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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happened to reclaiming sovereignty? What's the point if you aren't going to exercise it?

I've got a plan to use that sovereignty, but trouble is, I'm not in charge

The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happened to reclaiming sovereignty? What's the point if you aren't going to exercise it?

I've got a plan to use that sovereignty, but trouble is, I'm not in charge

The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.

Thr current crop hardly inspire the people much.
lib Dems are mild chedder at best.
COrbyn is a dinosaur of the left, last of a dead clan.
May is stable yes, but she not exactly one to rally a Audience.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happened to reclaiming sovereignty? What's the point if you aren't going to exercise it?

I've got a plan to use that sovereignty, but trouble is, I'm not in charge

The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.

Thr current crop hardly inspire the people much.
lib Dems are mild chedder at best.
COrbyn is a dinosaur of the left, last of a dead clan.
May is stable yes, but she not exactly one to rally a Audience.

We have a leaders' debate tonight on ITV, but no PM arguing her case before the nation. If our press and media weren't so vile and fawning, she wouldn't get away with this.

It's an extraordinary set of affairs.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What happened to reclaiming sovereignty? What's the point if you aren't going to exercise it?

Whats the point in exercising that "sovereignty" if none of the parties represent me and what I want for my country? I want Brexit, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything the Tories are doing.

How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?

Do you mean actual sovereignty or bendy-bananas, blue-passport sovereignty?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?

Good thing the UK had a veto then, right? Face it, the UK lost no sovereignty which our representatives in the EU and Westminster Parliaments did not give away willingly. The same people who did it before continue to be elected.

The whole "sovereignty" argument falls flat on its face when people continue to vote for the same politicians responsible for the "loss" of that sovereignty.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

The 'complete shambles' is actually only such if you view it from the perspective of an idealised utopia. As someone who lived in a third world dictatorial hellhole and thus has a bit of perspective from the complete opposite end, this country runs better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. I don't get power cuts, the government shutting down the internet/press, there's a bare minimum of indoctrination in schools in terms of politics/religion, the people in charge bugger off instead of rigging votes, there's a mostly functional transport infrastructure, I don't have to pay healthcare costs for the most part, the tax burden is not excessive, etcetc.

Just because the people at the top piss everyone about a bit (which happens all the time, everywhere) doesn't really detract from what actually makes this country a good place to live. For most of the population, the UK is only 'a complete shambles' if you spend your time reading sensationalist newspaper headlines instead of actually looking around you. There are problems, sure, but North Korea we ain't.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Because academia is itself very liberal. It tends to create a bit of an echo chamber.

I don't think you've spent a lot of time in academia then. Most would argue with each other until they are blue in the face over relatively minor points. That is after all what they are trained to do - challenge perceptions. However this does need a liberal outlook. If you are in an authoritarian atmosphere where challenge is either ignored or punished (for example take May threatening to cold shoulder companies criticising Brexit) then the science/theology/historical arguments all become stagnant because the any deviation from the norm is discouraged.

What you are missing is that people in academia don't agree on everything but they will debate to try and come to a reasoned conclusion. The essence of liberalism is allowing people to *challenge* the status quo, however academia generally do it with facts and figures gathered from wider sources which can actually appear to be contradictory to an individual person because of the isolated, non-holistic view that person inevitably has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

The 'complete shambles' is actually only such if you view it from the perspective of an idealised utopia.

Hurrah we've persuaded Ketara that the EU is a utopia!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

At the end of the day, there is a market of close to 70 million people here with an income much higher than that in most of the world, most of the world does business here in a sizable capacity, and we possess many exports which cannot be easily replicated. Whilst that remains the case, substantial sums of money will continue to be involved here. It's not a tap that the EU can turn off or reroute, even if it was a singular dedicated entity with central planning (which it isn't). And whilst those substantial sums of money are flowing through here, the people behind them will be pressuring with all their might to ensure that those flows can continue unimpeded. It's always been the case, even in the throes of a world war. That pressure will be hitting the national governments, and their EU representatives, and I believe it will be of sufficient weight to overrule the small groups of influential quangos within the EU. They might have power, but nowhere near sufficient to make or break a matter as complex with as many players as this.

