buctootim

Still not understanding. Poor Wes. 1. The fact that Turkey's currency has been stronger and more stable than sterling despite them having a coup and us not having one simply emphasises how poorly we are viewed by the currency markets. It make it worse not better. 2. Turkey still has the same trade arrangements as when Ford made their investment. The UK's trade arrangements and prospects look less attractive and are far more uncertain than when Ford made their investments here.

Seems like its the kind of 'PR for Dummies' Russians go in for. 'We will sign the European Champions CB, if we can't get our first choice' (someone who isnt as good but might actually come here).

Um not really. I was quoting you. You've deleted the original howler, because you are less honest and brave than my cat - but its still evident thats what you said from this. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?56740-Post-EU-The-Way-Forward&p=2363059#post2363059

Whats funnier is that despite a coup and dictator for President Turkey has a stronger more stable currency than us post Brexit. #wegotourcountryback http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=TRY&to=GBP&view=1Y

50 times the GDP of Germany

Im not surprised. They make 1,5million engines here, all for export. More than every other manufacturer combined. Why would you build in a country with a gyrating currency and uncertain trade and market access.

Wow. What a spectacularly dumb post. Machismo and jingoism, not normally cornerstones of a good inward investment policy. Fwiw Ford make engines in the UK for many of their models where the bodies are made overseas. It's an approach most car makers take.

Der Sturmer?

Got a good price for him?

tbf its a good strategy when you have spare capacity and many kids want to watch Man U or Chelsea instead of their hometown team. Adds to atmosphere too.

No. I simply think that the understandable wish to 'do something' isnt enough by itself. I can see military action could have a role - but only as part of a comprehensive plan to end the war and working with the support of the regional players. What exactly is the point of bombing bridges and power stations? Does that aid the civilian population? Does it deter or encourage IS recruitment?

The worst part is - Gingrich is right. Uninformed feelings trump (sic) reality. Is this pandering to feelings instead of trying to persuade people of the truth new? Seems to me as though it is but maybe thats just a feeling

Then you're at odds with the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. I agree with them. "The Committee finds that the benefits of extending British involvement in Coalition airstrikes in Syria are more than outweighed by the risks of legal ambiguity, political chaos on the ground in Syria, military irrelevance, and diplomatic costs. The Committee is not persuaded by the Government’s efforts to treat ISIL and the Syrian civil war as separate issues, and considers that the focus on the extension of airstrikes against ISIL in Syria is a distraction from the much bigger and more important task of finding a resolution to conflict in Syria, which is itself a main cause of ISIL’s rise. The Chairman of the Committee, Crispin Blunt MP, said:"We are concerned that the Government is focusing on extending airstrikes to Syria, responding to the powerful sense that something must be done to tackle ISIL in Syria, without any expectation that its action will be militarily decisive, and without a coherent and long-term plan for defeating ISIL and ending the civil war. There is now a miscellany of uncoordinated military engagements by an alarming range of international actors in Iraq and Syria, all of whom share an interest in defeating ISIL and who between them possess an overwhelming capability to do so. These forces desperately need coordinating into a coherent strategy and that is where our efforts should be focused. Making the military picture yet more complex is a distraction from the key task to help end the suffering and reverse the spread of this dangerous, barbaric and regressive ideology. Just as we need a coordinated military strategy to defeat ISIL, we urgently need a complementary political strategy to end the civil war in Syria. By becoming a full combatant in the US led campaign at this stage, the UK risks needlessly compromising its independent diplomatic ability to support an international political solution to the crisis. Right now, the Government should be focussing all its energies supporting the efforts at international diplomacy in Vienna. In this report, we set out seven points on which the Government should provide further explanation before asking the Commons to approve a motion authorising military action. Success in Vienna would produce an international strategy. There would still be military questions to answer. Until all these points are satisfied, the Government should not try to obtain Parliamentary approval to extend British military action to Syria." https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/uk-policy-on-syria-report-published-15-16/

Exactly this - unless of course we start if off again with another ill advised venture after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

I'm sure that's a clever point inside your head. Mainly Russian, US, British and French.

Interesting item on the BBC website today. Its basically about how Trump is drawing support from traditional blue collar Democrats and alienating traditional die hard Republicans simultaneously. Its basically the same story as that behind the EU referendum - a lot of people feel alienated and that they are trapped in low wage jobs with no prospects so they're voting for change, even though they aren't sure what that change will bring. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36883729

Absolutely true. The hypocrisy is stunning. Western airstrikes on Syria have killed around 4,000 civilians - NOT combatants - in the past two years alone. Far more than IS have killed in Europe.

I don't no. I dont think boots on the ground, apart from a few special forces would help. There is a lot of hypocrisy about the West's policy in the Middle East. We've toppled two Governments we didnt like and killed maybe 500,000 people - whilst simultaneously propping up and arming arguably far worse regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrein etc.

I know - Im not accusing you. A lot of the people arriving in Europe are coming from Syria and Libya - countries mostly held by opposition and where there is no functioning government to issue ID cards or passports. Many of the rest of the arrivals - know this and pretend to be from those countries. How are you going to check them? What will stop it is when we stop interfering in the middle East - stop creating / worsening civil war in Syria, Iraq and Libya - and start pressurising our supposed allies Saudi Arabia to stop funding the export of Salafism and Israel to come to a settlement with the Palestinians.

You're missing the point. IS are gradually being destroyed. Attacks in Europe - the more horrific and newsworthy the better - are their way of trying to stir up a wider war between the Arab world and the West. People like Batman and Sour Mash are their unthinking puppets. If you think mass forced deportations of Arab heritage people who have been here for decades will make you safer, then you're wrong.

Around 800,000 people die every year in the UK. Of those maybe 2,000 are killed in car crashes, 550 murders and perhaps 10 on average in terrorism - fewer than are killed by lightning. IS have accounted (depending on what figures you read) for about 30,000 deaths - but another 270,000 people have been killed by other forces in Syria. Which gets the news and why? Shock factor, PR and availability of video isnt a good driver for policy.

She's more of a consolation prize wife

E.M

The author is Dutch. Most of the anti EU parties in Europe are pretty rabid right wing nationalists. I suspect his motivation is more about ensuring they don't get power than punishing Britain.

Those terms have been offered before - a form of Associate membership - but Cameron didnt want it. Similarly membership of the EEA (I believe) incorporates a number of 'brakes' as standard, the purpose of which is to allow new members time to adjust and get relevant systems in place. As was said months ago on this forum - and hotly refuted by the more rabid Brexiteers - we will get the Norway deal. Whatever happened to "we're far more powerful and important than them and we will be able to dictate terms"?