Article 50

[BobG]

Ok. I'm sorry Selby. I misread the tone and the intent of your post. I apologise. I am rather glad I misread it though Having read it again, I quite like my little contribution. I'll add two things this time around:

As well as being intellectually and morally moribund, today's politicians lack both bottle and balls.

And, the press? My very strong belief is that they, collectively, especially the tabloids, are responsible for 75% of the crap that we have today. They have been peddling their own agendas, feathering their own nests and actively suborning the political process for a generation now. And the frustrations that have come to a head of so many recently have led to the logically and rationally idiotic choice to support anything that promised change. If I decided to set fire to my house because I am totally fed up with the flooring in one of its rooms (which I am), would I be better off? Yet that's what this country has done. And it's our children who will pay the price. it is the most selfish and thoughtless mass act since the Luddites 250 years ago. Which brings us back to the lack of vision of our politicians....

BobG

[wilts rover]

Logically and rationally idiotic, now there's a phrase you don't read very often!

I think you are giving the tabloids far greater credit than they deserve, and newspapers as a whole far less of a connection with the political class than they have actually had. Exposing the MP's expenses scandal, oh for the good old days when they wouldn't report the abdication crises when the rest of the world was reading about it.

People made their own choice for their own reasons and its up to the politicians now to get on with it - whatever it is. There is no point blaming a type of media with a declining readership in a world where most people have a range of access to a huge variety of other sources because you didn't like the result. The Luddites managed to pass on information quite happily in a world with no tabloids.

[selby]

Bob no malice taken,I like people with their own opinion,and certainly do not expect everyone to agree with mine.
  Unfortunately it seams as though only people of a certain age,50 plus or the grammer school generation seam to want politics to be for the best for everyone and not just the few.
  The lack of opportunity for the younger generations frightens me,and together with the materialistic world we live in can only result in trouble ahead.
   Its time for change,we need great leadership from the top,lets hope someone stands up to be counted

[BobG]

Leadership.... We talked about the absence of leaders of substance with sensible values a while back. Nothing much has changed has it? Mrs Merkel tried but she's being slowly crucified by both events and the tenor of the times. So now we have leaders of the three most powerful nations on the planet who appear, all, to be engaging in an arms race, a rush for selfish gain and an abandonment of a sense of common feeling. The world is a far more dangerous place today than it has ever been before in my lifetime. And I think it will get worse before it gets better. Can you see any of these three lunatics backing down for the sake of peace when at least one of the other two would emerge as 'winner'. No. I can't see it either. Pick your flashpoint chaps....

BobG

[wilts rover]

The world is a far more dangerous place today than it has ever been before in my lifetime

Nah, come on Bob, you might not remember the Vietnam War but it certainly happened in your lifetime - when the US military threatened to use nuclear weapons on the Viet Cong (instead of sending in and potentially loosing thousands of troops which is what actually happened) but were pevented from doing so by some slightly wiser politicians:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/worst-idea-ever-dropping-nuclear-bombs-during-the-vietnam-13668

That however is not the most dangerous place the world has been in during your lifetime, this is (from the book, The Untold History of the US by Oliver Stone):

27th October 1962, the Soviet convoy is on its way to Cuba when 'an incident occurred that has been described as "not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in human history"'.

A navy carrier group led by USS Randolph began dropping depth charges near a Soviet B-59 submarine that was protecting the convoy - unaware that the sub was armed with nuclear weapons. The attack went on for around four hours, knocking out the sub's air circulation system and leading to a build up of CO2 inside. Some of the crew began to panic and the commander tried to contact the general staff for help. Unable to reach them, he too then began to panic and thinking that war had already broken out, ordered the torpedoes ready for action. Fortunately the other two officers on board managed to persuade him not to launch, thus preventing nuclear war.

That Bob is the most dangerous place the world has been in during your lifetime - and however many missiles NATO has in Poland, ships Russia has in Kallingrad or annoyed China is over Taiwan, we are a long way from that type of decisive flash point. We are far too connected economically and socially right now.

That of course may change.