I'd agree that the UKs economy isn't going to collapse overnight. However it could easily shrink over time. In the 60's and 70's our economy was pretty shocking (to the point that there was resistance to us joining the EU because we were indeed the "sick man of Europe"). As a country we reinvented ourselves by joining the EU and becoming part of a greater community. So being outside of the EU we were poor and became richer by joining it (although there are a lot of poor people that were treated like lepers by successive governments). It is not hard to imagine a slide back to being the sick man of Europe. 9 million of that 70 million are recent migrants and that has driven our economy forward. Simply put if we removed the recent migrants then our population would be back to where we were in the 70's. It is more likely that with reduced skilled and unskilled labour, an aging population, a reducing birth rate, and the planned low immigration then we can expect our economy (if we continue on the same course) to shrink. That will lead to the number of skilled workers reducing and over time companies will relocate to more favourable areas. Yes we create the aircraft engines today but that does not mean tomorrow someone can't do it better because they have access to a more highly skilled workforce. The Tories immigration manifesto today will only further encourage this. Higher taxes on companies employing migrants, greater costs for migrants wishing to study here (destroying a significant part of your university education system). This leads to a less employable workforce, less skilled further encouraging companies to leave and so on. There are likely to be some shocks in the short term, but more than likely a slow decline over time. The idea that overall companies will sit around still whilst waiting for UK talent to suddenly appear is limited if you simply consider that we have a declining population if you exclude immigration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?

If you want the human race to survive past another 500 years then national sovereignty needs to die and be kicked into the gutter. the world needs to move to a more globalised human nation rather than petty kingdoms that eventually will degrade to squabbling over ever decreasing resources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Finally I do have to laugh at the hypocritical nature of the Tories 'promise' on another Scottish referendum.

A referendum on Scottish independence cannot take place until the Brexit process has played out and it should not take place unless there is public consent for it to happen

Especially given that there public did not consent to having an EU referendum (noting only 35% of the UK voted for the Tory party in 2015). Yet now the "will of the people" has to be asked twice, once whether there should be one, and then an actual vote.

It points to the right wing Tories getting what they wanted and now dictating to the other nation states that they'll only get what the Tories want to give them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.

Right now I think some would inspire the thirsty man to spit the water in there face. I'm no Corbinista but watching the coverage of the Tories manifesto reveal made it hard to keep my food down.

 Whirlwind wrote:

I'd agree that the UKs economy isn't going to collapse overnight. However it could easily shrink over time.

'Easily' isn't the word I'd choose. It certainly could, but let's be honest, in or out of the EU, we're not going to be reduced to Ghana's GDP in the short to mid-term future by any reasonably conceived standard economic process. (I say standard to rule out things like nuclear warfare and God).

In the 60's and 70's our economy was pretty shocking (to the point that there was resistance to us joining the EU because we were indeed the "sick man of Europe"). As a country we reinvented ourselves by joining the EU and becoming part of a greater community. So being outside of the EU we were poor and became richer by joining it (although there are a lot of poor people that were treated like lepers by successive governments).

This is a highly selective account of the past. Thatcher, love her or hate her, is the one who repositioned our economy. I don't think joining the EU as it existed back then 'reinvented' us in any particularly identifiable way, culturally or economically. Joining the EU today is a far chunkier proposal for any country, in terms of legislation and scope, than it was in the 70's.

It is not hard to imagine a slide back to being the sick man of Europe. 9 million of that 70 million are recent migrants and that has driven our economy forward. Simply put if we removed the recent migrants then our population would be back to where we were in the 70's.

You'd need to resurrect half a dozen state supported industries as a drain on the fiscus, amongst several other highly relevant social and economic factors to try and place us back in the 70's to any vaguely accurate degree.

It is more likely that with reduced skilled and unskilled labour, an aging population, a reducing birth rate, and the planned low immigration then we can expect our economy (if we continue on the same course) to shrink. That will lead to the number of skilled workers reducing and over time companies will relocate to more favourable areas. Yes we create the aircraft engines today but that does not mean tomorrow someone can't do it better because they have access to a more highly skilled workforce. The Tories immigration manifesto today will only further encourage this. Higher taxes on companies employing migrants, greater costs for migrants wishing to study here (destroying a significant part of your university education system). This leads to a less employable workforce, less skilled further encouraging companies to leave and so on. There are likely to be some shocks in the short term, but more than likely a slow decline over time. The idea that overall companies will sit around still whilst waiting for UK talent to suddenly appear is limited if you simply consider that we have a declining population if you exclude immigration.

