Jump to content

Because The United Kingdom?


Mr King

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

I am not PM of Spain, neither have played one in TV, sport! :P

I think you should be, it would be jolly entertaining. :)

 

Re paint scheme, you would never get that past the EU directives on paint schemes. The nearest you could get would be midnight blue. :D

 

 

Nah, not entertaining. My ideal of government is a boring, in the background, small, effective one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ref the first bit, fair one. :)

 

Ref the second bit, last time I checked Call Me Dave hasn't invited the c.3-5,000 representatives of the Ummah camped out at Calais to come on in and give their mates a shout too, whereas Ms Merkel has invited up to a million who are currently arriving or inbound as just the first tranche, and has had to backtrack by closing the border with Austria and putting the Bundeswehr on alert even though German law precludes them becoming involved in riot control or worse. And that's without mentioning the threats to deport the non-Syrian, the rioting and dire warnings from the local authorities that they have neither the space, infrastructure or money to cope with the influx. So while I'd very much agree the UK is not doing much better in the long term, in the immediate term I'd argue the opposite is true. :)

 

BillB

 

What I meant is that percentage of 'them' are fairly similar in Western Europe, this thing didn't start yesterday. Sure, Call Me Dave is more sensible that Frau Kanzler, having additional agreements with EU that excludes UK from some silliness doesn't hurt either.

 

As for the Germans having 'difficulties' in absorbing those 'refugees', we'll see how it will work, for now there are signs they are backtracking from the decision. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a gov crisis soon, as co-ruling CSU doesn't seem to be amused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meet the new shadow chancellor.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/2949688.stm

 

 

 

A London Labour MP has sparked outrage by saying IRA terrorists should be "honoured" for taking part in their "armed struggle".

 

 

 

The MP praised the "bravery" of the IRA, whose "bombs and bullets" had resulted, he said, in the peace process in Northern Ireland.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave is in Lebanon to pave the way for some refugees to travel to Blighty. Sensibly, with documentation and in perfect safety. Which is a lot better than encouraging people to pay a fortune for people smugglers and then drowning in the Aegean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As far as 'refugees' are concerned, he IS more sensible.

Nope, he isnt. Instead of taking from the Common European pool of refugees, he wants to get them direct from source. Somehow he is going to get the RN and the RAF to import 20000 refugees, which is probably going to be the biggest logistical movement of people since, well operation Telic at least. Instead of reducing the European stockpile of Refugees, he is proposing adding to it. If you want to help refugees, it makes no sense because there are plenty in Europe that are a lot easier to get. If you dont wnat to help refugees, you are unlikely to sing his praises.

 

In short, due to unique talent, he picks the road that is likely to upset absolutley everyone. He is a tryer, ill give him that. :)

 

 

But this way those will be ACTUAL refugees, not economic migrants and criminals (given how many borders they crossed illegally).

 

He's showing a middle finger to Angie and should be given credit for that. It's Germany that started this madness and now tries to share this 'blessing' with other EUropeans. Dave shows them that it will be the way UK wants it to be, that UK won't be forced against her will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the infrastructure for those postwar lines was actually built by the state as I understand it. They did privatise it sometime in the 1990s, but the main difference from japan to the UK. There is nowhere in the Uk where you can have a station with something like 16 platforms on 3 levels, which is what you have in at least one station in Tokyo as I recall.

Privatisation seems to have achieved little other than increased efficiency. And at least one accident seems to have been due to management having an unrealistic expectation of what kind of efficiency that could be achieved. For example, the Amagasaki disaster seems to have been caused by a driver speeding. He was apparently only running 90 seconds late.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amagasaki_rail_crash

If you have density, yes, you can have private operation. No argument, if the state has already built the infrastructure for you and you arent planning large extensions. I seem to recall there are private operators on the American West coast serving the passenger traffic there. The issue you have is not the bits where you operate in cities. The bit is when you are expected to operate routes out in the styx that are at best marginal. And even in Japan, there are such lines that refuse to pay their way. They have had to resort to some very unusual methods to keep them financially viable....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tama_%28cat%29

Weelll . . . . , Wakayama. Popular with people who like scenery & hiking. Has beaches, hot springs, old shrines, & picturesque country towns & villages which attract tourists. Industry? Grows oranges - does that count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's at least one railway line in Wakayama which needs no help, though. It links a town with what could be a rather fine beach if it wasn't so crowded with Osaka & Kyoto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really know the trains all that well but if many of the Japanese private companies need help from the government, I wonder if it has something to do with the raising number of car users and new highways being built, at least in the Kansai area that I have seen, resulting in a gradual decrease in train passengers. Perhaps the aging population is affecting that a little too. Although trains during rush hour in the morning and at night are still very crowded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As far as 'refugees' are concerned, he IS more sensible.

