By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
My impression is that there are huge barriers to overcome before a European army would be feasible. We need better coordination of procurement, so that national resources complement rather than duplicate each other, and standardisation could be improved. There is also a need to plan a Mk 2 version of NATO in which the USA is not seen as the central player. Outside the NATO framework, the most pressing issue in my opinion is coordinating French and UK nuclear weapon targeting and seeking a financial contribution from other European countries in return for providing a "nuclear umbrella". I know this won't be popular, but we need to fill in gaps to have a credible tactical response to a one-off Russian first use of a tactical weapon, and also to have more strategic capability. We need to discuss getting together with the French regarding production and servicing, possibly even in respect of an alternative to US servicing of the Trident missiles. We already make and service the warheads here in the UK, and the French nuclear force is already independent of the USA (and NATO). The French already have am air-launched cruise missile and we should get together on a successor.
That is certainly true of Trump's bizarre stance on Ukraine and Russia. It is as though Putin has some strange hold over the POTUS. I am just pointing to an aspect of the situation in Greenland that most observers may have been slow to understand.
A lot of people say this, but I don't think it is 100% accurate. The treaty gives the US the right to deploy defensive armaments but not offensive armaments, and as I understand things Denmark needs to be consulted. This is what Co-pilot says on this point:
--------
• Denmark retains full sovereignty over Greenland, and the U.S. explicitly recognized this in the agreement. Any military activity must align with Denmark’s policies and NATO’s defensive posture. • Historically, Denmark has maintained strict control over what types of weapons systems may be stationed on its territory, including Greenland, and has consistently rejected the placement of offensive or nuclear weapons there.
----- My guess is that Trump wants to widen the USA's absolute discretion about what type of weapons it can deploy, and to achieve this wants a sovereign base model along the lines of the UK base in Cyprus. Probably there will also be something about mineral rights in any agreement. The change in base status would give more latitude for the USA to decide on the range of technologies to be incorporated in "Golden Dome". So there may be an element of method in Trump's apparent madness.
Good question. According to Co-Pilot it seems true that China has huge wind farm capacity, much of it offshore. My direct experience is limited to two work-related visits each of several weeks to Wuhan and three other central Chinese cities in recent years. I saw a lot of solar panels but not one wind turbine. There were a very large number of e-bikes (looking like small conventional motor cycles) and EV taxis. However, this did not translate into blue skies - even away from cities such as in the largely rural Three Gorges area, which has the world's largest hydro-electric power station. In Wuhan the sky seemed permanently grey and it took only about a week to develop a sore throat. My hosts told me there are only a few months in the year when the air isn't as bad. There still seems to be a lot of dirty heavy industry.
Edit. It may be that most of China's wind farms are offshore or in the north where winds are stronger. A quick internet search for Hubei province (where I mostly stayed) found a study from about 10 years ago stating that only 1% of energy generation there came from wind at that time.
Guess you have to say that is three good points, but I thought we made heavy weather of beating a poor team. The turning point was a lucky own goal following a double deflection. Re positives, it was good to see Vip get two goals, which i don't think he has managed in a game for us before. A top team would have hit Blackburn for five, but we were content to sit back and let them come onto us once we were 3-1 up. Underwhelming for me in that respect.
That was another frustrating half. We got ourselves in a good position and then went into a phase of sloppy passing and inability to keep possession that could have left us 1-2 down except for a last-ditch tackle by Burgess. Vip has delivered but too many of the others need to step up a notch.
My worry is that Europe has allowed itself to become so enfeebled, and is affected by so many internal divisions, that its power to act is very limited. I am uncertain what could be done if the USA simply moved troops into Greenland, It seems to me more likely that the US Congress itself might block annexation (as NATO rules are incorporated into US law) than that Europe could do anything other than express outrage. Similarly, if Trump's reaction to open criticism was to stop the flow of arms Europe is buying for Ukraine do we really have enough resources to hold the line against Russia in Ukraine?
To me, what recent developments show is the fragility, even fiction, of the kind of international law that Hermer and Starmer say is the key global governance mechanism. Treaty obligations mean little when the most powerful nations - Russia, China and the USA - opt out, and even countries like India, KSA and Brazil are equivocal. The backstop of "customary international law", which supporters of the "international rule-based order" will mention next, doesn't mean much if a powerful nation says it never recognised that custom (if so -called usus and juris are denied). It seems that the times they are a-changing.