It should be acknowledged however, that the above is vague supposition, and many many other things could and indeed, likely would occur to shift the outcome to a completely different one.

Generally speaking, economies are very interesting things that rarely behave the way you expect them to, and in order to go catastrophically wrong in the manner forecasted above, usually require truly inept mismanaging over a period of some decades.

 Ketara wrote:

'Easily' isn't the word I'd choose. It certainly could, but let's be honest, in or out of the EU, we're not going to be reduced to Ghana's GDP in the short to mid-term future by any reasonably conceived standard economic process. (I say standard to rule out things like nuclear warfare and God).

No unlikely, at least in the short term. Ghana's population is also about a third of ours, it's more likely that there economy could grow in the future if conditions were right. On the other hand maybe we should worry about god because if the almighty really does care I'm assuming at this point he is wondering whether he should press the reset button on the computer or "restore to last save" because some malware seems to be taking over the human race.

This is a highly selective account of the past. Thatcher, love her or hate her, is the one who repositioned our economy. I don't think joining the EU as it existed back then 'reinvented' us in any particularly identifiable way, culturally or economically. Joining the EU today is a far chunkier proposal for any country, in terms of legislation and scope, than it was in the 70's.

The latter I agree with, but the former is more open to debate - did Thatcher reposition the economy to take advantage of being in the EU for example; to exploit a niche that was currently filled?

You'd need to resurrect half a dozen state supported industries as a drain on the fiscus, amongst several other highly relevant social and economic factors to try and place us back in the 70's to any vaguely accurate degree.

It's not about getting to where we were (though asking some people about Brexit gives me the impression that's where they want to go). However there is the argument that immigration has allowed the country to exploit the world market because it simply provided a larger work force that allowed greater specialisation. If immigration had been zero then the population now would just be the old baby boomers coming up to retirement and our working population would be greatly diminishing. This trend does not result in a growing economy. You simply can't rely on 75 years old engineers to continue building jet engines and if the number of newly trained people coming through is half those dying/retiring then output will diminish (unless you take extreme action like making minimum working hours be 80 hours a week).

It should be acknowledged however, that the above is vague supposition, and many many other things could and indeed, likely would occur to shift the outcome to a completely different one.
Generally speaking, economies are very interesting things that rarely behave the way you expect them to, and in order to go catastrophically wrong in the manner forecasted above, usually require truly inept mismanaging over a period of some decades.

I'm not really talking about a catastrophic collapse...more a steady decline overall. The point of going back to the 70s is that things have radically changed in 40 years, there is no reason for it not to be able to go back there with the wrong choices.

However when you have an aging population, declining birth rate and with little immigration as proposed by the Tories then your working population will shrink and over time that will affect overall output, those aircraft engine designers will just be fewer (in the UK anyway) and statistics mean that overall the more brains you have working on something the more productive you are likely to be in finding that next ultra efficient engine. The only exception would be if semi-intelligent robots start taking over a lot of manual jobs in the UK. That might keep a strong economy in certain areas but if people thought immigration was keeping wages down (its not the evidence isn't there), robotics has the capability of flooring it.

jouso wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?

Do you mean actual sovereignty or bendy-bananas, blue-passport sovereignty?

I mean things like fiscal union, which is now being pushed heavily now that the biggest opponent the UK is on the way out of the EU.

I mean things like integrated militaries.

I mean things like the UK courts and Parliament being subordinate to European Courts and Parliament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If you want the human race to survive past another 500 years then national sovereignty needs to die and be kicked into the gutter. the world needs to move to a more globalised human nation rather than petty kingdoms that eventually will degrade to squabbling over ever decreasing resources.

Thats a utopian fallacy and you know it. Humanity will always be divided, but the setting will simply change. We'll simply be fighting over new frontiers, like space. Our species' future is The Expanse, not the Star Trek federation.

A "globalized human nation" will be an authoritarian dystopia.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How, then, do we know that the EU was the cause of lost sovereignty? The complete shambles that the UK is in at the moment would seemingly be much more harmful to the country than the EU could ever hope in its vilest machinations, no?

