Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

d) Aid the rebels as much as possible, primarily with air support - when Gaddafi falls, THEN swoop in and protect government infrastructure and assist the local's government transition.

Exactly, although covert military action is a better bet than overt action unless you absolutely need to publicly intervene.

The problem with overthrowing totalitarian regimes is that the resistance forces will invariably have little in common aside from their resistance. When the old regime falls they will have little to hold them together/use as a foundation for unity with the inevitable result of further conflict and instability. This is exactly what happened in Libya.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 whembly wrote:

d) Aid the rebels as much as possible, primarily with air support - when Gaddafi falls, THEN swoop in and protect government infrastructure and assist the local's government transition.

Exactly, although covert military action is a better bet than overt action unless you absolutely need to publicly intervene.

The problem with overthrowing totalitarian regimes is that the resistance forces will invariably have little in common aside from their resistance. When the old regime falls they will have little to hold them together/use as a foundation for unity with the inevitable result of further conflict and instability. This is exactly what happened in Libya.

Which is another reason why we should avoid getting involved until a dominant revolutionary force, with a leader who is charismatic enough to draw wide support from the population, forms.

As an example, the Cuban revolution succeeded and avoided all out civil war afterwards as the Castros (and some of their lieutenants such as Guevara and Cienfuegos) had the charisma to win the support of the people, which made starting a civil war after Batista's defeat untenable for the other revolutionary groups.

So this a just woulda, coulda shoulda now then?

UKIP has a new leader, and there's some good news for r_squared and Kilkrazy

Nigel Farage is staying on as an MEP and has vowed to keep fighting the EU up until the very last second of Britain's membership

And even then, he's hinted that after BREXIT he might hang around the EU parliament just to berate people like Jean-Claude Juncker

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Nigel Farage is staying on as an MEP and has vowed to keep fighting the EU up until the very last second of Britain's membership

What an absolute arse.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nigel Farage is staying on as an MEP and has vowed to keep fighting the EU up until the very last second of Britain's membership

You mean continue to collect his salary despite not actually doing anything to effectively represent the UK in parliament?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nigel Farage is staying on as an MEP and has vowed to keep fighting the EU up until the very last second of Britain's membership

You mean continue to collect his salary despite not actually doing anything to effectively represent the UK in parliament?

Let's not let inconvenient facts spoil the comedy value of Farage hanging around Brussels for a few more months


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Nigel Farage is staying on as an MEP and has vowed to keep fighting the EU up until the very last second of Britain's membership

What an absolute arse.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I agree that the humour factor is compelling, but bearing in mind that we're going to have to engage in (lets face it, 'hostile') negotiation with them soon (ish) we shouldn't keep prodding them like that imo.

I think most of the EU members have a bit more sense than to take Farage as the exemplar of the UK.

His diatribe after the referendum was an embarrassment. He was immediately seen to be an ignorant gakker. But what can you expect from a business failure whose "professional" life has been spent sponging off the organisation he professed to despise while gaking all over the people who were foolish enough to elect him, plus all the other people who depended on Farage to actually do his job.

Democracy inaction.

I'll agree that he had taken his 'job' to be "getting us out of the EU" rather than "working to get better terms within the EU", but i'm left wondering if he actually had some good foresight on that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-already-had-no-friends-in-europe-before-brexit-eus-van-rompuy-says-a7308771.html

“Britain had already not many friends any more. I saw this clearly when I was in office when we had to vote on the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for the Commission. Britain was isolated,” Herman Van Rompuy

EDIT: YEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ministry-of-defence-invests-30-million-in-killer-laser-cannon-a7312111.html

UK leadership proves worth with genuinely advanced future defence system project - seriously, this is the only thing you can do against the hypersonic delivery vehicles being developed by the USA and China.
The only problem is the inevitable weather modification program it requires to be fully effective all year here.

