standards, product safety and drug pricing, we will be told that 'we have to make compromises' in order to secure a trade deal. There will be no willingness to walk away from the US. Despite the fact that trade with the EU is far more important for us than trade with the US.

What could throw a real curve ball into Boris' plans though is the US Presidential election. If it's Trump or Biden, the US will just draft up a trade agreement and get us to sign it off. If its Warren or Sanders, they might want to offer a deal on drastically different terms, which some of the Conservatives might balk at. Although Boris might be chameleonic enough to be willing to go along with it.

Re: The break up of the Union : Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:45 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Yes, the "Special Relationship" has always been one-sided.

The classic example was at the supposed height of the relationship when Reagan and Thatcher were the leaders, and Argentina invaded the Falklands.

Reagan declared the US neutral and said "it's difficult for us because we're friends with both countries".

That was Galtieri's military junta launching an illegal invasion of British sovereign territory where the citizens steadfastly did not want to be under Argentinian control. And America was 'neutral'.

Rubbish. Yes, the US declared themselves neutral initially to pursue a diplomatic solution. However they soon officially and publicly sided with the UK. US policy was at first skewed by Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who favoured an "Argentinian sovereignty by stealth" plan, although his true colours became clear when he told Congress the principle of self-determination did not apply to the Falklanders, followed by a joke about their sexual practices. Haig even threatened to leak British movements. This is the same man who suggested a "nuclear warning shot" in Europe might deter the USSR.

The USA had been receiving strong Argentinian support in training Contras. The Junta gambled this would negate the 'Special Relationship', but they got it wrong.

Reagan, publicly at first, stuck to his neutral stance re sovereignty over the islands but opposition to military action. However he soon gave his consent to strong material support to the British military campaign.

The US not only provided intel, but also repositioned a spy satellite from Soviet spying duties, burning valuable fuel, thus shortening the satellite's lifespan. They supplied 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel diverted from US stockpiles, airfield matting, thousands of rounds of mortar shells and other equipment - including hundreds of Sidewinder missiles - many at 48 hours' notice, taken directly from US frontline defence forces at the height of the Cold War.

Ascension Island is a British territory, but the defunct airfield had been rebuilt by the US and was operated by the USAF at the time - but was handed over to the RAF, a vital staging point.

The US even offered to lend the UK the USS Iwo Jima if the UK lost a carrier. It was never needed. That alone is an enormous indication of the relationship between the 2 nations.

It's worth also considering that In the face of Soviet scrutiny it was important for the UK to appear to be able to win the war independently, hence the levels of assistance were not all immediately made public. A key NATO member needed to appear strong without direct US military assistance.

Reagan then made his loyalties clear when, 2 weeks after the end of the Falklands War, Haig complained to him about the 'cacophony of voices' speaking out on US foreign policy. Reagan replied with a note saying, "Dear Al, it is with the most profound regret that I accept your letter of resignation", and that was the end of Haig as SoS.

Arguments continue for both sides but the chances are we would have won with or without US assistance - we were well equipped and had excellent intel of our own.

Re: The break up of the Union : Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:00 pm  

^ What nonsense

You mean the same british intel that let the argies walk in there unopposed in the first place?
Get real lol

The irony of the conflict however revolves around the history of the General Belgrano.
Initially the USS Phoenix which valiantly and heroically managed to escape from the snide Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour.
The vessel being subsequently sold to the argies and renamed the General Belgrano.
However it’s luck ran out when it was shot in the back in a similar dishonourable snide attack.

Re: The break up of the Union : Thu Dec 26, 2019 9:27 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Well surely thats the idea of having elected representatives from different areas of the country.

If there are aspects of a deal which could disproportionately affect areas in the north or midlands, where they have just elected Conservative MPs, why should those MPs not be able to scrutinise and use their own influence on the government to fight for their constituents?

In the EU all member states and the European Parliament will have the chance to scrutinise a deal with the UK, and in the US any deal with the UK would go before Congress, and you can be sure there will be some horsetrading to get certain members from certain states on board because of issues/industries that are important in their state. So why should the British regions not get the same representation?