Nope, he isnt. Instead of taking from the Common European pool of refugees chancers, he wants to get them actual refugees direct from source. Somehow he is going to get the RN and the RAF to import 20000 refugees, which is probably going to be the biggest logistical movement of people since, well operation Telic at least. Instead of reducing the European stockpile of Refugees chancers, he is proposing adding to it to actually help people who need and deserve it. If you want to help refugees, it makes no sense because there are plenty of chancers in Europe that are a lot easier to get. If you dont wnat to help refugees chancers, you are unlikely to sing his praises.

 

In short, due to unique talent, he picks the road that is likely to upset absolutley everyone. He is a tryer, ill give him that. :)

 

Fixed that for you, no charge. :)

 

The slight problem with the above Stuart is that the evidence suggests that a majority of the "refugees" in Europe are chancers who do not even hail from Syria; according to the Hungarians around a fifth of those that got all the publicity hanging around railway stations were actually Kosavars, which explains why they started kicking off when the Hungarians had the cheek to ask for their fingerprints as part of a registration process. I've also seen shedloads of self-confessed Afghans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and even the odd Vietnamese...

 

Have a look at the TV news footage of the horde demanding their way across Central Europe and the folk in the camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, and note the absolute difference in demeanour. The horde are loud and demanding with an incredible sense of entitlement whereas the folk in the camps are much more humble and grateful for whatever help is offered. More importantly the latter are bona fide UNHCR registered refugees, whereas a goodly proportion and likely the majority of the other lot are not, they are economic migrants on the make. Like that nice Mr Kurdi, who got his family drowned because he fancied a set of new free teeth courtesy of the European taxpayer. Latest evidence from a survivor also suggests he was actually either a people trafficker himself or in their pay as "captain" of the boat. Who'd a thunk it. :rolleyes:

 

Call Me Dave is therefore doing the right thing by selecting genuine refugees at source, because that is infinitely fairer than rewarding a bunch of chancers for wiping their arses on the laws of the various states they've decided to inflict themselves on, and also undercuts the people traffickers that are a large part of the problem; not much point in shelling out several thousand dollars/Euros or whatever a pop just to be returned to your starting point while folk toeing the line get the gravy. As for the logistics, I don't think they are intending to move 20,000 in one lump, and the domestic and international political capital of greeting C17s loaded with refugees onto British soil will be priceless. In that sense I'd say that Dave has played a blinder at a number of levels.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's at least one railway line in Wakayama which needs no help, though. It links a town with what could be a rather fine beach if it wasn't so crowded with Osaka & Kyoto.

 

There must still be a fair number of lowly populated areas that must be at best marginal though. Not enough to perhaps run down the bigger companies, but of course the population density must be a hell of a lot higher than here in the UK.

Higher population density than the UK, but less than England & Wales. So no, not 'a hell of a lot higher'. Biggest difference is that it's more concentrated. Lots of mountains with people only in the valleys (& them getting old), & flat land tends to be crowded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ref the second bit, last time I checked Call Me Dave hasn't invited the c.3-5,000 representatives of the Ummah camped out at Calais to come on in and give their mates a shout too, whereas Ms Merkel has invited up to a million who are currently arriving or inbound as just the first tranche, and has had to backtrack by closing the border with Austria and putting the Bundeswehr on alert even though German law precludes them becoming involved in riot control or worse.

 

Well, that's certainly how the Daily Mail would portray it, anyway. :)

 

First, the situation has ironically been created by something people always demand of politicians: To stick to the facts and not obfuscate, lie, hide, or play political games with them. This started out with the announcement that Syrians will currently not be sent back to Hungary as warranted by the Dublin Agreement, though the explanation that this was done due to a lack of administrative capacities in the swell fell a little by the wayside in the public perception. Similar with the statement that up to 800,000 were expected this year total, and Germany could handle this; which is at least a reasonable assumption and a positive take, something leaders need to show sometimes, though again the addition of "but not every year" was a bit neglected. Lastly, Merkel's statement of "there can be no upper limit to take in those seeking protection" was also factual, since as detailed earlier on the imigration thread, asylum is an individual right under the German constitution.