"Ever closer union", the raison d'etre of the European UNION is by definition a threat to national sovereignty. Are you seriously arguing that a political union which seeks to integrate 28 Nation states politically, economically, and militarily is somehow not a threat to National sovereignty and independence?

Do you mean actual sovereignty or bendy-bananas, blue-passport sovereignty?

I mean things like fiscal union, which is now being pushed heavily now that the biggest opponent the UK is on the way out of the EU.

I mean things like integrated militaries.

I mean things like the UK courts and Parliament being subordinate to European Courts and Parliament.

Fiscal union, well. Even if it eventually ends up happening (which is a good thing) Britain woul very likely get an opt-out, just like the euro, etc.

Integrated militaries: NATO, the Anglo-French Combined Expeditionary Force. It will happen you like it or not. Unless you're the US you can't do power projection on your own budget. The days where you could wage a war with conscripts and a rifle and build thousands of combat aircraft per year are long gone. The UK can barely afford their new aircraft carriers, and that's with the highest defence budget in the EU by far. Either you retreat back or join a group of like-minded nations.

UK is subject to organisations like WTO, ECHR, ICJ, etc. Unless you're North Korea you can't isolate yourself from your neighbours. It's a good thing that there are international courts and organisations to put rogue nations on check. Unless you miss the days of gunboat diplomacy, that is.

GoatboyBeta wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The problem is that we have leaders who would struggle to inspire a thirsty man to drink water.

Right now I think some would inspire the thirsty man to spit the water in there face. I'm no Corbinista but watching the coverage of the Tories manifesto reveal made it hard to keep my food down.

The Tory manifesto is just another 5 more years of Blairism - it's writ large in every page. It's remarkable to see a Tory party that is Tory in name only.

Last night's debate went exactly as I thought it would go - as inspiring as soggy cornflakes.

Unlike May, at least they had the guts to turn up, but Farron?

We got the entire Farron family tree

It was feeble, wishy washy, bland, dull, uninspiring, lacklustre...I'm running out of adjectives.

Managed decline. That's all they have to offer the British people. Managed decline.

A penny on income tax? better social care? means tested winter fuel payments?

Whoop tee do...

Nothing on automation. Nothing on Climate Change. Nothing on the massive infastructure projects needed to overhaul this nation and get it fighting fit for the 21st century.

And nothing on a federal system, and a complete overhaul of the political system (elected senate for example) which would save this nation from breaking up.

And so on and so on...

Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.

Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".

The Tory Manifesto makes interesting reading. TBH I've only read the heads and summaries, but there is a lucky dip selection of centrist right and left wing policies mixed in.

Worker representation on the boards of companies? That was an EU idea from the mid-to-late 2000s.

Large companies to publish details of executive pay ratio to average worker.

Possible legal support for shareholders to turn down executive pay.

Double the levy on highly-skilled foreign workers. (Folds into the stop immigration policy.)

Not very business friendly, on the whole...

The Tory manifesto is not anything. It's a monument to failure, an admission that they have no plan, no vision, nothing.

Historically, that is nothing knew. The Tories have always been a road block to progress and prosperity in the UK. The Corn laws, Catholic emancipation, the Ireland problem (blocking Gladstone's home rule bill), voting rights, rolling up the white flag to Hitler in the 1930s, selling us out to the EEC in the 1970s, abandoning the Falklands pre-invasion etc etc

They have forever been a millstone around the neck of the UK.

I feel sorry for the trees that died for that rubbish to be printed.

I feel as though we're stuck in a reality where the EU referendum never happened, and the calendar says May 19th 2007...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.

Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".

This is no surprise if you're familiar with May's track record as Home Secretary.

I've tried to remain interested and upbeat but this entire election and every manifesto is a complete farce. No one has any credible plans to tackle urgent issues or can present a long term plan beyond flag waving and vote winning. I wish there was a "You all suck" option on the ballot paper.

Perhaps the UK is ripe for a Macron type of punch through from the disaffected centrist grass roots.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps the UK is ripe for a Macron type of punch through from the disaffected centrist grass roots.

Macron? France's answer to David Cameron!

It may have escaped your notice, but we've already had Cameron as PM

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.

Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".

This is no surprise if you're familiar with May's track record as Home Secretary.

