Theresa May calls snap election in June

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I've always thought that nuclear weapons are just a way of buying/sustaining our place as one of the 'major' International powers. Whether we want to do that is of course a moot point. Post Brexit our place in international affairs will of course be somewhat altered anyway.

Bruce

 

The primary obligation of our (and, I would submit, any) Government is the Defence of the Realm - everything is secondary to that. So, clearly, it behoves our Government to be at the forefront (as best it can) of any technology that maximises that ability. The UK is a major international power and, in today's world, possession of nuclear weapons is a significant military and political asset.

The UK has a glorious military history and we should do everything to sustain that tradition. It stands us in good stead and, in many ways, defines our nation.

Brexit (imho) is irrelevant to the above.

That is an interesting argument. Personally I would like a modern Britain to be defined not by its military history. Preserving that tradition appears mighty expensive. Of course it is also unclear that being a nuclear power actually makes you safer; perhaps it just guarantees your destruction?

I believe that they are primarily a political asset. The debate should perhaps be of the value of that vs the cost?

Maybe we could be defined by disarmament, humanitarianism and the promotion of more positive policies around the world.

Bruce 

ynwa250505 posted:

Eloise posted:

So yes, USSR was the aggressor, but they were responding to previous aggressive acts committed by the USA.

Great summary of the wiki entry Eloise ... excepting the last sentence - which is simply your opinion ... and entirely wrong ....

Its a great summary of the facts ynwa!

But if you disagree with my summary, which part of my comments are you disagreeing with?

Did the USA place missiles in Italy and Turkey which were directed at USSR?

Did the USA invade, by covert operations, Cuba a sovereign state?

Both are arguably aggressive actions.

(PS. You realise don't you, that my criticism of USA does not mean I believe what USSR did was justified or without criticism?)

I disagree that the USA's acts were aggressive - particularly in the context having to face up to a communist regime with a history of invading European countries. We'll just have to differ ...

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

That is an interesting argument. Personally I would like a modern Britain to be defined not by its military history. Preserving that tradition appears mighty expensive. Of course it is also unclear that being a nuclear power actually makes you safer; perhaps it just guarantees your destruction?

I believe that they are primarily a political asset. The debate should perhaps be of the value of that vs the cost?

Maybe we could be defined by disarmament, humanitarianism and the promotion of more positive policies around the world.

Bruce 

Nuclear weapons are obviously a military asset as well as political. However, the value cannot be quantified - there is no ROI justification for preserving the country's safety - so we simply stump up what we can and try to stay ahead of the game. This applies not just to "today", but also to future decades/centuries when the opponents/issues will be very different (but currently unknowable).

I guess we "could" be anything. However, we are what we are and that is defined by the accumulated experiences of our history, which over the centuries has created a very unique national culture and one to be proud of.

Disarmament is just stupidity. I think the UK is definitely humanitarian and definitely a promoter of positive policies around the world - I don't see how those can be denied. We're not Sweden though. Fortunately ...

I was going to leave this argument but...

Whilst all weapons are military assets, they are in fact political tools; the Strategic ones perhaps more so - Clausewitz said so. It must be true.

SKDriver posted:

I was going to leave this argument but...

Whilst all weapons are military assets, they are in fact political tools; the Strategic ones perhaps more so - Clausewitz said so. It must be true.

Agreed. And as I said on page 3 of this thread :-

"Just what is our military asset all about, if it isn't to influence others ?"

Interesting changes in a short time in the polls - yea yea I know - but polls accuracy or not they do show day to day changes & its struck me how the UKIP support has fallen off so sharply,  it looks like the UKIP support has gone mostly to tory & some to labour.    

However, I look at this I can't see a satisfactory outcome to this election.

If it's a clear Tory win it's hard BREXIT - I'm a passionate remainer.

A Tory/Lib-Dem coalition is impossible and in any event Tim would be utterly inept as Dep PM.

Labour would be an even greater disaster - Jezzer can't even get a shadow cabinet together let alone for a government.

Any ideas anyone?

Time for a dictator:

• Nigel Farage? At least UK would be friends with USA...
• Boris Johnston? At least the buffoon in him may generate a laugh as we disappear in history...
• Ken Livingstone? At least it would give him something to do...
• Nicola Sturgeon? The Scots always used to seem so sensible...

Alternatively, reinstate power with the Monarchy:

• QE2 needs something meaningful to do in her twilight years
• Charlie likewise in his
• or move on to the youngsters, who are showing signs of being reasonably balanced and sensible people

If I felt as you do, Lindsay, I would feel morally justified in spoiling my paper.

C.

Do as America?

Persuade Sir Allan Sugar to stand, then get MI5 and the Russians to rig the election?

Import Hillary Clinton? I understand that she's at a loose-end.  

Following today's announcement, Phil The Greek is at a loose end, why don't we let him do the job?

It'd be a hoot at the very least, and no-one insults foreigners like Phil The Greek.