 SirDonlad wrote:
I'll agree that he had taken his 'job' to be "getting us out of the EU" rather than "working to get better terms within the EU", but i'm left wondering if he actually had some good foresight on that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-already-had-no-friends-in-europe-before-brexit-eus-van-rompuy-says-a7308771.html

“Britain had already not many friends any more. I saw this clearly when I was in office when we had to vote on the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for the Commission. Britain was isolated,” Herman Van Rompuy

...

Which came first, British disengagement from Europe or European disengagement from Britain?

When you send witches like Farage in to bat for your country, well, I don't know what to say.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I'll agree that he had taken his 'job' to be "getting us out of the EU" rather than "working to get better terms within the EU", but i'm left wondering if he actually had some good foresight on that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-already-had-no-friends-in-europe-before-brexit-eus-van-rompuy-says-a7308771.html

“Britain had already not many friends any more. I saw this clearly when I was in office when we had to vote on the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for the Commission. Britain was isolated,” Herman Van Rompuy

...

Which came first, British disengagement from Europe or European disengagement from Britain?

When you send witches like Farage in to bat for your country, well, I don't know what to say.

Good question!
I suspect the only people who really know the answer to that are on the EU commission (maybe a couple of retired and unfeasibly wealthy people over here too i suppose)

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I'll agree that he had taken his 'job' to be "getting us out of the EU" rather than "working to get better terms within the EU", but i'm left wondering if he actually had some good foresight on that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-already-had-no-friends-in-europe-before-brexit-eus-van-rompuy-says-a7308771.html

“Britain had already not many friends any more. I saw this clearly when I was in office when we had to vote on the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for the Commission. Britain was isolated,” Herman Van Rompuy

...

Which came first, British disengagement from Europe or European disengagement from Britain?

When you send witches like Farage in to bat for your country, well, I don't know what to say.

Regarding Europe we have always had needle between ourselves and France, particularly with our respective roles and memberships. There has been continental disdain for our position for as long as we have seen ourselves as on the outside looking in.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Which came first, British disengagement from Europe or European disengagement from Britain?

When you send witches like Farage in to bat for your country, well, I don't know what to say.

I'm not sure it is as easy as which came first, as they probably occurred at the same time.

Over the 90's the economy improved faster than several other nations. With free movement came an opportunity for the UK. Not only could it continually enlarge its economy it also started solving a long term problem for the UK in that with an aging population we weren't going to be able to support all the benefits that we currently get (pensions, NHS etc).

The issue was that being England and with a pretty long history of standing up against the 'evil' Europeans we have also gained a tendency to act both bigoted and superior to everyone else. As such as more migrants came to the country there was more and more (irrational fear) of what it meant on the public services etc and England as a whole.

The one thing the government failed to do however was challenge the debate head on. Those that had anti-immigration views were branded 'racists' and the pro-immigration ideas were never discussed openly. That meant people went into hiding getting more fearful and frustrated. This started manifesting itself as BNP gaining ground but with their OTT racist views there were many people that wouldn't vote for them. However as more people became fearful then BNP lost out because of the growing 'friendlier' version of them, UKIP led by a populist who spouted a simple solution to a complex set of problems grew out of the shadows. It didn't help that the government again and again failed to challenge the rhetoric (and for the Tory party that was because a proportion did think the EU was an issue and Labour in noughties plainly didn't either).

With a exceedingly poor number of people voting in the EU elections that led to the populists gaining the dominant role. And as they were deliberately trying to sabotage the project then it's no surprise that other EU elected members became more disenfranchised with the EU over time. This is effect led to more sidelining of the UK MEPs; which played again into the hands of the populists.

Of course this is exceedingly simplified, but for the most part it was slow creep on both sides, neither of which were challenging an underlying fear that the UK was being 'taken over by the EU'.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Which came first, British disengagement from Europe or European disengagement from Britain?

When you send witches like Farage in to bat for your country, well, I don't know what to say.

I'm not sure it is as easy as which came first, as they probably occurred at the same time.