The tone is awful, the content contradicts what Trump and Rubio said last year, but in the cold light of day it is hard to disagree about the Chagos aspect. Even a broken clock is right twice a day,
According to the Resolution Foundation the cost of U-turns on PIP, Universal Credit Health Element and WFA was £8.2 billion in 2025. This does not count the latest U-turns..
Imagine a Plaid/Green Coalition! Talk about the inmates taking over the asylum. I wondered if Llinos Medi meant just Wales when she seemed to make the off-the-wall claim that net migration was negative. On checking even Wales had significantly more arriving than leaving for both 2023 and 2024.
It is widely reported that the wife shouted "Drive baby, drive" immediately before the car moved forward. Speaking honestly I couldn't quite make out the words on the audio I heard, but she said something. I'm surprised Trampie hasn't seen this. It is mentioned in this thread. As i recall one of the agents initially told Mrs Good to drive on, but when she wouldn't move told her to get out of the SUV.
Agree that the Tory defections are a double-edged sword for Reform, as too many failed ex-ministers doesn't look good. However, I wonder whether this is not so much an across the board exodus in a quest for survival, but the splitting of the right wing Tory faction from the more socially-liberal "wets". In fairness to Jenrick, he resigned after less than two months as Immigration Minister because he did not think Tory policies were tough enough, and in that respect many of us would say he was right. As we know now, the post-COVID surge in numbers was far bigger than we realised at the time.
Yes, it should be the New York Post (my typo), but the point is that the video at the beginning of the article includes the originally-sized film of the SUV clipping Ross, and then a much longer sequence which shows that the claim that this was a separate incident is quite wrong.
As regards ScruffyJack's post, the reason why Mrs Good reversed first and then put her steering on full lock right is that she needed to do that to get the car back on to the road since her starting position was at 90 degrees to the flow of traffic. It was like part of a 3 point turn. One thing you may spot as she engaged forward gear is that the rear wheels were spinning before the car gained traction, suggesting hard acceleration. I made no claim that Mrs Good intended to harm Ross, just that she was reckless and did make contact with him.
The view in the last video clip appears far from clear as Ross is hidden behind the agent who is trying to open the driver's door. If you take note of the position of the bullet hole in the windscreen and the information that all three shots hit Good then the first shot came from in front of the car. This clip edits together at least two video clips from X, the end bit being filmed by a neighbour from their porch. The last clip from me is an enlarged segment from the longer clip I posted earlier in the thread, and a longer version of this that makes it clear it is part of the real scene appears in the New York Times link that reports the internal bleeding. It is clear to me that Ross was carried backwards for a yard or two by the contact. I saw the allegation that the segment had been speeded up, but the movements of others in the background and the reflections of flashing lights seem normal. It is also possible to compare the segment with the longer clip, which does not appear to be speeded up. I guess that some people will see what they want to see. Being clipped does not mean it was a good idea to pull the trigger.
That coalition would take wokeness and the big state to new extremes. It would be even worse than the present bunch. I sometimes wonder if people who turn to Plaid as the seemingly moderate alternative to Reform have actually researched the party's policies. The Greens are for people who believe in the power of hypnotherapy.
Some in the thread seem unclear about the legal status of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as law enforcement officers. They are certainly considered to be the latter, but their powers of investigation, detention and arrest are limited to immigration and customs offences. However, this includes authority to execute warrants of arrest for non-immigration violations under section 287(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to effectively accomplish their individual missions. As with the police, there are limits on their powers. For example, suspects can remain silent while awaiting legal representation and a court warrant is required to enter private premises, These powers come from s287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The officers are under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. Their powers predate Trump's time in office.
As far as I can see you were wrong about almost everything as per usual. I've seen several frame by frame videos, and posted the two that support the points I made. People can see for themselves. The city is heavily politicized not least because of the state and city administrations' unwillingness to get to grips with the Somali fraud scandal. I posted a video about that on another thread a week or two ago, and that contains an excellent example of the lunacy of a female anti-ICE demonstrator (17.10 onwards).
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
