Yet another example of Obama embarrassing himself with his relations with Britain and involving himself with an internal issue. Good thing that the UK is central to US politics in Europe, and the majority of the American public disagree with his interference. And let's be serious, he's making empty threats here.
Is the UK central to US politics in Europe?
I ask this as an American and an anglophile. I consider Britain a good reliable ally and should they be attacked I would demand the President immediately declare war against those who had attacked Britain.
But fuck me if I can come up with something Britain does for us that the EU could not do.
And when it comes to trade deals, if I have to choose between negotiating with a 3 trillion dollar economy and negotiating with a 13 trillion dollar group of economies (EU minus UK) I damn well expect more attention to be paid to the bigger group and bigger economy.
Oh and actually I think the majority of Americans are barely aware of Brexit and give no shits. They also do not care if the President speaks on the matter or not. We object to interference in our affairs. We're perfectly fine with interfering with other countries. For example, take everything we have done since WWI.
Because fundamentally the US would rather not deal with a united powerblock that's larger than it is? And the UK is the largest country from an economic, influence, and military perspective that tends to stand outside that. I mean that's not to say that you couldn't replace everything offered with places from continental europe, but as a rule it wouldn't be as favourable to your overall goals in the region.
Because fundamentally the US would rather not deal with a united powerblock that's larger than it is? And the UK is the largest country from an economic, influence, and military perspective that tends to stand outside that. I mean that's not to say that you couldn't replace everything offered with places from continental europe, but as a rule it wouldn't be as favourable to your overall goals in the region.
I am pretty sure that not dealing with a united powerblock that is larger than us is not that high up on our priorities.
I think our priorities go
1) Keep Europe Friendly
2) Keep Europe Stable
3) Fuck Russia. Seriously fuck Russia right in its ass (this seems to be a permanent goal for reasons I am not quite clear about am I right about that @Synthesis ).
4) No united powerblock that won't listen to what we say. Which until Europe is actually willing to spend a pfennig on defense, might be a while.
Rchanen on
0
Options
wiltingI had fun once and it was awfulRegistered Userregular
The US has historically supported European integration, for a variety of reasons.
3) Fuck Russia. Seriously fuck Russia right in its ass (this seems to be a permanent goal for reasons I am not quite clear about am I right about that @Synthesis ).
As you asked for my opinion, I might as well expand on that--generally, yes, that is true. Specifically, "ass" means "back into the state of the roughly 1990s"--"Fuck the Russian Federation back into the 1990s."
This is a pretty accurate description I think, both in political and economic terms. The Soviet armed forces were dismantled in 1992 to 1995 approximately, and except for the violent spike in piracy resulting from the dismantling of the Soviet Pacific Fleet, this was generally considered very positive. Real wages in the entire CIS contracted sharpy--in '95 and '96, a majority of Russian government employees couldn't actually be paid. The Russian government defaulted on its debt in 1998. Washington generally considers its relations with the Yeltsin government to be superior to any Russian government since, and generally, better than any Soviet government prior (maybe you can take this to its illogical extreme--relations with the USSR were pretty good in the 1940s, but that's because millions of Soviets were dying in a war against Germany, and no matter what happened, either Germany would lose and there'd be a victory in Europe, or the Soviet Union would lose and there'd be tens of millions of fewer communists in the world, was a overall positive outcome for the United States). The Russian allied military presence in Syria basically collapsed--the lone Soviet hold-out in the Middle East--as did the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean, the facility at Tartus. Russia's historical partnerships with allies like Cuba, Angola, and Vietnam basically turned into paper agreements, with only basic economic recovery of some of them (Vietnam mostly).
Of course, there have been consequences to this that were not ideal for the United States--it force Russia to naturally pursue, and successfully complete, diplomatic rapprochement with Iran and China, both countries it had historically poor relations with (in much the same time period). These are absolutely things the United States would probably prefer not exist--the exact details are probably secret to us as well, but if Russia ended all military cooperation with both countries, that would be considered extremely positive for US interests ("Fuck Russia right in its ass, and get China and Iran mad at it."). Likewise, Russia's close strategic partnership with India is one of the few Soviet-era alliances to have survived--and it's something that is seen as negative rather than positive to American interests as well, and an issue that there isn't a clear solution too. For starters, Russians in generally see Indians (specifically, their international influence) very positively--much more so than Americans (Americans are almost even--43% positive to 37% negative, whereas Russians are 42% positive and 9% negative). And naturally, Indians see Russians more positively than Americans do (Americans 23% positive, 59% negative and Indians 34% to 23%) [source--annoyingly, this poll hasn't been published after 2014 as far as I can tell]. This of course doesn't mean that India doesn't want to pursue good relations with the United States (it certainly wants to), but the fact exists that certain things seen as anathema in the US or among its allies--for example, Russia's military role in Syria--are seen largely positively in the Indian media (and there isn't a way to turn that around).
