Westministenders: Boris and The By-Elections

[RedToothBrush]

You lot post too fast!

A50 has made it out of the Commons without any amends. Its on its way to the Lords, but this week is half term, so in theory not much going on (in the UK at least). It hit the Lords on the 20th where it might not get such an easy ride. The Lords will not (and CAN NOT) stop brexit or frustrate it. But the numbers are in perhaps more favour of amendments if they choose to go that way, than the Commons. This would throw the bill back to the Commons. This is pretty reasonable.

In the meantime its 12 days to go until the Copeland and Stoke Central By-Elections.

Leave.Eu think UKIP have Stoke in the bag. They think there will be a 33% turnout. I think a turnout that high is the land of fantasy. Paul Nuttalls who was at Hillsborough is now a devout Stokie who has lived there all his life. Except of course he isn't.

Copeland looks like it will go Conservative. Its theirs to throw away. It would be the first victory for a sitting government in a by-election since 1983 if they make it. They intend to use a victory as another argument for a 'mandate'. But have they managed to drop a nuclear booboo?

One more Question. What are the chances of this thread making it to the 23rd?!

uk.businessinsider.com/trumps-nato-ultimatum-has-shattered-a-key-pillar-of-mays-brexit-plans-2017-2
Trump's Nato ultimatum has shattered a key pillar of May's Brexit plans

Richard Osman @richardosman
Sociology and Media Studies were always derided as Mickey Mouse subjects, but now they're the only subjects which really explain our world.

[Grin]

Yep

Trump's Nato ultimatum has shattered a key pillar of May's Brexit plans

Ah yes ... like Alex Salmond telling the English what we would do after Scottish Independence, and the Brexiteers telling the EU what they would do after Brexit, we have another politician caught out when she tried to tell the US what they would do regarding NATO.

There is a theme developing in modern politics, where it's Peter that tells us what Paul will do.

Red That paper evidently hasn't been following what has been going on with NATO for the past couple of years then. Obama was after a greater spend from the NATO nations during the Wales Summit; the same was requested in the Warsaw Summit; lots of time and energy is expended by the defence planners to get budgets raised, and all Mattis has done is make explicit what has been implicit for a long while. Lots of the Allies, who are also EU Member States are happy to take the U.S. money whilst trying to wriggle out of their own commitments to the Alliance. That has to stop. Hopefully, the Anglo Saxon direct speaking will cut through the normal European slope shoulders, aka diplomatic fim-flam, in this arena, and produce more dosh.

It doesn't really quite amount to the firm commitment to NATO May was trumpeting on about after her trip to the States if the commitment is withdrawn if all the parties don't pay up.

She hasn't been caught out at all. You can be 100% committed, but still want others to pay their way, which they currently don't do. Moderating the commitment could just mean spending less, or wanting Luxembourg for example, which has issues on hitting the 2%, because of the make up of their Army, to contribute more in buying, running and maintaining heavy air lift for instance, which would bring them towards the 2%.

Agree with scaryteacher, he just explicitly re-stated what has been said for a while now; that is, the European countries can no longer carry on relying on US and the other 4 countries who commit to the 2% to make up for their deliberate underspending.

As is repeatedly stated with respect to membership of the EU:
If you want to be part of a club, and enjoy the full benefits of that club, you must contribute fully to the club.

So the other countries don't and NATO dribbles away. Fair enough.

The EU countries either take their chances with Putin or set up an EU army. The UK is left where?

The big win from May's early Trump visit stops being relevant and everyone else forms a new club.

If you read the Mattis speech to the NAC, he reiterates the commitment of the US to NATO, and the strong support of POTUS to the alliance. He reminds allies that they have to honour the commitments made at the Wales and Warsaw summits of hitting the 2%, and that when he was SAC(T) a decade ago, he sat in the NAC and listened to the then Sec Defense (sp )Robert Gates warn the alliance that 'Congress and the American body politic would lose their patience for carrying a disproportionate burden of the defense of Allies'.

What he said as a whole is reasonable, and the allies need to step up. I can post the entirety of what he said on here if anyone is interested.

The UK is left as a nuclear power with the means to defend itself, and a strong defence alliance with the US. Europe has nada unless you expect the French to defend the entire EU?

Think about it ( or don't, if you want to be totally defenceless and then moan about it afterwards). Try correlating NATO nations with EU member states. Then find out how many of those hit the 2% NATO requirement. (4/28). Just ask yourself if the rest of the EU member states who are NATO nations are content to ride on the coattails of the US for their defence, how much weight they put into defending themselves. They cannot afford a set of EU Forces (you need three) and the supply and logistics tail that is needed to support that; the systems would take years to set up. European (as opposed to EU defence) is run to NATO standardisation. Everything is pivoted to the Alliance defence wise.

You may be happy for the EU to take its chances with Putin and Daesh. I don't think it's a sensible move personally.

The 2% thing is largely symbolic (especially if you are using Luxembourg to make your point - weird choice) - but I don't disagree in principle that NATO signatories should meet their commitments.

Mattis for all his faults appears to be one of the few (only?) Trump appointments so far who is both qualified and not seriously compromised.

It would be up France and Germany whether they want to take their chances with Daesh which are terrorist in Europe rather than territory so not helped by NATO, and Putin.

It would a legitimate choice for them to decide that the 2% requirement isn't worth it and they would prefer to spend that money on something else and call the US bluff on NATO.

While we will have our 'own' defence systems, we'll only be able to use them on the US say so. Let's hope if it comes to a point where the deterrent should effectively be used, that the US foreign policy imperatives allow it.