Over the 90's the economy improved faster than several other nations. With free movement came an opportunity for the UK. Not only could it continually enlarge its economy it also started solving a long term problem for the UK in that with an aging population we weren't going to be able to support all the benefits that we currently get (pensions, NHS etc).

The issue was that being England and with a pretty long history of standing up against the 'evil' Europeans we have also gained a tendency to act both bigoted and superior to everyone else. As such as more migrants came to the country there was more and more (irrational fear) of what it meant on the public services etc and England as a whole.

The one thing the government failed to do however was challenge the debate head on. Those that had anti-immigration views were branded 'racists' and the pro-immigration ideas were never discussed openly. That meant people went into hiding getting more fearful and frustrated. This started manifesting itself as BNP gaining ground but with their OTT racist views there were many people that wouldn't vote for them. However as more people became fearful then BNP lost out because of the growing 'friendlier' version of them, UKIP led by a populist who spouted a simple solution to a complex set of problems grew out of the shadows. It didn't help that the government again and again failed to challenge the rhetoric (and for the Tory party that was because a proportion did think the EU was an issue and Labour in noughties plainly didn't either).

With a exceedingly poor number of people voting in the EU elections that led to the populists gaining the dominant role. And as they were deliberately trying to sabotage the project then it's no surprise that other EU elected members became more disenfranchised with the EU over time. This is effect led to more sidelining of the UK MEPs; which played again into the hands of the populists.

Of course this is exceedingly simplified, but for the most part it was slow creep on both sides, neither of which were challenging an underlying fear that the UK was being 'taken over by the EU'.

Probably the most succinct summary of the whole situation. Nicely put. Have a cookie.

Visegrad Group of EU states 'could veto Brexit deal'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37396805

A group of Central European EU members known as the Visegrad Four is ready to veto any Brexit deal that would limit people's right to work in the UK, Slovakian PM Robert Fico says.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency, Mr Fico said Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia would be uncompromising in negotiations.

His comments come a day after the EU's first major meeting without the UK.

Brexit, though not formally discussed, overshadowed the Bratislava summit.

At the end of the summit, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker repeated that Britain could not achieve full access to the EU market that it would ideally like, if it closed off free immigration for EU citizens.

At the same news conference, Mr Fico underlined that he and other Central European leaders whose citizens make up much of the EU migrant population in Britain would not let those people become "second class citizens".

A general response to Whirlwind's post.

First and foremost, it's a good post, well argued, but IMO, you've overlooked historical perspective.

Ok, here we go. Britain's breakaway from Europe, ironically begins in 1945 IMO.

The war has been won, Germany has been smashed to pieces, the USA takes Britain's role as the global superpower,

and Britain? Britain doesn't know what the feth it's going to do.

Decolonisation of the empire occurs. Suez happens in 1956. Eisenhower lays down the law to Britain, and it dawns on Britain that the great power days are over.

They look across to Europe. West Germany and it's economy is steaming ahead. The Germans, having militarism beaten out of them, have a new path. Peace and prosperity in Europe. They lost the war, but won the peace...

The French are willing partners in this...

Across the Atlantic, the good times are rolling in the USA. As in WW1, the Americans have gained the most from Europe tearing itself to shreads...

And poor old Britain, having sacrificied so much, that beacon of light in the darkness of 1940, feels resentful. What did we get out of the war?

Britain decides to join the European Party, swallows its pride, but De Gaulle sends them packing. Finally, in 1973, it pays off.

But from the begining, we never take it seriously. We want the best of both worlds, the Atlantic bridge. Europe welcomes us, but it never forgets De Gaulle's warning of the UK as an American trojan horse.

Our natural feeling of superiority, in part becuase of our days as THE global superpower, gives us an arrogance that is off putting to the rest of Europe.

So we muddle along for a few decades, and then comes Thatcher, and the start of a beligerent tone, the us against them mentality.