It's natural that the United States doesn't want these things. We don't want the Russian military engaging in joint exercises with India, and we don't want the Russian Navy running exercises with China either. We don't want Iran purchasing Russian military hardware or Russian industrial investment in Iranian nuclear power. These really weren't happening in the 1990s--they are happening now. Obviously, it's not all "if only we could rewind time, Superman-style," but it would be very beneficial if a lot of Russian diplomatic initiatives (not to mention Russian military ventures--these are generally more understood than the above) were closer to where they stood 20 years earlier.
That's enough rambling on that though, hopefully that does shed a little light on your point Rchanen. I actually don't disagree on points one or two either, with caveats naturally--the United States supports European unity generally, but with very rare exceptions. Washington was actively encouraging foreign policy disunity among European political leadership on the lead-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq to erode the Franco-German case against the war (both both countries basically folded in a comical, almost cartoonish manner that such a potentially dangerous strategy was quickly rendered irrelevant). The EU, like NATO, isn't a suicide pact of course--but it's possible if unlikely we could see another issue that the United States wants to see European disunity over, perhaps in regards to Germany's leadership position in the EU otherwise. I don't think it'll happen, but it might be worth keeping in mind.
EDIT: added link about said Indo-Soviet treaty. Wikipedia's search engine is weird at times.
Yet another example of Obama embarrassing himself with his relations with Britain and involving himself with an internal issue. Good thing that the UK is central to US politics in Europe, and the majority of the American public disagree with his interference. And let's be serious, he's making empty threats here.
Is the UK central to US politics in Europe?
I ask this as an American and an anglophile. I consider Britain a good reliable ally and should they be attacked I would demand the President immediately declare war against those who had attacked Britain.
But fuck me if I can come up with something Britain does for us that the EU could not do.
Well Britain typically has served as vehicle to inject US opinions into european institutions due to the close relationship of Anglo/American diplomatic and intelligence communities (and a way to extract information back out).
Britain-in-Europe is pretty important to the US. Britain also provides a number of global instruments with the various bases (particularly in the Indian ocean) and institutions it's got a hand in.
I'd agree that the US is certainly not going to deal with an Exited-Britain over the EU.
IDS says this morning that all forecasts of what might happen after the referendum should be distrusted. Which I guess means the Remain forecast, because it's not like his side are going to bother to put one together.
IDS says this morning that all forecasts of what might happen after the referendum should be distrusted. Which I guess means the Remain forecast, because it's not like his side are going to bother to put one together.
Does that mean I should distrust the predictions that Britain will totally set up a trading network with the Commonwealth and not lose influence on the world stage?
I think he's trying to paper over the way his side has flubbed the facts and figures side of things and instead just told people to vote with their gut, which is what most people were going to do anyway. It's not like reasonable analysis and calm debate has ever been a feature of EU discussion in this country.
I think he's trying to paper over the way his side has flubbed the facts and figures side of things and instead just told people to vote with their gut, which is what most people were going to do anyway. It's not like reasonable analysis and calm debate has ever been a feature of EU discussion in this country.
It's kinda depressing that he's actively giving up on arguing on why we should leave and just says "hey, what feels right?" The debate boiling down to a get out the vote drive makes me nervous.
Anecdotally, some Pharmacist friends of my brother's who spend part of the year in An Poblacht for their job are making damn sure to get north of the border for June. They're not happy about the prospect of Brexit. He himself is not in this group as he voted in the Quagmire that is the Dail's attempt to forge a working government.
I think a good proportion of the Leave camp don't care about the economic impact of leaving the EU. It's about something else entirely, the endless fight against THEM, the politically correct, namby pamby, do-gooder interfering hordes that lay siege to their lives on a daily basis.
Farage said years ago that he wouldn't mind a short-term economic slump as a price for leaving the EU. It was about a point of principle, not what was in the economic interests of the country.
