Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

their job is to promote UK imports from the USA.
They only do what they are paid to do.

Oh they do a great deal more than that Woosh! and not just in this country..do a little digging and see what surprising things surface.
They are not what they appear at all.
For instance they make statements like this about Government overseas activities
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/international/dfid-s-fake-aid/
Enjoy this article too
http://powerbase.info/index.php/Adam_Smith_Institute
Here's an extract
"
Government ties

According to George Monbiot, writing in 2005, the British Government had been paying ASI up to £9m a year to oversee privatisation programmes in developing countries.[14] In the six years alone till 2004, ASI's consultancy arm received $34m from the UK aid budget.[15]

According to a previous article by George Monbiot in The Guardian, in 2004, Britain's Department for International Development (DFID) gave ASI £6.3 million for "public sector reform" in South Africa. The Institute has also been given "its own budget - £5m of British aid money - to disburse as it pleases". This lets DFID generate "the support it likes for privatization and public-private partnerships, while avoiding direct responsibility for the decisions the institute makes". In this, Monbiot says, DFID is clearly breaking the law since the International Development Act forbids it from spending money for any purpose other than the elimination of poverty, not to mention the rules forbidding it to "link aid money to deals for specific British businesses".[16]

The "implementation secretariat" for the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh's privatization program, funded by DFID and overseeing the privatization of the state's power sector, was also being run by ASI at the British Government's insistence with the money, once again, coming out of Britain's foreign aid budget.

Dodgy as a nine bob note.

And of course you have to ask two questions
Just what is it that they actually do that benefits us
Who's paying the Blighters? and benefiting thereby?

 

[50Hertz]

A useless precaution against a useless politician.
.

Never underestimate the power of prayer.

 

[Fingers]

Cricket has become interesting

 

[flecc]

Never underestimate the power of prayer.

I don't, it deceives billions.
.

 

[flecc]

Cricket has become interesting

That's one miracle I never expect to happen.
.

 

[oyster]

It was like watching Laurel and Hardy having a tiff

One born in the USA and one in the UK. The parallels!!

 

[wheeler]

Cricket has become interesting

Do you mean it's no longer like watching wood warp?

 

[oyster]

Who'd have thought John Major a potential saviour?

John Major's Today interview - Summary

Sir John Major has never been a fan of Boris Johnson. As a Telegraph journalist in the 1990s Johnson regularly ridiculed the Major government, and the former prime minister hasn’t forgotten, or forgiven. In his Today interview this morning Major said he was supporting Jeremy Hunt for the Conservative leadership, despite some reservations (he does not agree with Hunt’s willingness to accept a no-deal Brexit as an option). But Major spent most of the interview criticising Johnson, and in particular two Johnson positions that were illuminated in last night’s ITV debate: Johnson’s refusal to rule out the idea of proroguing parliament to stop MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit, and Johnson’s refusal to confirm that he would keep Sir Kim Darroch as ambassador to Washington following President Trump’s declaration that he will no longer deal with Darroch.
Here are the main points.

• Major said he would be willing to go to court to seek a judicial review to stop Johnson proroguing parliament to facilitate a no-deal Brexit. Although proroguing is a prerogative power that is hard to challenge, Major said he thought a legal challenge was possible.

In order to close down parliament, the prime minister would have to go to Her Majesty the Queen and ask for her permission to prorogue. If her first minister asks for that permission, it is almost inconceivable that the Queen will do anything other than grant it ... She is then in the midst of a constitutional controversy, that no serious politician should put the Queen in the middle of.
Now, I think this is completely and utterly against parliamentary tradition, and against the way in which our government should work.
If that were to happen. I think there would be a queue of people who would seek judicial review. The Queen’s decision cannot be challenged in law. But the prime minister’s advice to the Queen can, I believe, be challenged in law and I for one would be prepared to go and seek judicial review to prevent parliament being bypassed.
I served in parliament for over 20 years. I’m very proud to have done so. I have huge admiration for our parliamentary traditions. I’m not going to stand by and see them disregarded in this fashion. It is utterly, utterly and completely the wrong way to proceed.