Black Wednesday burns a lot of fingers, and that lingering historical suispicion about the Germans, returns to the fore...

The Euro only increases our suispicion that the EU is a German racket, the drip drip drip of Euro-skepticism grows...

And then June 23rd, and the break...a sense of relied from both sides IMO that it's all over...

Britain and the EU: never enemies, but never really friends, awkward bedfellows, our heart never really in it. Tolerated, but never loved...






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I'll agree that he had taken his 'job' to be "getting us out of the EU" rather than "working to get better terms within the EU", but i'm left wondering if he actually had some good foresight on that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-already-had-no-friends-in-europe-before-brexit-eus-van-rompuy-says-a7308771.html

“Britain had already not many friends any more. I saw this clearly when I was in office when we had to vote on the candidacy of Jean-Claude Juncker for the Commission. Britain was isolated,” Herman Van Rompuy

...

Which came first, British disengagement from Europe or European disengagement from Britain?

When you send witches like Farage in to bat for your country, well, I don't know what to say.

I'm not defending Farage he's a politican, and just as bad as the rest of them.

Nigel Skinner got done for fraud. And now Private Eye is reporting that Barroso and a few of his EU cronies are to take up a well paid position with Goldman Sachs.

Yip, that's the same Goldman Sachs that helped create the crisis in Greece.

Our politicans are bad, our MEPs have been more or less a waste of space over the years, but the EU is no better.

Farage is a lot worse than most politicians, most of whom actually try to represent their constituents.

 Whirlwind wrote:
...Over the 90's the economy improved faster than several other nations. With free movement came an opportunity for the UK. Not only could it continually enlarge its economy it also started solving a long term problem for the UK in that with an aging population we weren't going to be able to support all the benefits that we currently get (pensions, NHS etc)....

This, I feel, is one of the central, and most important aspects of this whole debacle that has been criminally overlooked. The absolutely essential benefit, and critical requirement of high levels of immigration in the UK required to sustain infrastructure we take for granted.
The government absolutely dropped the ball by not stating in bold letters ten feet high that Britain needs immigration. The stereotype of the eastern European coming over here, working like a dog and sending money home needed to be put in perspective of a young, able person, paying taxes that benefit the UK, eventually leaving to return home, before becoming a burden on UK pensions and the NHS.

Immigration needed to be sold as the positive that it is to the UK, but we let racists and demagogues bang the drum and spout all sorts of rubbish for too long. They needed to be challenged, and beaten, and made to swallow their ignorant, bigoted bs.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Ok, here we go. Britain's breakaway from Europe, ironically begins in 1945 IMO.

Its much older than that, its roots go back to the English Plantagenet kings losing the 100 years war and the subsequent loss of their French territories (its no co-incidence that English becomes the language of the court during this period). The reformation and the rise of the puritans just made things worse. England has had an 'us Vs them' mentality towards Europe for centuries and it is that cultural background which has coloured modern attitudes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain and the EU: never enemies, but never really friends, awkward bedfellows, our heart never really in it. Tolerated, but never loved...

England and the EU. Scotland is much more European in its outlook.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Farage is a lot worse than most politicians, most of whom actually try to represent their constituents.

They weren't elected on a manifesto of withdrawing from said Parliament. Why would you actively engage in and therefore legitimise a Parliament that you wish to and campaigned to withdraw from? At least UKIP MEPs actually attend the European Parliament. Don't Sinn Fein boycott the British Parliament entirely?

Do you apply the same criticism and contempt to Sinn Fein that you do to UKIP?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
. Don't Sinn Fein boycott the British Parliament entirely?

The refuse to take the oath of allegiance (understandably) so they aren't sworn in as MP's and they don't receive an MP's salary.

What does Nige do with his MEP salary?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
. Don't Sinn Fein boycott the British Parliament entirely?

The refuse to take the oath of allegiance (understandably) so they aren't sworn in as MP's and they don't receive an MP's salary.

