Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The view from this side of La Manche is that Barnier is positioning to offer an alternative to Marine Le Pen, thus preventing her from making it through to the head-to-head and virtually guaranteeing a Macron coronation.

It has also been suggested that his reward will be the office of Prime Minister or similar.

Kinda makes sense.
Yep.

A political whore!
 
  • Like
Reactions: m80

There's no secret involved in this. It's blindingly obvious but as with many things to do with nuclear weapons - not much talked about by those who actually involves with the detail.

The MOD will carefully deny specifics. In the backrooms where people plan for the unthinkable there will be a plan. Note that 'planning to do something' in terms of *intent* as opposed to 'having plans to do something' in terms of having *contingency* are very similar semantically and allow deliberate confusion.

The repeated mention of France in recent articles is very odd. In military terms France and the UK cooperate more than many realise - but the only situation I can figure that would allow the UK deterrent to move to France would be if the letters of last resort were opened - and it would be some way down any list of countries.
 
There's no secret involved in this. It's blindingly obvious but as with many things to do with nuclear weapons - not much talked about by those who actually involves with the detail.

The MOD will carefully deny specifics. In the backrooms where people plan for the unthinkable there will be a plan. Note that 'planning to do something' in terms of *intent* as opposed to 'having plans to do something' in terms of having *contingency* are very similar semantically and allow deliberate confusion.

The repeated mention of France in recent articles is very odd. In military terms France and the UK cooperate more than many realise - but the only situation I can figure that would allow the UK deterrent to move to France would be if the letters of last resort were opened - and it would be some way down any list of countries.

The MoD will have buildings full of people whose sole purpose in life is to prepare contingency plans for every conceivable and inconceivable eventually. And, being military, it will be done with a great level of detail, in spite if having no real expectations that any of these plans will ever materialise. Then, from time to time, one of these very many plans is leaked to the press, and the headlines scream 'The UK prepared a plan to..... (fill in the dots)'. What the press don't know is that the UK also prepared detailed plans for the exact opposite.
 
Perhaps the significance of any such leak is not its content but the reason for its release at a particular time. Post the recent US withdrawal from Afghanistan in which President Biden appears to be following Trump's recent America First US foreign policy , it serves to focus attention on the posssible US future attitude to NATO in an era of increased Russian beligerance under Putin. I imagine most forum members weren't even born during the Cold War period and it may be pertinent to remind them of the circumstances of same and their future implications for the UK and Europe in general? I think the appropriate phrase is taking your eye off the ball
 
I think that the EU will red-carpet any nation that wants to leave the UK and join them. And they'll find a way to cut through the ted tape to make it happen, if it came to that. Personal opinion.

Are you trying to imply that the Eu might play politics in order to embarrass the UK?
As if!
 
Perhaps the significance of any such leak is not its content but the reason for its release at a particular time. Post the recent US withdrawal from Afghanistan in which President Biden appears to be following Trump's recent America First US foreign policy , it serves to focus attention on the posssible US future attitude to NATO in an era of increased Russian beligerance under Putin. I imagine most forum members weren't even born during the Cold War period and it may be pertinent to remind them of the circumstances of same and their future implications for the UK and Europe in general? I think the appropriate phrase is taking your eye off the ball

The issue with strong dictators who have a grip on the country is that when they die, there's a serious risk that the country will fall apart.

The main issue is that the country never gets the chance to develop strong independent democratic institutions, and no real culture of democracy, so it often descents to a violent power-grab confrontation, with the population accepting it as inevitable.
 
The issue with strong dictators who have a grip on the country is that when they die, there's a serious risk that the country will fall apart.

The main issue is that the country never gets the chance to develop strong independent democratic institutions, and no real culture of democracy, so it often descents to a violent power-grab confrontation, with the population accepting it as inevitable.
and how many times has this happened over the years :(
 
and how many times has this happened over the years :(

Iraq... Libya.... Syria (almost).... a long list of African countries... the removal of a Dictator often creates a power vacuum that draws violence.
 
Do you think that Boris is a dictator then?

Boris is a mixed bag. By getting Brexit done he enforced democracy against all the other MPs who were positive traitors to democracy but leaving the cabinet out of the discussion that led to the national insurance hike is not the most democratic of actions. On balance I'll forgive him a lot for Brexit.
 
Boris is a mixed bag. By getting Brexit done he enforced democracy against all the other MPs who were positive traitors to democracy but leaving the cabinet out of the discussion that led to the national insurance hike is not the most democratic of actions. On balance I'll forgive him a lot for Brexit.
Doesn’t sound very dictatory.
 