 

Under the circumstances, a little obfuscation might actually have been a good thing, but the thing here is, none of these statements were meant to be projected abroad, but rather for the domestic audience. Of course in our networked instant total information world, there is no such separation, and you can only prevent statements of fact to be mistaken or willfully misconstrued as an invitation by refugees, traffickers and, on the other side, immigration critics, by not making them at all - AKA obfuscating and lying to the domestic audience, which tends not to appreciate this. It's an interesting problem really.

 

Second, of course borders are not being closed, just controls temporarily reintroduced as possible under the Schengen agreements in exceptional situations endangering public safety. It's not the first time even Germany has done this; it happened during the recent G7 summit in Bavaria, too, to filter out violent would-be protesters attracted to the event from points south and west. As it is, the controls will not do much to reduce the stream either, since they obviously take place on German territory and arrivals will have to be handled the same as before, at least if they utter the magical word "asylum".

 

However, people were getting a little nervous about ten thousands of folks coming in completely unregistered, their identity or something resembling it established neither in Hungary nor Austria, some distributing themselves across Germany by moving out of the shelters on their own, presumably to seek out already-settled relatives or similar. While it's certainly also meant as a signal to the outside trying to correct the previous impression somewhat, it's therefore mostly about channeling the stream into the proper channels and make handling it a bit more manageable.

 

Lastly, like any other public institution, the Bundeswehr can help out others under Article 35 of the constitution if requested by appropriate civilian authorities; it has long been doing so in the current crisis with soldiers putting up tents, providing medical capacities and even helping with the administrative work in relevant agencies in addition to providing general "helping hands". Not least, 20,000 refugees have so far been quartered in inactive and even active barracks.

 

Article 35 is most frequently used for disaster relief, but can include support of law enforcement. To which extent precisely has long been the subject of controversy; everyone agrees, and the defense minister recently reiterated, that the Bundeswehr has no police authority of its own. However, Bundeswehr helicopters have airlifted police, Recce Tornados have looked for missing persons and, in a particularly controversial instance, surveilled G8 protest camps during the Heiligendamm summit a couple years ago; on the same occasion, Fenneks were used for observation purposes.

 

So far, armed troops have never been used in direct support of police like the French do it, and I was able to observe close up and personal just today. By traditional interpretation, the wording of "particularly severe accident" in Article 35 would preclude this; something that influenced debate about giving the Luftwaffe authority to shoot down hijacked aircraft in 9/11-style scenarios a decade back. However, the Constitutional Court in turn shot down that law - but not over Article 35 but Article 1 safeguarding human dignity, ruling that the lifes of a few innocent passengers could not be weighted against the lifes of many possible victims on the ground. However, recently the court also ruled that the Bundeswehr could use military-type weaponry under Article 35, which would stretch the meaning of "accident" rather wide. So I guess direct backup of police would be possible; but it's not currently being done, and frankly I see not much sense in it either.

 

ETA: BTW, the direct lifting of refugees from camps in Turkey etc. has been brought up here, too, as a way to cut out the traffickers. That's certainly worth thinking about; I just don't think it will keep away the ones with the means to pay their way to Europe if rejected at this venue. I would also be surprised if only 20 percent would be West Balkan residents, as those made up 40 percent of applications in Germany this year so far and the stream goes right through their home countries (though maybe their proportion is now reduced by the surge of others). Anyway, of course everybody and his mother are claiming to be Syrian right now, reportedly even including obvious sub-Saharan Africans.

Edited by BansheeOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual Stuart's spin on the UK body politic is unique amongst tank-netters, and far from being entirely representative of the mass of UK citizens, but you should all know this by now :D

 

Did anyone mention that Corbyn wants to find an amicable agreement with the Argentinians, and also thinks that we're being far too nasty to the Russians over their legitimate concerns about the massed NATO troops on their borders, etc.

 

Sadly, other things he's said (straight out of the Tony Benn playbook, actually) are to play the UK's international "presence" by describing the UK as "a small island" and leaping from that to a claim that we therefore don't need a "big" armed forces.

 

Well, I don't think anyone could claim that we have a big armed forces now, so what he constitutes an appropriate size would likely involve a Mirror dinghy and the Edinburgh saluting gun.

 

Does the US have a market for safety consultants with a reasonable knowledge of functional safety, reliability analysis and fault trees? (Only joking, I know that all that health and safety bullshit is Yurropeen nonsense.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...