If it isn't scrutinised then basically you are just putting your trust in the first deal that the civil servants in Whitehall come up with, and see it get rammed through Parliament unchallenged.

So every Labour MP regardless of which part of the country they represent - thought it was in the interest of their voters to vote against the Brexit bill - come on you are a bright bloke - it had nothing to do with scrutiny just a means of working the Tories over - they paid a very heavy price for these hi-jinx What you can't do is take away one of the major negotiating tools i.e. no deal - this is what the likes of Letwin, Grieve, Gauke, Starmer, McDonald did.

The EU council will decide what to accept and they have already given authority to Barnier so he will know what he can offer and what is off limits. There has to be some privacy during negotiations otherwise the likes of Sturgeon and Starmer will attempt to ruin the deal for their own party gain.

Re: The break up of the Union : Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:48 pm  

I do hope the lunatic left aren't going to have keep being reminded, YOU LOST!

They can insult Johnson as much as they want, the electorate gave Cringebin and Labour the biggest middle finger for almost a century.

Re: The break up of the Union : Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:04 pm  

Superblue wrote:

^ What nonsense

You mean the same british intel that let the argies walk in there unopposed in the first place?
Get real lol

I know, it's disgraceful. The 'unopposed' invasion which left 3 Argies dead on South Georgia and at least 1 Argie dead at Stanley (probably more from witness accounts). I bet you didn't even know about South Georgia, did you? You should read it up, the defence from the Royal Marines was impressive stuff.

The irony of the conflict however revolves around the history of the General Belgrano.
Initially the USS Phoenix which valiantly and heroically managed to escape from the snide Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour.
The vessel being subsequently sold to the argies and renamed the General Belgrano.
However it’s luck ran out when it was shot in the back in a similar dishonourable snide attack.

Don't launch a 'snide' invasion of British territories and you won't get British submarines hunting your ships.

But yeah, you're correct. The Belgrano certainly wasn't sniffing around the exclusion zone and the British task force - it was definitely incapable of turning around and I'm certain ships only look for submarines in front of them. Let's also ignore the fact Captain Bonzo himself confirmed that the Belgrano was manoeuvering, not 'sailing away' (from the exclusion zone), and that he had had orders to sink 'any British ship he could find', and that he said HMS Conqueror carried out its duties entirely according to the 'accepted rules of war'.

I bet you voted Labour. You sound like Corbyn. Salty much?

Although you might not even be British, I haven't a clue who you are

Re: The break up of the Union : Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:58 pm  

Cronus wrote:

I know, it's disgraceful. The 'unopposed' invasion which left 3 Argies dead on South Georgia and at least 1 Argie dead at Stanley (probably more from witness accounts). I bet you didn't even know about South Georgia, did you? You should read it up, the defence from the Royal Marines was impressive stuff.

Don't launch a 'snide' invasion of British territories and you won't get British submarines hunting your ships.

But yeah, you're correct. The Belgrano certainly wasn't sniffing around the exclusion zone and the British task force - it was definitely incapable of turning around and I'm certain ships only look for submarines in front of them. Let's also ignore the fact Captain Bonzo himself confirmed that the Belgrano was manoeuvering, not 'sailing away' (from the exclusion zone), and that he had had orders to sink 'any British ship he could find', and that he said HMS Conqueror carried out its duties entirely according to the 'accepted rules of war'.

I bet you voted Labour. You sound like Corbyn. Salty much?

Although you might not even be British, I haven't a clue who you are

That’s right pal, that famed British Tory intel you champion opened the door and held it open, lol.
Only lads like you need the read up material, any thoughts why I don’t?, lol

Well done on holding onto your dad’s fish and chip paper all this time, lol

Sorry if you had to interrupt your “ working “ from home to put that rubbish up, but we both know you’ve never done any real work in your whole life, have you, lol.
And I would bet your “dad” never did either, lol.

Your just sat at your computer all day, arn’t you, just doing the same sort of stuff as a school child does, arn’t you, lol, and you call that work,lol.
You’ve never done a days work in your life, have you, just a total non producer, just like your Tory role models, lol