In IndyRef, the SNP laid their cards on the table. "This is what we plan to do if we get independence and this is how it will work". I personally found those cards wanting, but it was good we could go over them and see if they had merit. IDS retreating into vagueries about Brexit without even saying why it's good is something of an eyebrow raiser.
I think a good proportion of the Leave camp don't care about the economic impact of leaving the EU. It's about something else entirely, the endless fight against THEM, the politically correct, namby pamby, do-gooder interfering hordes that lay siege to their lives on a daily basis.
Farage said years ago that he wouldn't mind a short-term economic slump as a price for leaving the EU. It was about a point of principle, not what was in the economic interests of the country.
I think if someone uses the PC argument I will forcibly rephrase it as "treating people with respect". Not say what I'm doing or why, just say "what evidence do you have that the EU is forcing us to treat people with respect?"
He's playing to his side's strengths. It's an emotional issue for the Leave side, and not an emotional issue for Remain. Who on the Remain side feels emotionally attached to the EU? It's about figures and institutions and so forth for Remain.
He's playing to his side's strengths. It's an emotional issue for the Leave side, and not an emotional issue for Remain. Who on the Remain side feels emotionally attached to the EU? It's about figures and institutions and so forth for Remain.
Maybe that's why Plan Fear is so popular with Dave. Trying to make it emotional.
The Leave camp has a pretty strong persecution complex about the EU in general. Everything would be fine if the EU didn't intentionally make us the whipping boy of the entire continent.
The Leave camp has a pretty strong persecution complex about the EU in general. Everything would be fine if the EU didn't intentionally make us the whipping boy of the entire continent.
Boris knows who is audience is, elderly, uneducated half-wits with a chips on their shoulders.
People who were kids in the 50's and remember when we were still trying to pretend we had an empire.
+1
Options
Werewolf2000adSuckers, I know exactly what went wrong.Registered Userregular
The Leave camp has a pretty strong persecution complex about the EU in general. Everything would be fine if the EU didn't intentionally make us the whipping boy of the entire continent.
Boris knows who is audience is, elderly, uneducated half-wits with a chips on their shoulders.
People who were kids in the 50's and remember when we were still trying to pretend we had an empire.
Still two months to go. Plenty of time yet for a sudden crisis, an influx of migrants and refugees scaring people, etc.
Leave leadership would find some way of fucking up the EU issuing a press release saying "In the event of a Remain vote we will execute the Queen and extinguish all traces of a distinct British nation. Instead it will be replaced by a homogeneous EU superstate ruled exclusively by the French. Also we will fuck your dogs."
It's true that, however iffy Obama's weighing in on Brexit may be and how toothless his warnings end up, the narrative seems to mostly be about how shockingly racist the Leave response was.
However maybe last year's election just burnt me that badly, but I don't feel I can breath easily about this until the vote comes.
+2
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Basically if there is "AN EVENT" that tips the nation over to voting Leave there will e nothing the Remain side can do to stop it so I am not burning energy worrying about it. However if "an event" occurs then Leave are simply to incompetent to take advantage.
They had 1.5 years to study SindyRef. They should have known what Obama was going to do, they should have had a press release pre-written and ready to go weeks in advance.
Theresa May laying some ground for her leadership bid by saying Remain but the ECHR is rubbish and I hate it because why not say it when you know there's no chance in hell you'll get rid of it. Oh wait I guess the danger is one day if you say it enough people will believe it and want it and expect you to repeal it and wonder why you don't want to kind of like the situation now with leaving the EU.
I see it as a win win for her. LEAVE wins and we pull out of the EU, ECHR would follow anyway. That strengthens her leadership credentials. All to the people's wishes. Alternatively, REMAIN wins and she's bound to honour the will of the people and say ECHR is a fundamental aspect of EU we can't change and instead will fight to reform it.
Still two months to go. Plenty of time yet for a sudden crisis, an influx of migrants and refugees scaring people, etc.
Leave leadership would find some way of fucking up the EU issuing a press release saying "In the event of a Remain vote we will execute the Queen and extinguish all traces of a distinct British nation. Instead it will be replaced by a homogeneous EU superstate ruled exclusively by the French. Also we will fuck your dogs."
I have literally no fear of Brexit now.