What does Nige do with his MEP salary?

Granted, but my point still stands. They aren't representing their constituents in Parliament either.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
They aren't representing their constituents in Parliament either.

They are though given that their constituents aren't likely to want their MP to swear an oath of allegiance to the queen

The big difference though is that Nige became an MEP and took the salary that goes with it and as such there is no comparison.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
. Don't Sinn Fein boycott the British Parliament entirely?

The refuse to take the oath of allegiance (understandably) so they aren't sworn in as MP's and they don't receive an MP's salary.

What does Nige do with his MEP salary?

Granted, but my point still stands. They aren't representing their constituents in Parliament either.

Except they were elected with those voting for them knowing exactly what that meant. They don't do the job so they also don't get paid. Nigel doesn't do the job but also claims his salary. He also filled a seat on the Fisheries committee but then never bothered to turn up except once. If he doesn't want to be involved then he should've stood down from all MEP responsibilities, so then that position on the fisheries committee could have been filled by somebody who would actually do the job they were elected to do.

I doubt it was in Farage's manifesto that he would officially sit on committees which directly affect Britain but not turn up to those meetings, therefore removing Britains voice and influence. That isn't not participating, that is actively blocking the interests of the UK.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They look across to Europe. West Germany and it's economy is steaming ahead. The Germans, having militarism beaten out of them, have a new path. Peace and prosperity in Europe. They lost the war, but won the peace...

The French are willing partners in this...

Across the Atlantic, the good times are rolling in the USA. As in WW1, the Americans have gained the most from Europe tearing itself to shreads...

And poor old Britain, having sacrificied so much, that beacon of light in the darkness of 1940, feels resentful. What did we get out of the war?

Britain decides to join the European Party, swallows its pride, but De Gaulle sends them packing. Finally, in 1973, it pays off.

There is no doubt the UK was effectively bled dry by WWII and that the rebuilding that happened in Germany (Japan as well) was a worldwide effort (mainly to build up areas on the border of the Cold War) whereas the UK has to borrow money to repair the damage. France was relatively well insulated because, apart from Normandy and the North there were not that many major cities that took a pounding with Paris and other major cities falling relatively quickly both ways as they weren't particularly defensible. It's perhaps surprising that if the UK had stayed largely neutral then the British Empire would have probably been left relatively untouched as Hitler didn't really want a war with Britain (and actively courted the UK up to about 1938). It would have also been interesting if the Munich Agreement hadn't been signed. With both USSR and France (which would have brought Britain) in having mutual defensive agreements with them (and with Czechoslovakia having significant heavily defended border defences) there would have likely been a short, but bloody, war as Germany at that stage didn't really have access to the raw materials to fight off three 'empires' on three different fronts at the same time. Again that would have probably preserved the status quo (more on the Munich agreement can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement).

It's hence no surprise then that the 1950's having being bled dry we struggled economically (also likely not helped by losing a generation to the fighting both in terms of life and in education/training for the economy). The 60's probably improved because this was the first time that we had a significant increase in a working population as the baby boomers grew up. The 70's were again poor, but again the 80's were boosted by the baby boomers, babies etc. In reality it's probably taken 50 years to find our niche again off the back of globalisation. However the baby boomer effect is weakening over time and immigration has been used to offset this. The question is that if we again become reliant on baby booms for the economy then we may end up going back to cycles of economical growth based on when the booms occur. As they get weaker and more spread out this is likely to mean the economy becomes weaker over time.