Kevin-W posted:

Following today's announcement, Phil The Greek is at a loose end, why don't we let him do the job?

It'd be a hoot at the very least, and no-one insults foreigners like Phil The Greek.

+ Yanis for Chancellor !

G

Eloise posted:

A question for the constitutional lawyers perhaps ... but if the Lib Dems went in campaigning saying "If we get elected we will withdraw Article 50 notification" ... could they?

No.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

However, I look at this I can't see a satisfactory outcome to this election.

If it's a clear Tory win it's hard BREXIT - I'm a passionate remainer.

A Tory/Lib-Dem coalition is impossible and in any event Tim would be utterly inept as Dep PM.

Labour would be an even greater disaster - Jezzer can't even get a shadow cabinet together let alone for a government.

Any ideas anyone?

Move to Brussels?

ynwa250505 posted:

Eloise posted:

A question for the constitutional lawyers perhaps ... but if the Lib Dems went in campaigning saying "If we get elected we will withdraw Article 50 notification" ... could they?

No.

Are you a constitutional lawyer, ynwa250505?  If so I'd be interesting is understanding more about your legal reasoning. 

My understanding is that the treaty provisions relating to Article 50 are silent on the issue of withdrawal. So it is possible to argue that once submitting an Article 50 application cannot be withdrawn but it is also possible to argue that silence shouldn't be interpreted so narrowly.  Eloise poses a reasonable legal question.

Whether such a move by the Lib Dems is politically plausible is another question. For what it's worth, I don't it is plausible but the legal position is a separate matter.

If (Remainers + Regretters) >> Brexiteers, then it could be a politically very astute move.

If (Remainers + Regretters) <≅ Brexiteers, then it will be political suicide.

There is no official rule for whether A50 can be cancelled, you're right MDS.

There are of course those who say (often loudly and dismissively) that it can't be cancelled. But yes, in the view of at least some who *actually know how these things work* it can be cancelled.

IIRC the (British) chap who actually wrote it believes it should be cancellable. But more persuasively, here's an official legal opinion from 5 senior QCs - https://www.bindmans.com/uploa..._Opinion_10.2.17.pdf

It remains an open issue until a ruling is made, but it is certainly not the case that A50 *cannot* be cancelled.

That's legally. Politically, unless the way the wind is blowing emphatically changes, obviously not.

It'll be interesting to see who wins the West Midlands mayoral election later today.

Yesterday's local elections are mostly in Tory areas, so them doing well more widely (as they have) only reliably illustrates increased polarisation. Which is hardly news. And the other mayoral elections are also more predictable.

It is interesting that the UKIP vote has totally collapsed, but again hardly astonishing.

But the west mids is a closer race, and possibly more of a barometer for the GE.

Dave***t posted:

Yesterday's local elections are mostly in Tory areas, so them doing well more widely (as they have) only reliably illustrates increased polarisation. Which is hardly news. And the other mayoral elections are also more predictable.

They are across the whole country Dave!

Across the country in terms of geographic spread, yes, but not all areas had elections. And of those contested, few were Labour majorities before yesterday.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...ocal_elections,_2017

Dave***t posted:

There is no official rule for whether A50 can be cancelled, you're right MDS.

There are of course those who say (often loudly and dismissively) that it can't be cancelled. But yes, in the view of at least some who *actually know how these things work* it can be cancelled.

IIRC the (British) chap who actually wrote it believes it should be cancellable. But more persuasively, here's an official legal opinion from 5 senior QCs - https://www.bindmans.com/uploa..._Opinion_10.2.17.pdf

It remains an open issue until a ruling is made, but it is certainly not the case that A50 *cannot* be cancelled.

That's legally. Politically, unless the way the wind is blowing emphatically changes, obviously not.

Thanks for posting the legal opinion, Dave. Paras (vi) and (vii) of the summary are particularly interesting.

MDS posted:

ynwa250505 posted:

Eloise posted:

A question for the constitutional lawyers perhaps ... but if the Lib Dems went in campaigning saying "If we get elected we will withdraw Article 50 notification" ... could they?

No.

Are you a constitutional lawyer, ynwa250505?  If so I'd be interesting is understanding more about your legal reasoning. 

My understanding is that the treaty provisions relating to Article 50 are silent on the issue of withdrawal. So it is possible to argue that once submitting an Article 50 application cannot be withdrawn but it is also possible to argue that silence shouldn't be interpreted so narrowly.  Eloise poses a reasonable legal question.

Whether such a move by the Lib Dems is politically plausible is another question. For what it's worth, I don't it is plausible but the legal position is a separate matter.

No, I am not a constitutional lawyer. However, that isn't a requirement to provide the somewhat obvious answer to a wholly hypothetical (and pointless, imo) question.

The legal position is an irrelevance, whereas the practical reality isn't, which is;

1. The Lib Dems are most certainly NOT getting elected. Pigs will fly to the moon first.

2. No elected political party is going to suggest withdrawing our withdrawal from the EU.