You seem to be working on the assumption that this argument will be decided by a large mass of currently undecided voters who will have their opinions changed by the campaigns various arguments and/or fuckups. The reality is the large majority of people have had their opinions since forever and nothing anyone says or does will change it. It's like David Mitchell said, we're all voting off gut feelings formed by our own personal stake in the EU, our own experiences abroad or our own levels of xenophobia/worldliness. Have you had your voting opinion swayed in any way by the campaigns? Has anyone else in here?
This vote will be decided by the numbers of pissed off old xenophobes relative to everyone else, and what those numbers are and how they'll turn out to vote on the day no one can know, that's why I'm still concerned and I'll keep being concerned until I see the votes counted.
Theresa May laying some ground for her leadership bid by saying Remain but the ECHR is rubbish and I hate it because why not say it when you know there's no chance in hell you'll get rid of it. Oh wait I guess the danger is one day if you say it enough people will believe it and want it and expect you to repeal it and wonder why you don't want to kind of like the situation now with leaving the EU.
The thing that keeps getting wheeled out about it having been difficult to extradite terror suspects to shitty regimes disgusts me.
The whole point is that Britain does not extradite people to face certain death in a kangaroo court. The fact that the law inhibits us from doing so is the system working as intended.
Theresa May finding being totally comfortable with executing people by the back door marks her as utterly vile.
Theresa May laying some ground for her leadership bid by saying Remain but the ECHR is rubbish and I hate it because why not say it when you know there's no chance in hell you'll get rid of it. Oh wait I guess the danger is one day if you say it enough people will believe it and want it and expect you to repeal it and wonder why you don't want to kind of like the situation now with leaving the EU.
The thing that keeps getting wheeled out about it having been difficult to extradite terror suspects to shitty regimes disgusts me.
The whole point is that Britain does not extradite people to face certain death in a kangaroo court. The fact that the law inhibits us from doing so is the system working as intended.
Theresa May finding being totally comfortable with executing people by the back door marks her as utterly vile.
It maddens me no one makes a bigger deal of this. I mean the Tories actually have the stones to go after our most basic human rights and tell us it's for our own good. They take pissing on us and telling us its rain to a whole new level.
She's scoring points with it. She knows she can't get rid of it but thinks there's no harm in stoking up some resentment and positioning herself as Eurosceptic as she can while still remaining on what looks like the winning side.
It's despicable and dishonest, but smart politics for a would be winner.
In IndyRef, the SNP laid their cards on the table. "This is what we plan to do if we get independence and this is how it will work". I personally found those cards wanting, but it was good we could go over them and see if they had merit. IDS retreating into vagueries about Brexit without even saying why it's good is something of an eyebrow raiser.
This is the guy who, when repeatedly presented with the horrendous end results of his policies at the DWP, said "I have a belief I am right" and genuinely expected that to be the end of the discussion. It's entirely in character.
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
I'm surprised that Hunt still has the backing of the party. The Tories could score easy points by booting him out and claiming he was an insane monster who hated the NHS.
And then they could pop somebody else in the same position and only be a couple of weeks behind their target date for privatising the NHS.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
I'm surprised that Hunt still has the backing of the party. The Tories could score easy points by booting him out and claiming he was an insane monster who hated the NHS.
And then they could pop somebody else in the same position and only be a couple of weeks behind their target date for privatising the NHS.
In the long term though good luck convincing the next guy to carry the bag.
I'm surprised that Hunt still has the backing of the party. The Tories could score easy points by booting him out and claiming he was an insane monster who hated the NHS.
And then they could pop somebody else in the same position and only be a couple of weeks behind their target date for privatising the NHS.
Hunt is completing the job of destroying the NHs then he'll step down. No point a third person (Lansley as well) being tarred with the destroying NHS brush.
Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.
Posts
Is the UK central to US politics in Europe?
I ask this as an American and an anglophile. I consider Britain a good reliable ally and should they be attacked I would demand the President immediately declare war against those who had attacked Britain.
But fuck me if I can come up with something Britain does for us that the EU could not do.
And when it comes to trade deals, if I have to choose between negotiating with a 3 trillion dollar economy and negotiating with a 13 trillion dollar group of economies (EU minus UK) I damn well expect more attention to be paid to the bigger group and bigger economy.
Oh and actually I think the majority of Americans are barely aware of Brexit and give no shits. They also do not care if the President speaks on the matter or not. We object to interference in our affairs. We're perfectly fine with interfering with other countries. For example, take everything we have done since WWI.