• Major said proroguing parliament to facilitate a no-deal Brexit would be “utterly and totally unacceptable for any British parliamentarian or democrat”. He also said it would be hypocritical from someone like Johnson, who campaigned for Brexit so that parliament could take back control. Major said:

Let’s strip away the jargon of proroguing and contemplate what this actually means. What it means is that a prime minister – Prime Minister Johnson, presumably – because he cannot persuade parliament to agree with his policy, will close down parliament so that he can bypass it until his policy comes into operation.
Now, nobody has done that since King Charles II in the 1640s and it didn’t end well for him. And it shouldn’t end well. You cannot and should not bypass parliament in this fashion. And I cannot imagine how anyone could conceivably think that is right ...
I seem to recall that the Brexiteers, led by Mr Johnson, actually campaigned in the referendum for the sovereignty of Parliament ... They can’t be concerned for the sovereignty of Parliament except when it is inconvenient to Mr Johnson.

• Major said the UK government should keep Sir Kim Darroch as ambassador to the US, despite President Trump’s refusal to deal with him. He defended Darroch, and said that in giving his “unvarnished views” about the Trump administration he was just doing his job. Major said it was unacceptable to allow foreign governments to choose the British ambassadors who should serve in their countries. Major went on:

There is a secondary point that Mr Johnson and everybody else should ponder. The whole of the diplomatic service, which is vital to the interests of this country, will have seen that one of their most senior diplomats was prepared to be thrown to the wolves because of the criticism of a non-British government. I do not think that is good for the morale of the civil service. And I do not think anybody who does that will endear themselves in obtaining the loyalty of the civil service in future. Loyalty is a two-way street. Mr Darroch has not misbehaved. He has behaved exactly as he was expected to behave, indeed, probably instructed to behave. And he deserves the support of the British government.

Major said the government should keep Darroch in post even if this meant a “short-term freeze” in relations with Washington.

If this means a short term freeze in relationships, that would be very unfortunate, because America [is] a very important ally of this country and always [has] been. But nonetheless there comes a time with principle has to come first. And the principle that we stand by our ambassadors when they have behaved entirely properly, is one that cannot be changed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/jul/10/tory-leadership-latest-news-john-major-threatens-to-take-boris-johnson-to-court-to-stop-him-proroguing-parliament-for-no-deal-brexit-live-news?page=with:block-5d259b368f08cf92bb76cd99#block-5d259b368f08cf92bb76cd99

 

[50Hertz]

Our new aircraft carrier has got a hole in it which is letting in water.

We just need to put a cork in the hole, save up to buy some aeroplanes to put on the decks, and then find a war to get involved in. After that, it will have been worth the money.

 

[flecc]

Our new aircraft carrier has got a hole in it which is letting in water.

We just need to put a cork in the hole, save up to buy some aeroplanes to put on the decks, and then find a war to get involved in. After that, it will have been worth the money.

That's the second time. It first leaked in sea trials in 2017 and was scheduled to have a propshaft seal replaced in early 2018. Obviously that didn't work.

Back in February it was announced she'd be sailing for the China Sea when ready, to support the USA's attempts to stop China claiming their sea is theirs. The USA seems to want to rule the China Sea as it does around its own coastline. That's one dispute they are going to lose.

The lack of aircraft problem is going to be lessened by allowing US F35s to share the ships deck to supplement the few F35s we are buying, since it's already been conceded that the QE will operate in support for the US navy.

In other words, they get an extra aircraft carrier, paid for by us. Another example of how we'll take back control.
.

 

[gray198]

Kim Darroch has resigned and of course it is the fault of BJ?

 

[Fingers]

That's the second time. It first leaked in sea trials in 2017 and was scheduled to have a propshaft seal replaced in early 2018. Obviously that didn't work.

Back in February it was announced she'd be sailing for the China Sea when ready, to support the USA's attempts to stop China claiming their sea is theirs. The USA seems to want to rule the China Sea as it does around its own coastline. That's one dispute they are going to lose.

The lack of aircraft problem is going to be lessened by allowing US F35s to share the ships deck to supplement the few F35s we are buying, since it's already been conceded that the QE will operate in support for the US navy.

In other words, they get an extra aircraft carrier, paid for by us. Another example of how we'll take back control.
.