[BobG]

Hmm. Yes. Cuba was damn dangerous. Ok. I'll buy that one. I was alive then. And that date in 1982 (??) when the Russians thought the West was about to come crashing through Berlin and beyond was pretty damn scary too. I certainly do remember Vietnam too Wilts. it was the daily lead story on the news for half my young life. I wasn't aware the US tactical geniuses had threatened to use nukes there though. But then, that's the military for you surely? Were the politicians ever in danger of allowing them to do so?

I still think the world today is a damn dangerous place, and that it's getting more and more so. I don't buy tthe economic connection argument. Putin, and Russia, are 19th century imperialists. In many ways Russia has been roughly 100 years behind the west for two centuries. Politically, economically and socially, they're still a long, long way behind. Power = right. Their drivers are different to ours. That's why this is so dangerous. There's a such a huge prize in the offing for Putin and Russia that they can hardly turn it down. They are reaching the point where they have a chance to destroy NATO's credibility - if not it's actual existance. That's a prize worth taking risks for. Putin isn't going to turn it down. Unless Trump consistently displays plenty of unseen subtlety and skill, there's a challenge coming sometime, somewhere, in the next few years.

Cheers

BobG

[Dutch Uncle]

I think this event is often regarded as the world's most dangerous moment/nearest miss:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident


Some other ones here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

[BobG]

Is this the same incident, Brian, as the NATO exercise in Europe that the USSR believed was a cover to a land invasion? I wasn't aware of the Minuteman false alarm so the hyperbole that still surrounds Able Archer always led me to think that that, and Cuba, were the closest NATO and the Warsaw Pact came to blows.

BobG

[Dutch Uncle]

The Able Archer exercise you talk about took place a couple of months later Bob, with this incident as part of the backdrop/context. Of course NATO/US probably did not know about the Petrov incident at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

[BobG]

Oh wow.... No wonder the Russians were twitchy....! Especially after months of US aggression, posturing, rhetoric and threats. One day somebody is going to make a mistake that isn't recovered by human common sense.

BobG

[The Red Baron]

So today Theresa May set out her stall on Brexit.

Funny how all those people who have been demanding that she states her position are now complaining when she is doing just that.

[Glyn_Wigley]

That's because there's a difference between knowing you're going to be in the shit and then finding out just how deep the shit is going to be!

[ballysbackin]

The decision was made by the population in the UK not the Government - Cameron believed after many of his steamroller decisions on other matters that this would go through as remain. BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wrong, everybody had the freedom to choose. Shit or not. The decision was made. and now legal challenge upon legal challenge blah blah - democracy indeed

[bobjimwilly]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38641208

People who voted Brexit "did so with their eyes open", the prime minister said, calling the vote a "great moment of national change".

I call bullshit on that.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpnbSZGlhq4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpnbSZGlhq4</a>

[IDM]

Simplistic viewpoint maybe, but shouldn't the "exit strategy" have been determined and agreed by parliament, BEFORE presenting to the electorate in the referendum, therefore folks would know what was being actually voted for??

[ballysbackin]

David Cameron Cock sure he was going to win.

[bobjimwilly]

Simplistic viewpoint maybe, but shouldn't the "exit strategy" have been determined and agreed by parliament, BEFORE presenting to the electorate in the referendum, therefore folks would know what was being actually voted for??

in a word, yes!

[dknward2]

So when are we leaving then or have we still not set a date

[Susan Abbott]

If on the ballet paper it mentioned article if we wanted "Hard or Soft Brexit" and what that means I wonder if the understanding of that implication would have had an influence on the final result .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DevilMayCry]

Supreme court rules parliament must have vote to trigger article 50

The government has lost its fast-tracked appeal to the supreme court, forcing ministers to introduce emergency legislation into parliament to authorise the UK’s departure from the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/24/supreme-court-brexit-ruling-parliament-vote-article-50

[The Red Baron]

Theresa May will probably be miffed although IMO they should have cracked on with a vote in Parliament once the High Court ruled the way it did.