It's hard to keep up with all the new scandals from Trumpdom, but here's one I hadn't heard before

Trump has been trying for ages to get his brand trademarked in China, keeps getting turned down in court. This week, he suddenly does a U-turn on the subject of the one China policy, which he now officially supports. And bingo, he gets his trademark.

This is why presidents retaining their business interests is so dangerous. It's not that supporting the one China policy is necessarily bad (it was US policy under Obama), it's that policy U-turns that coincide with personal gain look like corruption.

DH has had his ear to the ground over the reactions in Stoke to all the scandals.

Lots of UKIP supporters: Not arsed about Hillsborough comments.
Lots of Labour supporters: Think Lib Dems are 'whinging' about the text messages.

There is a lot of attitude that is pretty much 'suck it up' to things.

Certainly not everyone of course, but more than outsiders might expect. This is why I don't think its necessarily in the bag for anyone.

www.stokesentinel.co.uk/thousands-of-voters-register-to-take-part-in-stoke-on-trent-central-by-election/story-30141115-detail/story.html
Thousands of new voters register to take part in Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election

Drives were launched by the council and the student union due to the number of students not registered. The number of people registered to vote is up 4.3% from prior to the election. 6400 postal votes have been issued.

People not registered to vote, now registered would potentially a worry given the constituency and the fact UKIP need to be targeting people who don't normally vote but it seems to have been targeted - at least in part - at students.

6400 postal votes. Postal voters more likely to vote.

That sounds to potentially tie in with that New Statesmen article to me.

Who is looking forward to the Next General Election? It going to go full on American Dirty Tricks and in the gutter.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/supreme-court-president-lord-neuberger-9828900
Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger claims newspapers 'risk undermining our society' with Brexit case coverage

Will this be classed as a biased act like Bercow.... ?

And in America:

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/steve-bannon-breitbart-livid-story-critical-reince-priebus-a7582776.html
Steve Bannon 'livid' with Breitbart over story criticising Reince Priebus

Public opinion towards...

T. May:
Satisfied: 53%
Dissatisfied: 36%

J. Corbyn:
Satisfied: 24%
Dissatisfied: 62%

(Ipsos Mori)

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (-3)
LAB: 29% (-2)
LDEM: 13% (+2)
UKIP: 9% (+3)
GRN: 4% (-)
(via Ipsos Mori / 10 - 14 Feb)

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/02/16/gibraltar-voted-96-remain-but-now-brexit-makes-it-vulnerable
Gibraltar voted 96% Remain – but now Brexit makes it vulnerable to Spanish aggression

Ian Dunt

If Gibraltar becomes victim to Spanish aggression, who's 'fault' is that?
I would argue that Spain in responsible for Spain's actions, no one else.

And surely the EU will not stand by and allow one of its members to victimise or 'be aggressive towards' another country (be they a member of the EU or not).
Or will they?

On the dodgy labour text messages, sounds like SWP.

Bannon will be cross about losing ads on Breitbart:
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/breitbart-advertising-deals-companies-pull-out-steve-bannon-alt-right-site-a7582296.html
Is there are similar campaign to boycott ads on Westmonster?

With Gibraltar and Spain - isn't this just a case of another land border with the EU to consider? So even if Spain doesn't get touchy which it has been doing for 300 years over Gibraltar, there are still issues to resolve.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/paul-nuttall-ukip-hustings-stoke-patrick-flynn-hillsborough-controversy-by-election-a7583386.html

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-european-migrants-immigration-figures-eu-workers-decline-desert-theresa-may-trouble-a7583376.html

Goodwill in Spain and ROI will only go so far.

I'm still creeped out by the Britain First and DUP links and the dodgy campaign money to fund leave, and their stinky marches. I even noticed in the last few decades, more 'mixed' marriages in Glasgow, when traditionally people married within the same branch of christianity. Hope that doesn't take a step back.

NI mums will be wondering if they have to carry passports to do the school run, businesses have already been hit in ROI.

And when Neuberger and Bercow have the courage to speak the truth, they're silenced: traditional techniques.

I know that the people who write these opinion pieces don't write the headline, but if I were Tom Brake, I'd be very pissed off at the headline . It was otherwise a very balanced article taking about the risks and threats of dealing with a land border and the practical considerations facing Gibraltar (and the neighbouring area of high unemployment) - and didn't mention aggression.

Are we accusing the Irish government of aggression when they raise the practical issues of a land border, as they did to the NI Select committee?

Or when I do a SWOT analysis as a part of a business plan (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats), am I assuming aggression when I talk about threats and how to mitigate them? (The answer is No )

"The UK is left as a nuclear power with the means to defend itself, and a strong defence alliance with the US."

The trouble is that the UK is rather dependent on the US for it's nuclear capabilities. If Trump decides he doesn't want to pick May over his best bud Putin.... .

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/01/trident-nuclear-weapons-uk

"If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years".

Not only are Britain's Trident missiles in a common pool shared with the US and maintained in Kings Bay, Georgia, its nuclear warheads are designed and maintained at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston with the help of US know-how, as recently declassified documents on the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement confirmed.

Tuesday's report noted: "The UK is dependent on the United States for many component parts of the guidance and re-entry vehicle, and for the Trident ballistic missile system itself".

One Day Without Us,
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/16/migrants-scapegoats-ukip-compelling-stories-win-over-xenophobes
Day of action when all migrants strike in Britain.