buctootim

No its mainly just you Wes. 1 because you think a former Bank of England economist talking on a US tv show about the economic consequences of Britain leaving is "sticking his nose" in "with an axe to grind". 2 Because you think the failure of the UK government to tax 'Yank' Starbucks appropriately is not their fault. 3. Because you think a respected academic receiving research funds from a wide range of independent bodies is somehow compromised by receiving an award from the EU even though UKIP has received far far more for far longer.

Its a useful barometer, saves time. If I ever find myself on the same side as Wes or someone whose top intellectual putdown is a laughing emoji (every time ) I know Ive made a bad choice.

porn

Europe: A History by Norman Davies A history of Europe from the Ice Age to Cold War in one book! Its great for understanding a little about a lot - enough to whet your appetite to learn more about something if you wish to, or simply understand a bit about why countries in Europe you have never really thought about have the borders, beliefs, peoples and Governments they do. Its a bit like a university primer cum reference book.

The are quite a few logic gaps in that little tirade. I'm ambivalent about the EU but little Englander rants like this push me into the opposite camp. Adam Posen is an economist talking about the economic impact on Britain if we were to leave. He says nothing about who should be Prime Minister so your reference to the Presidential election is flawed.

Thats very weak Charlie. Ministers and Parliament were quite happy to strip British citizenship from the Falkland Islanders in 1981 without their consent. They disenfranchised the population but kept sovereignty over the land - very honourable - thereby alienating the people and Argentina simultaneously. What they should have done of course is the leaseback solution so the Falkland Islanders kept their UK passports, government and self determination for 100 years. Nothing awould have changed in anyone's lifetime except for the better. Agreement with Argentina would have meant much better communication with the world, easy imports of goods and services instead of tortuous sea routes and flights to and from South America for work, holidays and medical emergencies - instead of 3,000 dead or wounded, an effective blockade, isolation of the islanders and a £100m bill pa for defence. It was the diplomacy equivalent of a cluster ****

Somewhat disingenuous. They started to change their minds in September 1939 due to the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact and subsequently an Anglo French plan to send troops to Finland to fight the Soviets - but war had already started by then. In the decade leading up to the war the communists were the rallying point for anti Fascists and pushed war against Fascism when the mainstream were still scarred and wary after the horrors of WW1.

You do know Neville Chamberlain was a Conservative? There was no left / right political split to the anti war feeling so lets not pretend the right wing saved the day for the country from the pacifist lefties. Many of the most vocal anti war voices were on the right and the Communist Party were the most vocal supporters of going to war with Germany.

That the nub of it though. Britain had given up on the Falklands and were prepared to give them away -and everybody knew it. We offered Argentina full sovereignty, shared sovereignty and full sovreignty and leaseback. The governments were agreed but the islanders refused to counteneance it. When the Government stripped the Falklanders of their UK citizenship in 1981 the Argies took it as a sign we wouldnt respond if they invaded. It was our vacillation / **** poor diplomacy / weakness/ determination to save cash which caused the war every bit as much as Galtieri. Once they had invaded we had to respond but if the government had imposed transfer and 100 year leaseback on the islands then no-one would have experienced any change to their lives and no-one would have died.

Blimey she's really lost weight and progressed.

Imperfect maybe, but not silly. People respond to stats. Anything which knocks people out of blind allegiance mode and makes them think about our foreign policy and the reality of war is worth doing imo. If you know better metrics post them up.

Doesn't have to be wikipedia, other sources are available. The important thing is to read, even if it inhibits your wish to knee jerk.

Dunno, which do you think is more important? The 1967 offer by the UK to transfer sovereignty to Argentina as part of decolonisation, the 1980 offer to transfer sovereignty and lease back, or the 1981 decision to strip Falkland Islanders of their citizenship?

We could expand it like the Chinese and the Spratlys - then build a refugee holding centre so we can be seen to be taking our fair share.

There is a wider security implication - I accept that. My point is really that successive governments have been too gung ho at sending troops for ill thought out missions, often as a result of poor foreign policy or our meddling overseas in the first place. The result is less security, not more. The Iranian Revolution came about s a direct result of MI5 helping to overthrow a democratic government and install the hated Shah. Iraq left 800,000 dead in war over fictional WMD and which the UN had declared illegal. Libya, now a fertile ground for IS. The Falklands - The UN voted for negotiations Argentina offered joint sovereignty and the UK offered full transfer of sovereignty and a 100 year leaseback a la Hong Kong. It was the withdrawal of that offer which largely triggered war.

There arent any . You do seem to struggle with simple concepts.

Probably best to post up cogent thoughts rather than the absence of them.

So effectively "I will write a blank cheque drawn on other peoples bank accounts to defend our rights". High principles indeed - as long of course you ignore the equal rights of soldiers to not have their lives wasted on pointless conflicts. Just so we are clear - one death and one life changing injury for every Falklands residents right to not have have two passports under joint sovereignty instead of one is acceptable. Goodo.

He's a loose cannon with no idea of tactics and strategy. He wont get elected - but I like the fact he raises difficult issues and questions the lazy consensus we've had for 30 years. If Labour had a leader with more nous but some of the same spirit I'd be happy.

That part I agree with. There were wider implications about the credibility of Britain's determination to defend itself - but it was an unnecessary and avoidable war created by sending Argentina mixed messages. How many of Britains wars since Korea (and maybe not even that) have been worthwhile? Sierra Leone yes, but Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? former Yugoslavia? A long list of death and destruction for little gain imo.

So is there an acceptable number of casualties for a campaign - or do you kill whatever it takes?

Why not just get radiator thermostats fitted? You can control temperature in every room then, cheap too. http://www.screwfix.com/p/honeywell-traditional-white-chrome-trv-15mm-angled-lockshield/9449h

904 people died and 2,432 people were wounded so that the c2,000 population of the Falklands could decide which flag they lived under. What is the correct balance of deaths to rights?

Sent to Hull and then Middlesborough. He's being punished.

Fair comment. Funnily enough Britain has been trying to claim Rockall is habitable - because if it can support human life then we would get another 200 miles EEZ around it. Transparent stuff though. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/30/who-owns-rockall-legal-history-hancock