I am pretty sure that not dealing with a united powerblock that is larger than us is not that high up on our priorities.
I think our priorities go
1) Keep Europe Friendly
2) Keep Europe Stable
3) Fuck Russia. Seriously fuck Russia right in its ass (this seems to be a permanent goal for reasons I am not quite clear about am I right about that @Synthesis ).
4) No united powerblock that won't listen to what we say. Which until Europe is actually willing to spend a pfennig on defense, might be a while.
As you asked for my opinion, I might as well expand on that--generally, yes, that is true. Specifically, "ass" means "back into the state of the roughly 1990s"--"Fuck the Russian Federation back into the 1990s."
This is a pretty accurate description I think, both in political and economic terms. The Soviet armed forces were dismantled in 1992 to 1995 approximately, and except for the violent spike in piracy resulting from the dismantling of the Soviet Pacific Fleet, this was generally considered very positive. Real wages in the entire CIS contracted sharpy--in '95 and '96, a majority of Russian government employees couldn't actually be paid. The Russian government defaulted on its debt in 1998. Washington generally considers its relations with the Yeltsin government to be superior to any Russian government since, and generally, better than any Soviet government prior (maybe you can take this to its illogical extreme--relations with the USSR were pretty good in the 1940s, but that's because millions of Soviets were dying in a war against Germany, and no matter what happened, either Germany would lose and there'd be a victory in Europe, or the Soviet Union would lose and there'd be tens of millions of fewer communists in the world, was a overall positive outcome for the United States). The Russian allied military presence in Syria basically collapsed--the lone Soviet hold-out in the Middle East--as did the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean, the facility at Tartus. Russia's historical partnerships with allies like Cuba, Angola, and Vietnam basically turned into paper agreements, with only basic economic recovery of some of them (Vietnam mostly).
Of course, there have been consequences to this that were not ideal for the United States--it force Russia to naturally pursue, and successfully complete, diplomatic rapprochement with Iran and China, both countries it had historically poor relations with (in much the same time period). These are absolutely things the United States would probably prefer not exist--the exact details are probably secret to us as well, but if Russia ended all military cooperation with both countries, that would be considered extremely positive for US interests ("Fuck Russia right in its ass, and get China and Iran mad at it."). Likewise, Russia's close strategic partnership with India is one of the few Soviet-era alliances to have survived--and it's something that is seen as negative rather than positive to American interests as well, and an issue that there isn't a clear solution too. For starters, Russians in generally see Indians (specifically, their international influence) very positively--much more so than Americans (Americans are almost even--43% positive to 37% negative, whereas Russians are 42% positive and 9% negative). And naturally, Indians see Russians more positively than Americans do (Americans 23% positive, 59% negative and Indians 34% to 23%) [source--annoyingly, this poll hasn't been published after 2014 as far as I can tell]. This of course doesn't mean that India doesn't want to pursue good relations with the United States (it certainly wants to), but the fact exists that certain things seen as anathema in the US or among its allies--for example, Russia's military role in Syria--are seen largely positively in the Indian media (and there isn't a way to turn that around).
It's natural that the United States doesn't want these things. We don't want the Russian military engaging in joint exercises with India, and we don't want the Russian Navy running exercises with China either. We don't want Iran purchasing Russian military hardware or Russian industrial investment in Iranian nuclear power. These really weren't happening in the 1990s--they are happening now. Obviously, it's not all "if only we could rewind time, Superman-style," but it would be very beneficial if a lot of Russian diplomatic initiatives (not to mention Russian military ventures--these are generally more understood than the above) were closer to where they stood 20 years earlier.
That's enough rambling on that though, hopefully that does shed a little light on your point Rchanen. I actually don't disagree on points one or two either, with caveats naturally--the United States supports European unity generally, but with very rare exceptions. Washington was actively encouraging foreign policy disunity among European political leadership on the lead-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq to erode the Franco-German case against the war (both both countries basically folded in a comical, almost cartoonish manner that such a potentially dangerous strategy was quickly rendered irrelevant). The EU, like NATO, isn't a suicide pact of course--but it's possible if unlikely we could see another issue that the United States wants to see European disunity over, perhaps in regards to Germany's leadership position in the EU otherwise. I don't think it'll happen, but it might be worth keeping in mind.
EDIT: added link about said Indo-Soviet treaty. Wikipedia's search engine is weird at times.