Theresa is miffed, as I say, but Wee Jimmy Krankie hasn't taken the other decision - that the devolved administrations don't need to be consulted - well at all.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/

[Yargo]

Wee Jimmy Krankie hasn't taken the other decision - that the devolved administrations don't need to be consulted - well at all.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/

Can one of the sanctimonious pro EU remainiacs explain the case for Scottish independence within the EU after Britain leaves,how that will be achieved and its likely consequences?

[The Red Baron]

I think it's more one for the SNP to answer really. Odd kind of independence if you ask me.

[RedJ]

Spain and France would never allow an independent Scotland to join.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Wee Jimmy Krankie hasn't taken the other decision - that the devolved administrations don't need to be consulted - well at all.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/

Can one of the sanctimonious pro EU remainiacs explain the case for Scottish independence within the EU after Britain leaves,how that will be achieved and its likely consequences?

The only case that needs to be made is that it's what the Scottish people want. This voting stuff IS all about democracy whether the resulting decision is good or bad, isn't it?

[Filo]

Wee Jimmy Krankie hasn't taken the other decision - that the devolved administrations don't need to be consulted - well at all.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/

Can one of the sanctimonious pro EU remainiacs explain the case for Scottish independence within the EU after Britain leaves,how that will be achieved and its likely consequences?

The only case that needs to be made is that it's what the Scottish people want. This voting stuff IS all about democracy whether the resulting decision is good or bad, isn't it?

The Scottish people voted to remain in the UK, The UK voted to leave the EU, thats democracy at work, how wee Jimmy can argue for for a second referendum on indepenence is beyond me!

[RedJ]

Because his party is meaningless if independence goes off the radar.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Wee Jimmy Krankie hasn't taken the other decision - that the devolved administrations don't need to be consulted - well at all.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/

Can one of the sanctimonious pro EU remainiacs explain the case for Scottish independence within the EU after Britain leaves,how that will be achieved and its likely consequences?

The only case that needs to be made is that it's what the Scottish people want. This voting stuff IS all about democracy whether the resulting decision is good or bad, isn't it?

The Scottish people voted to remain in the UK, The UK voted to leave the EU, thats democracy at work, how wee Jimmy can argue for for a second referendum on indepenence is beyond me!

Because the circumstances of remaining part of the UK has substantially altered. Rather like those times when membership of the EU altered and leavers demanded to be able to vote on it!

[Filo]

Wee Jimmy Krankie hasn't taken the other decision - that the devolved administrations don't need to be consulted - well at all.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/

Can one of the sanctimonious pro EU remainiacs explain the case for Scottish independence within the EU after Britain leaves,how that will be achieved and its likely consequences?

The only case that needs to be made is that it's what the Scottish people want. This voting stuff IS all about democracy whether the resulting decision is good or bad, isn't it?

The Scottish people voted to remain in the UK, The UK voted to leave the EU, thats democracy at work, how wee Jimmy can argue for for a second referendum on indepenence is beyond me!

Because the circumstances of remaining part of the UK has substantially altered. Rather like those times when membership of the EU altered and leavers demanded to be able to vote on it!

The difference is the people of the UK never got a vote to join the EU, the only vote the UK people had was to join the Common Market, a Free trade deal

[wilts rover]

Wee Jimmy Krankie hasn't taken the other decision - that the devolved administrations don't need to be consulted - well at all.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/nicola-sturgeons-brexit-charade-continues/

Can one of the sanctimonious pro EU remainiacs explain the case for Scottish independence within the EU after Britain leaves,how that will be achieved and its likely consequences?

Presumably it is the same case the Government used, most of whom had voted to give sovereignty back to Parliament from Europe, when they decided not to give sovereignty back to Parliament over Europe. And then attempted to challenge the courts when they told them they couldn't act like a tinpot dictatorship. Seems like the idea of Brexit has scrambled a few minds already.

The likely consequences. I believe Brexit has made it more likely there will be a second referendum over Scottish independence sooner rather than later and the differences over this question and the future direction of the economy has made it rather more likely to succeed this time. If there will still be a Europe for Scotland to join will depend on a lot of factors, not least of which are the various elections in Europe this year.

How that will be achived? Presumably the same way the first one was. Bills in Parliament and stuff, go check the procedure yourself and then you will know, why shoud I do it for you?