So the question really remains as to how to deal with immigration. Points/job based visas aren't going to provide long term growth as the people that might move are reliant on getting that job or visa. If the wife/partner/children aren't also allowed to relocate without significant strings (or they might lose the visa if they become unemployed) then the incentive to relocate becomes a lot less, which potentially drags companies abroad to access a better/wider market. Indeed with ever greater globalisation it's going to become easier for the higher paid staff to work from wherever they please as well. I think unfortunately the growing nationalism agenda (in many countries) is at base roots an argument over the past (relatively isolated economies, in that where the workforce is based) vs the future (more globalised economies, in that where the workforce is based) and that it is the change that's being resisted because it's happening so quickly. My concern is that if the UK continues to follow it's current path that we won't have the populace (in 40 or so years) to support the country and we will have to make drastic cuts to what we currently accept as normal. For example a free NHS is likely to go because you will have a significant demand on the services but not enough employed people to support it.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-17/fox-tells-uk-businesses-to-invest-more-abroad/

Liam Fox tells UK businesses to invest more abroad

If Liam Fox set out to alienate and upset business leaders, he probably could not be doing a better job of it.

First he characterised them and their outfits as fat and lazy.

Now I’ve learned that he shocked a group of them, brought together by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), when he said they should place more of their capital outside Britain.

This seemed a dangerous and explosive thing to say when there are widespread concerns that Brexit will lead to a costly investment drought in the UK.

"Right now we need as much investment here as we can possibly get, to prevent a rise in unemployment - which is what many of us believe will be the painful reality of leaving the EU", said the head of a huge UK company. "Few of us could really believe that he was telling us to invest more in other parts of the world. There was a real sense in the room of 'this is bonkers'".

A senior City figure said: "We assumed he would be telling us to invest here. It was literally amazing that he said we should do precisely the opposite".

Another said the atmosphere in the room was "icy" - and said Mr Fox left without the usual applause.

The explosive remarks were made last Monday by Fox, the cabinet minister charged with negotiating trade deals that can offset the anticipated negative impact on our exports of Brexit.

He was addressing the CBI President's Committee, and the justification for what he said was that Britain is not paying its way in the world.

We are suffering from a record 7% current account deficit – in part because UK businesses and institutions are no longer earning as much as they did on their overseas investments.

Whereas foreign companies with operations here are taking more profits out of Britain than in the past.

Fox was extolling the virtues of Outward Direct Investment, or ODI, as opposed to Foreign Direct Investment here by overseas firms.

If this becomes official government policy, it would represents a huge shift, since successive prime ministers have since Thatcher tried to persuade big multinationals – from Japan, the US and China, to name a few – to invest in Britain.

Most economists would probably agree with Mr Fox that over the long term it would be helpful to the UK if British companies increased their stock of productive capital abroad.

But to do that on a large scale now could be seen as potentially triggering a balance-of-payments and sterling crisis, because it could be seen as a vote of little confidence in the prospects for the UK of our indigenous businesses.


On Theresa May’s recent trip to China for the G20, she was warned by America’s President Obama and premier Abe of Japan that US and Japanese companies operating in the UK could move their investments out of the UK in the absence of more clarity on our future trading relationship with the EU.

There are growing concerns, especially in parts of the UK dependent on foreign owned car plants and engineering, and in the City of London, that capital and jobs will seep away from Britain.

Unless businesses can be given confidence that the UK will retain relatively frictionless access to the EU’s single market, which is the UK’s biggest export market.

A spokesman for Liam Fox said: "Liam was making the point that over time you need a balance of Inward and Outward investment for the current account".
Last updated Sat 17 Sep 2016

Okay PM May : you have successfully proven to everyone who already didn't believe it, that Fox is not fit to or capable o,f holding public office.

Point has been made, you can bin him now.

Lol what a dozy sod.

It's a few years old now, but another Liam Fox gem:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/06/tory-liam-fox-expenses-car-journey

May put Fox in to serve as a twin bridle on Boris alongside Davis, not build empires and grab negative headlines. At this rate, she'll have to dispose of him again and replace him with someone else at the next cabinet changeover.

Osborne is doing his level best to eel his way back into cabinet (publicly supporting everything May does to the nth degree, asserting he'll be around for a long time yet, etcetc), so he may make a grab for it when Fox is booted.