We are already there, and have been for some time.

Do_I_Not_Like_That is right that the current Tory party is Blairite, and we should not have Blairites for our constitutional health, but the alternatives are worse, and sadly we must now have surveillance culture because we let in massed unvetted immigrants to the point that we have large unanglicised minorities ripe for radicalisation, and it would be suicidal not to keep tabs.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Well, the Tories want to record your entire browsing history and every piece of private and public communication (on facebook etc.) and monitor it, with laws about what is and isn't allowed to be said online:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

And yes, that is in the manifesto, I just checked.

Have fun not being able to have this debate in 5 years time as the UK public sleepwalks straight into 1984 because "I don't like that Corbyn he didn't bow to the queen".

This is no surprise if you're familiar with May's track record as Home Secretary.

We are already there, and have been for some time.

Do_I_Not_Like_That is right that the current Tory party is Blairite, and we should not have Blairites for our constitutional health, but the alternatives are worse, and sadly we must now have surveillance culture because we let in massed unvetted immigrants to the point that we have large unanglicised minorities ripe for radicalisation, and it would be suicidal not to keep tabs.

I broadly agree with your point, but still disagree. When I was growing up, the IRA bombing campaign was in full effect. That was a more deadlier threat to the UK than extreme Islamic terrorism has ever been, and yet, our civil liberties were far better back then than they are now.

It's a knee-jerk power grab, and has been so since 1997.

Today, there is portrait of Mrs. May in the German newspaper ''Süddeutsche Zeitung'' on page 3.
Delicious. Strong and stable seem to be her words she uses most these days.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I broadly agree with your point, but still disagree. When I was growing up, the IRA bombing campaign was in full effect. That was a more deadlier threat to the UK than extreme Islamic terrorism has ever been, and yet, our civil liberties were far better back then than they are now.

It's a knee-jerk power grab, and has been so since 1997.

This is also true, Blair did a power grab and the Tories seeing success in the policy have not released the grip. I have long opposed Blairism because it was totalitarian.

However the IRA were about 300 people at any one time, often less, and we knew who they were and most were watched. The IRA would end up using fresh terrorists for every operation as they knew they couldnt easily udse the guys on the payroll.

However we now have a very large Islamic minority that no attempt has been made to Anglicise and many come from very dodgy backgrounds. The watch list is approximately ten times the size it was during the Troubles, my guess based on e public data, approx 300 IRA vs approximately 3000 'high threat' individuals, a small proportion of whom would be from contiuency Irish nationalist movements. What is worse it is summised that we certainly have not got tabs on them all, and radicalisation is far easier and more common. There are currently more British passport holders in ISIS in Syria (estimated at 400) than the field strength of the IRA at the height of the Troubles.

Besides despite the IRA being complete c*nts, they did have some moral standards, as far as we know they never tried to aquire any WMD.

I gave links to the number data above on previous threats on the topic, data is linkable.

Various appeasement policy decisions have been made, by Blair and following governments including a blind eye turned to street Sharia enforcement and an acceptable of some forms of Sharia court. Ethnic tensions are automatically blamed on the far right whether or not they are present.

Yes The UK needs to be watchful, and he moves are necessary, but I do not trust the government not to abuse this power, however even so they are way better than Labour, who set this up specifically to abuse it rather than have fringe benefits of necessary tooling.

,

Today, there is portrait of Mrs. May in the German newspaper ''Süddeutsche Zeitung'' on page 3.
Title: ''Die Eiskönigin'' (ice queen).
Delicious. Strong and stable seem to be her words she uses most these days.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Today, there is portrait of Mrs. May in the German newspaper ''Süddeutsche Zeitung'' on page 3.
Title: ''Die Eiskönigin'' (ice queen).
Delicious. Strong and stable seem to be her words she uses most these days.

Trouble is, everyone who is anyone knows its bluster. Theresa May has three priorities for Brexit, listed roughly in order.

1. Theresa May
2. Theresa May
3. Theresa May

She will be offered faux choices that let her look good and feth us, and despite seeing the trap, she will take them.

Funnily enough, almost no-one outside the "chattering classes" has heard of the Strong and Stable slogan.

I think the new social care laws are a long winded way to get old people to sell their houses to young people before they die.


It's also a good way around inheritance laws.