Boris is a mixed bag. By getting Brexit done he enforced democracy against all the other MPs who were positive traitors to democracy but leaving the cabinet out of the discussion that led to the national insurance hike is not the most democratic of actions. On balance I'll forgive him a lot for Brexit.

The NI thing is a bit of an oddity.

Not exactly populist.

We have a Conservative government that that has - because of the pandemic - out-Laboured Labour in terms of taxation and expenditure. I think that makes this a really strange situation is that it leaves and already weakened Labour party in a very difficult position as regards to definiing itself and expressing itself in opposition.
 
...all the other MPs who were positive traitors to democracy...

I can understand this comment in relation to MPs whose constituents voted Leave.

But an MP in whose constituency there was a majority vote for Remain, would be a 'traitor to democracy' if he or she didn't vote in Parliament against Brexit.

After all, MPs are representatives of the people who voted for them and they should therfore represent their wishes.
 
I can understand this comment in relation to MPs whose constituents voted Leave.

But an MP in whose constituency there was a majority vote for Remain, would be a 'traitor to democracy' if he or she didn't vote in Parliament against Brexit.

However .....

Parliament voted for the European Referendum Act and as such parliament as a whole had an obligation to abide by the result.

After all, MPs are representatives of the people who voted for them and they should therfore represent their wishes.

They do that on a regular basis to suit their parties.

And MPs are also the representatives of people who did not vote for them.

And even if a MP had 100% of the vote of the constituents it's likely that many voters would not be support of 100% of the MP's personal policies or their party's policies.

So I with @190's rather brutal statement that on Brexit many MPs were traitors to democracy. I think parliament behaved disgracefully and undermined the UK and actively undermined the negotiations between the UK and EU against the interests of the UK.
 
However .....

Parliament voted for the European Referendum Act and as such parliament as a whole had an obligation to abide by the result.



They do that on a regular basis to suit their parties.

And MPs are also the representatives of people who did not vote for them.

And even if a MP had 100% of the vote of the constituents it's likely that many voters would not be support of 100% of the MP's personal policies or their party's policies.

So I with @190's rather brutal statement that on Brexit many MPs were traitors to democracy. I think parliament behaved disgracefully and undermined the UK and actively undermined the negotiations between the UK and EU against the interests of the UK.

So an MP can vote in line with a minority of his/her constituents, or according to his/her personal policies, or according to his/her party's policies, and it's all within the framework of democracy... unless he/she votes against Brexit, then they're 'traitors to democracy'? I fail to see the logic of allowing MPs a wide range of voting choices, but just not on Brexit.
 
So an MP can vote in line with a minority of his/her constituents, or according to his/her personal policies, or according to his/her party's policies, and it's all within the framework of democracy... unless he/she votes against Brexit, then they're 'traitors to democracy'? I fail to see the logic of allowing MPs a wide range of voting choices, but just not on Brexit.

Well that's the interpretayion the MPs might selectivcely try and apply.

But it misses the point.

It's not then down to individual MPs to ignore the referendum - or undermine it.

Your position convenient;ly misses the point that democracy is about group decisions and implementation. And once a decision is made there is an obligation by everybody within the group to implement the desired outcome and not undermoine it past that point.

Where parliament got messed up was the inability to come to terms with the differen ce between what parliament wanted to decide and the decision of the EUref.

So it's not about Brexit. it's about parliament effectively using your version of democracy to undermine the public. That was a problem in this instance because collectively parliament did not represent the national view of the electorate. A divisiion between the parties aligned to the division in the electorate on the EU would have probably sorted that - but that wasn't the case here.

NOTABLY: Parliament *voted* for the EUref. The UK electorate voted in the EUref for separation from the UK.

I think rather too many MPs who didn't like the decision of the electorate in the refrerendum conveniently ignored both of these inconvenient facts.

And if this had happened with any issue other than Brexit then they could be accused of being anti-democratic..

But with Brexit the added factor is that because of the significant and strategic issue - parliament probably damaged the UK's future outside of the EU through their actions. That justifies stronger condemnation of their anti-democratic behaviour - so the term 'traitor' may be rather more appropriate in this one case.
 
In the end, the Brexit debacle in parliament wasn't all bad. A triumph for democracy was that many of the MP's who behaved disgracefully in trying to overturn the referendum against the wishes of their constituency, lost their seats at the next election. Hopefully that sent a powerful message.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom