NationStates

Lamadia 2016 wrote:

Na h-Alba Nuadh wrote:Come on, who is the UK actually going to use nukes on? Since the home grown systems were allowed to wither away in favour of buying from the USA (proving the govt had learned nothing from Tube Alloys), holding on to them has always just been an expensive willy waving exercise. Developing new weapons which (a)have an actual strategic & tactical use, and (b)allow home grown industry in a lucrative field with many spin off benefits would be a much better use of all that money.

Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, N. Korea- any of the many unstable nuclear powers we share the world stage with. We need newer, better nuclear weapons, better delivery systems, updated ability; it isn't good enough to rely on the U.S or other NATO members- we have an obligation to world security, and we can't achive this with a mundane, let's call it lukewarm, nuclear detterant.

---

In other news, China has built or has begun to build 60 new airports in the time it has taken the Government to make a decision on expanding Heathrow or Gatwick. When I read that yesterday, I have to say, I was massively shocked by what the level of bureaucracy is doing to our economy. The Chinese are competing with us- that's a good thing. But for our Government to show such complacency in decision making, is just not right- in a post-Brexit world, we need new airports, we need expansion, we need more business, and we can't compete when it is taking so long to make such small decisions. Give the bloody document to the Cabinet to make a decision, for God's sake!

It's poor oversight to compare ourselves to China on this, given things like the environment, health and saftey, noise, property rights, planning, workers hours and so forth tends to be well below our own standards.

I'd suggest a comparable developed nation instead.

So the Royal family are pissed off about losing millions in EU farming subsidies because of Brexit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/world ... cians.html

>2003

i guess it's good we've had a big shift. gives me a bit of hope, but still, mistake.

Souseiseki wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
Nothing has happened that was unforeseeable on the day of the vote.

no that's bullshit. we'd be as well saying a new scottish referendum is justified because it was forseeable on the day that it would almost definitely happen if you voted to completely fuck us over, which you fucking did.

It does not matter how much you like it or not, the fact remains Cameron made his EU Referendum pledge 20 months before the indy ref. From that moment on it was forseeable no matter how small the chance that sometime in the next few years the UK might vote to leave the EU.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:
no that's bullshit. we'd be as well saying a new scottish referendum is justified because it was forseeable on the day that it would almost definitely happen if you voted to completely fuck us over, which you fucking did.

It does not matter how much you like it or not, the fact remains Cameron made his EU Referendum pledge 20 months before the indy ref. From that moment on it was forseeable no matter how small the chance that sometime in the next few years the UK might vote to leave the EU.

and? that doesn't make actually doing it not a massive and fundamental change in circumstance.

So today's Observer front page mentions refugees arriving in Britain in something other than an unambiguously negative light. The Alt-Right is not pleased.

do you legitimately not have a better counter to "you followed through with basically none of your promises then fucked the country" than "yes, but you should have expected that"? can you see how that isn't the impassioned defence of the union that will sooth people that are a bit miffed over you doing things exactly like that on a consistent basis?

Vassenor wrote:So today's Observer front page mentions refugees arriving in Britain in something other than an unambiguously negative light. The Alt-Right is not pleased.

I don't know how this has been done, but whoever is in charge needs to be sacked.
The U.K has an obligation as a major power to refugees; we have the resources, the space, the kindness, to help those around the world who are in need, and to offer safety to the most vulnerable, essentially, children. What we have to do, is work with the U.N & the E.U for a global response- set up camps in North Africa & on the Med, where refugees can be kept behind fencing in safe, hygienic conditions, where they can be offered medical care, where they can be reunited with family. From there, the U.N should work to divert people by vulnerability to other countries, with children taking priority, young, fit men last on the list by far: This system will let us find terrorists and criminals, and those who are exploiting the system, and find those who need & deserve help the most. This is the best system.
In Calais, currently, that camp has to be destroyed. The residents should be rounded up by the army and send to the detention centres across France- from here, Britain should find children, young people, women; people who need help the most, and go & collect them. The current system is a catastrophic waste of money, time, and effort, and is hugely counterproductive to moral both sides of the fence. Stories of young men pushing children to the back... in sophisticated camps with proper registration systems, we can actually identify those in need. We have to be methodical with this.

if they're already in camps, why are women in more pressing need of help than men?

if they're not in camps, which age group is almost always killed first when a village falls?

Souseiseki wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
It does not matter how much you like it or not, the fact remains Cameron made his EU Referendum pledge 20 months before the indy ref. From that moment on it was forseeable no matter how small the chance that sometime in the next few years the UK might vote to leave the EU.

and? that doesn't make actually doing it not a massive and fundamental change in circumstance.

If He had come out in Jan 2015 with his promise, or even the day after I would agree that the referendum was not held under the possibility it might happen. Scottish people knew the potentual consequences of a no vote, unless you want to claim them thick.

When people vote one way and something happens they knew might happen at the time they voted there is no grounds on that thing happening for a new vote. The consent if you will for want of a better word has been given for the UK as a whole to make that decision.

A forseeable event happened, that is really all there is to it.

Souseiseki wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
It does not matter how much you like it or not, the fact remains Cameron made his EU Referendum pledge 20 months before the indy ref. From that moment on it was forseeable no matter how small the chance that sometime in the next few years the UK might vote to leave the EU.

and? that doesn't make actually doing it not a massive and fundamental change in circumstance.

There is no real change in circumstances until Brexit actually happenes in 2019, until then they have no grounds for a referendum beyond ultranationalist power plays.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:
and? that doesn't make actually doing it not a massive and fundamental change in circumstance.

If He had come out in Jan 2015 with his promise, or even the day after I would agree that the referendum was not held under the possibility it might happen. Scottish people knew the potentual consequences of a no vote, unless you want to claim them thick.

When people vote one way and something happens they knew might happen at the time they voted there is no grounds on that thing happening for a new vote. The consent if you will for want of a better word has been given for the UK as a whole to make that decision.

A forseeable event happened, that is really all there is to it.

you were told that we would not be dragged out of the EU against our will. this was "forseeable".

if you tell people voting to leave will strip them of their EU citizenship then have staying in strip of their EU citizenship that's a problem. no amount of "but it was forseeable" will change this. it is one of the key issues of the scottish referendum and an event that will alter british and world history as we know it. it cannot be brushed aside as "eh, might change in the future, no biggie".

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/th ... ck-9098766

is she trying to do the stupidest thing possible to piss everyone off or has she realized that after we leave the EU and become a medium country with an imploding economy we'll be reliant on china's kindness and is trying to curry up to them?

Souseiseki wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-slammed-naive-failing-block-9098766

is she trying to do the stupidest thing possible to piss everyone or has she realized that after we leave the EU and become a medium country with an imploding economy we'll be reliant on china's kindness and is trying to curry up to them?

Trying to suck up to the Chinese started with Dave anyway.

So YouGov has done a profiling of UKIP membership.

In the past, UKIP members have voted at least once in the GE for:
UKIP: 88%
Tories: 66%
Labour: 24%
Lib Dems: 12%
BNP: 6%
Other: 6%
Green: 3%
Plaid/SNP: 3%

UKIP members place themselves on the left-right spectrum overall:
Very left-wing or fairly left-wing: 11%
Slightly left-of-centre: 5%
Centre: 15%
Slightly right-of-centre: 27%
Fairly right-wing: 31%
Very right-wing: 11%

UKIP members think the next leader should take the party:
Towards the centre: 22%
Keep it where it is: 56%
Towards the right: 17%

UKIP members think the party should target:
Labour voters: 73%
Tory voters: 15%
Don't know: 12%

(going to paraphrase here) UKIP members think policy should be:
Based on compromise: 22%
Based on ideology, even if it's unpopular: 60%

UKIP members think the party post-Brexit should:
Not disband: 73%
Disband: 7%
Don't know: 6%

UKIP members think these parties will be/not be part of British politics in ten years:
Conservative: 87-4
UKIP: 78-16
Labour: 39-48
Green: 21-57
Lib Dems: 13-73

UKIP members think they know what the party stands for:
A lot: 70%
A little: 23%
Not a lot: 5%
Not at all: 1%

UKIP members think:
The mainstream media is deliberately anti-UKIP: 89%
Some UKIP members are plants by the Tories: 55%
Intelligence services work to undermine UKIP: 46%
Election officials changed votes at the EU referendum: 39%

Souseiseki wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
If He had come out in Jan 2015 with his promise, or even the day after I would agree that the referendum was not held under the possibility it might happen. Scottish people knew the potentual consequences of a no vote, unless you want to claim them thick.

When people vote one way and something happens they knew might happen at the time they voted there is no grounds on that thing happening for a new vote. The consent if you will for want of a better word has been given for the UK as a whole to make that decision.

A forseeable event happened, that is really all there is to it.

you were told that we would not be dragged out of the EU against our will. this was "forseeable".

if you tell people voting to leave will strip them of their EU citizenship then have staying in strip of their EU citizenship that's a problem. no amount of "but it was forseeable" will change this. it is one of the key issues of the scottish referendum and an event that will alter british and world history as we know it. it cannot be brushed aside as "eh, might change in the future, no biggie".

They said it was the best way of making sure Scotland was in the EU, which was probably true. The chance of Spain allowing Scotland into the EU is less than the chance of a leave vote at the time.

I can remember nobody saying that it was a absolute guarantee the UK would not vote to leave if the promised referendum was held.

Elepis wrote:Banks poised to relocate out of UK over Brexit, BBA warns

Combined with the gargantuan budget cuts that are to be expected in the coming years from the British government, especially if the Tories manage to keep control, poverty is probably going to increase rapidly in the UK.