Incorrect. Lets see how you right this one...


They are illegally building islands and claiming the sea area as theirs. The UN has said this is illegal. But then of course, they haven't met you...

China will be able to deploy weapons with terrifying efficiency

THE controversy in the South China Sea is heating up, with a new report from the US warning China has almost completed construction of three mysterious man-made islands.

www.news.com.au

 

[gray198]

Who'd have thought John Major a potential saviour?

John Major's Today interview - Summary

Sir John Major has never been a fan of Boris Johnson. As a Telegraph journalist in the 1990s Johnson regularly ridiculed the Major government, and the former prime minister hasn’t forgotten, or forgiven. In his Today interview this morning Major said he was supporting Jeremy Hunt for the Conservative leadership, despite some reservations (he does not agree with Hunt’s willingness to accept a no-deal Brexit as an option). But Major spent most of the interview criticising Johnson, and in particular two Johnson positions that were illuminated in last night’s ITV debate: Johnson’s refusal to rule out the idea of proroguing parliament to stop MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit, and Johnson’s refusal to confirm that he would keep Sir Kim Darroch as ambassador to Washington following President Trump’s declaration that he will no longer deal with Darroch.
Here are the main points.

• Major said he would be willing to go to court to seek a judicial review to stop Johnson proroguing parliament to facilitate a no-deal Brexit. Although proroguing is a prerogative power that is hard to challenge, Major said he thought a legal challenge was possible.

• Major said proroguing parliament to facilitate a no-deal Brexit would be “utterly and totally unacceptable for any British parliamentarian or democrat”. He also said it would be hypocritical from someone like Johnson, who campaigned for Brexit so that parliament could take back control. Major said:

• Major said the UK government should keep Sir Kim Darroch as ambassador to the US, despite President Trump’s refusal to deal with him. He defended Darroch, and said that in giving his “unvarnished views” about the Trump administration he was just doing his job. Major said it was unacceptable to allow foreign governments to choose the British ambassadors who should serve in their countries. Major went on:

Major said the government should keep Darroch in post even if this meant a “short-term freeze” in relations with Washington.


If this means a short term freeze in relationships, that would be very unfortunate, because America [is] a very important ally of this country and always [has] been. But nonetheless there comes a time with principle has to come first. And the principle that we stand by our ambassadors when they have behaved entirely properly, is one that cannot be changed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/jul/10/tory-leadership-latest-news-john-major-threatens-to-take-boris-johnson-to-court-to-stop-him-proroguing-parliament-for-no-deal-brexit-live-news?page=with:block-5d259b368f08cf92bb76cd99#block-5d259b368f08cf92bb76cd99

He was a useless prime minister, and is of the past. He should keep his nose out

 

[Woosh]

He was a useless prime minister, and is of the past. He should keep his nose out

he was the only PM who left more money in the country's kitty when he left than when he first came it.
Not Margaret Thatcher, not Tony Blair, not Gordon Brown, not David Cameron, not TM and probably not BJ.
He is the most conscientious of the lot.

 

[Fingers]

he was the only PM who left more money in the country's kitty when he left than when he first came it.
Not Margaret Thatcher, not Tony Blair, not Gordon Brown, not David Cameron, not TM and probably not BJ.

Very nice man as well.

 

[Danidl]

Cricket has become interesting

.. aah no, just like watching paint dry ..which has been laced with linseed oil..
But I am sure that it might appeal to Anglophiles

 

[Woosh]

John Major may be the only one conservative PM that made me believe that his party is not only for the rich.
Since his stepping down, the country spent, spent, spent, the rich got richer and the quality of public services did not go up.

 

[flecc]

Incorrect. Lets see how you right this one...


They are illegally building islands and claiming the sea area as theirs. The UN has said this is illegal. But then of course, they haven't met you...

China will be able to deploy weapons with terrifying efficiency

THE controversy in the South China Sea is heating up, with a new report from the US warning China has almost completed construction of three mysterious man-made islands.

www.news.com.au

I wasn't incorrect at all, those seas have for centuries been known as the China Sea and South China Sea. What the Chinese are doing is protecting their own interests against US bullying and attempts to dominate an area that isn't theirs.