Well Britain typically has served as vehicle to inject US opinions into european institutions due to the close relationship of Anglo/American diplomatic and intelligence communities (and a way to extract information back out).
Britain-in-Europe is pretty important to the US. Britain also provides a number of global instruments with the various bases (particularly in the Indian ocean) and institutions it's got a hand in.
I'd agree that the US is certainly not going to deal with an Exited-Britain over the EU.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Does that mean I should distrust the predictions that Britain will totally set up a trading network with the Commonwealth and not lose influence on the world stage?
Can do!
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It's kinda depressing that he's actively giving up on arguing on why we should leave and just says "hey, what feels right?" The debate boiling down to a get out the vote drive makes me nervous.
Anecdotally, some Pharmacist friends of my brother's who spend part of the year in An Poblacht for their job are making damn sure to get north of the border for June. They're not happy about the prospect of Brexit. He himself is not in this group as he voted in the Quagmire that is the Dail's attempt to forge a working government.
Farage said years ago that he wouldn't mind a short-term economic slump as a price for leaving the EU. It was about a point of principle, not what was in the economic interests of the country.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I think if someone uses the PC argument I will forcibly rephrase it as "treating people with respect". Not say what I'm doing or why, just say "what evidence do you have that the EU is forcing us to treat people with respect?"
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Maybe that's why Plan Fear is so popular with Dave. Trying to make it emotional.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Catchy headline.
Boris knows who is audience is, elderly, uneducated half-wits with a chips on their shoulders.
People who were kids in the 50's and remember when we were still trying to pretend we had an empire.
The sun has not yet set on the British Empire.
But only because of the 50-odd people still living on the Pitcairn Islands.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO SIT IN THE BIG CHAIR, MEG!
Never a more inept campaign has been run.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Hence my default assumption of it being down to the wire and GOTV-ing in any way I can.
Leave leadership would find some way of fucking up the EU issuing a press release saying "In the event of a Remain vote we will execute the Queen and extinguish all traces of a distinct British nation. Instead it will be replaced by a homogeneous EU superstate ruled exclusively by the French. Also we will fuck your dogs."
I have literally no fear of Brexit now.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
However maybe last year's election just burnt me that badly, but I don't feel I can breath easily about this until the vote comes.
I'm considerably more concerned than I was
They had 1.5 years to study SindyRef. They should have known what Obama was going to do, they should have had a press release pre-written and ready to go weeks in advance.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Correct, London is to blame, for everything.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
The Patrick Stewart sketch on the ECHR is pretty funny.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You seem to be working on the assumption that this argument will be decided by a large mass of currently undecided voters who will have their opinions changed by the campaigns various arguments and/or fuckups. The reality is the large majority of people have had their opinions since forever and nothing anyone says or does will change it. It's like David Mitchell said, we're all voting off gut feelings formed by our own personal stake in the EU, our own experiences abroad or our own levels of xenophobia/worldliness. Have you had your voting opinion swayed in any way by the campaigns? Has anyone else in here?
This vote will be decided by the numbers of pissed off old xenophobes relative to everyone else, and what those numbers are and how they'll turn out to vote on the day no one can know, that's why I'm still concerned and I'll keep being concerned until I see the votes counted.
The thing that keeps getting wheeled out about it having been difficult to extradite terror suspects to shitty regimes disgusts me.
The whole point is that Britain does not extradite people to face certain death in a kangaroo court. The fact that the law inhibits us from doing so is the system working as intended.
Theresa May finding being totally comfortable with executing people by the back door marks her as utterly vile.
It maddens me no one makes a bigger deal of this. I mean the Tories actually have the stones to go after our most basic human rights and tell us it's for our own good. They take pissing on us and telling us its rain to a whole new level.
It's despicable and dishonest, but smart politics for a would be winner.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
This is the guy who, when repeatedly presented with the horrendous end results of his policies at the DWP, said "I have a belief I am right" and genuinely expected that to be the end of the discussion. It's entirely in character.
Steam | XBL
And then they could pop somebody else in the same position and only be a couple of weeks behind their target date for privatising the NHS.
In the long term though good luck convincing the next guy to carry the bag.
Hunt is completing the job of destroying the NHs then he'll step down. No point a third person (Lansley as well) being tarred with the destroying NHS brush.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Jesus Christ Ken just shut up.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3