Hurdergaryp wrote:

Elepis wrote:Banks poised to relocate out of UK over Brexit, BBA warns

Combined with the gargantuan budget cuts that are to be expected in the coming years from the British government, especially if the Tories manage to keep control, poverty is probably going to increase rapidly in the UK.

#justacorrection

Where's that gif of Leadsom saying there would be no damage to the economy?

Vassenor wrote:

Hurdergaryp wrote:Combined with the gargantuan budget cuts that are to be expected in the coming years from the British government, especially if the Tories manage to keep control, poverty is probably going to increase rapidly in the UK.

#justacorrection

Where's that gif of Leadsom saying there would be no damage to the economy?

Technically seen he may not have been lying, assuming he actually spoke about the economy of his personal household.

Philjia wrote:Trident is an inescapable problem.

We can't just scrap it, because with the world in the unstable state it's in, and with unhinged and unfriendly foreign powers flexing their muscles, we can't afford to deprive our already downsized armed forces of their only-for-emergencies biggest bang.

We can't just keep it either, because sooner or later the missiles or the systems they're attached to will be obsolete, and they're hugely expensive to maintain as it is.

We can't replace it with something better either, because manufacturing new nuclear weapons isn't going to go down well on the international or domestic stage, especially given how expensive it will be.

We're fucked.

Trident's just a delivery system. Replacing the delivery system, contrary to what Greenpeace and CND et al claim, isn't "a new nuclear weapon", so long as whatever we replace it with retains the existing warheads in our inventory and don't produce more warheads (except, arguably, to cannibalise and/or replace those in our inventory currently non-operational).

It would be my argument that the UK would only be in violation of its NPT commitments if we were to produce a new run of warheads and commission a complementary delivery system to Trident.
One could argue we aren't meeting the spirit of our NPT commitments, but political realities mean we can't, and this isn't a happy families-era playground where one can lead by example. The only country for whom unilateral disarmament might actually lead to global disarmament is Russia. No way would Russia disarm if the US did first, without full bilateral agreement.

Freefall11111 wrote:So YouGov has done a profiling of UKIP membership.

In the past, UKIP members have voted at least once in the GE for:
UKIP: 88%
Tories: 66%
Labour: 24%
Lib Dems: 12%
BNP: 6%
Other: 6%
Green: 3%
Plaid/SNP: 3%

UKIP members place themselves on the left-right spectrum overall:
Very left-wing or fairly left-wing: 11%
Slightly left-of-centre: 5%
Centre: 15%
Slightly right-of-centre: 27%
Fairly right-wing: 31%
Very right-wing: 11%

UKIP members think the next leader should take the party:
Towards the centre: 22%
Keep it where it is: 56%
Towards the right: 17%

UKIP members think the party should target:
Labour voters: 73%
Tory voters: 15%
Don't know: 12%

(going to paraphrase here) UKIP members think policy should be:
Based on compromise: 22%
Based on ideology, even if it's unpopular: 60%

UKIP members think the party post-Brexit should:
Not disband: 73%
Disband: 7%
Don't know: 6%

UKIP members think these parties will be/not be part of British politics in ten years:
Conservative: 87-4
UKIP: 78-16
Labour: 39-48
Green: 21-57
Lib Dems: 13-73

UKIP members think they know what the party stands for:
A lot: 70%
A little: 23%
Not a lot: 5%
Not at all: 1%

UKIP members think:
The mainstream media is deliberately anti-UKIP: 89%
Some UKIP members are plants by the Tories: 55%
Intelligence services work to undermine UKIP: 46%
Election officials changed votes at the EU referendum: 39%

Somewhat disconcerting overall.

Elepis wrote:Banks poised to relocate out of UK over Brexit, BBA warns

Not that any banks have actually said they would do this.

Frank Zipper wrote:So the Royal family are pissed off about losing millions in EU farming subsidies because of Brexit.

A positive side effect of Brexit

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:
you were told that we would not be dragged out of the EU against our will. this was "forseeable".

if you tell people voting to leave will strip them of their EU citizenship then have staying in strip of their EU citizenship that's a problem. no amount of "but it was forseeable" will change this. it is one of the key issues of the scottish referendum and an event that will alter british and world history as we know it. it cannot be brushed aside as "eh, might change in the future, no biggie".

They said it was the best way of making sure Scotland was in the EU, which was probably true. The chance of Spain allowing Scotland into the EU is less than the chance of a leave vote at the time.

I can remember nobody saying that it was a absolute guarantee the UK would not vote to leave if the promised referendum was held.

oh well then. it's forseeable, there's a chance, the government will just tell you to bite it and ignore the referendum. it's unlikely, but the chance is there. would you accept "it was foreseeable!" an acceptable response to why you should shut up and deal with it?