In the South China Sea the man made islands each effectively have the ability to operate like an aircraft carrier. So why is it ok for the USA to operate from its aircraft carriers in seas which are clearly not theirs, but not ok for China to do so in its own seas?

And I dismiss as US inspired nonsense the UN ruling that the man made islands are illegal. Hong Kong's airport is a man made island. Japan has built the man made island of Odaiba. A huge area of The Netherlands is effectively a man made area taken from the North Sea. Dubai has built a string of conjoined man made islands extending from its land mass, and there are many other examples worldwide.

Where are the UN rulings that all those are illegal?

Here is a US government comment on the islands:

“In a crisis, these facilities would significantly complicate US war plans and access to the South China Sea at acceptable levels of cost and risk. "

Precisely, US war plans as usual. No way will I accept this policy from this war mongering country. They should stay in their own back yard.
.

 

[Wicky]

Incorrect. Lets see how you right this one...


They are illegally building islands and claiming the sea area as theirs. The UN has said this is illegal. But then of course, they haven't met you...

China will be able to deploy weapons with terrifying efficiency

THE controversy in the South China Sea is heating up, with a new report from the US warning China has almost completed construction of three mysterious man-made islands.

www.news.com.au

Author plays for my cricket club https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/7061

China’s false memory syndrome

Problem is they are literally making islands to process to stake their claim, weaponising them so turfing them off will be very difficult as they ratchet up their claim... even though United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) says their claim is invalid.

 

[Wicky]

I wasn't incorrect at all, those seas have for centuries been known as the China Sea and South China Sea. W hat the Chinese are doing is protecting their own interests against US bullying and attempts to dominate an area that isn't theirs.

There are two main sets of “islands” in the South China Sea. (Only a very few are real islands, the vast majority are just reefs, sandbars or rocks). In its northern reaches, the Paracel Islands are disputed between China and Vietnam. In the south the much more extensive Spratly Islands are claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines. Most of these desolate places have British names, often donated by the ships and crews that mapped them. Richard Spratly was a whaling captain who spotted his island in 1843, HMS Iroquois gave its name to Iroquois Reef during survey work in the 1920s, and so on.

When a Chinese government committee first gave Chinese names to the islands in 1935 all it did was either translate or transliterate the existing British names. In the Paracels, for example, Antelope Reef became Líng yang (the Chinese word for antelope) and in the Spratlys, North Danger Reef became B?i xi?n (Chinese for “north danger”), Spratly Island became Si-ba-la-tuo (the Chinese transliteration of the English name). The Chinese committee simply copied the British maps, errors and all. The names were then revised, twice. Scarborough Shoal, named after a British ship in 1748, was originally transliterated as Si ge ba luo in 1935, renamed Min’zhu Jiao—Democracy Reef by the nationalist Republic of China in 1947 and then given the less politically-sensitive name of Huangyan (Yellow Rock) by the communist People’s Republic of China in 1983.

Today, the Chinese authorities seem completely unaware of this. The standard official defence of China’s “indisputable” sovereignty over the South China Sea begins with the phrase, “the Chinese people were the first to discover and name the Nansha Islands.” In reality, the “Chinese people” just copied the names from the British. Even the word “Nansha” (it means “southern sand”) has moved around on Chinese maps. In 1935 the name was used to describe the area of shallow sea known in English as the “Macclesfield Bank” (yes, after another British ship). In 1947 the name Nansha was moved southwards on Chinese maps to refer to the Spratly Islands.

A full examination of each justification put forward by the Chinese side would run to many pages but suffice to say that there is no archaeological evidence yet found that any Chinese ship travelled across the sea before the 10th century. Up until that point all the trading and exploration was carried out by Malay, Indian and Arab vessels. They may, from time to time, have carried Chinese passengers. The much-discussed voyages of the Chinese “eunuch admirals” including Zheng He, lasted a total of about 30 years, until the 1430s. After that, although traders and fisherfolk plied the seas, the Chinese state never visited deep water again until the nationalist government was given ships by the US and UK at the end of the Second World War.

China’s false memory syndrome - Prospect Magazine

The whole nation has been incorrectly taught that Chinese people discovered and named the South China Sea's islands

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk