Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yeah, the problem is that the UK practices environmental conservatism rather than going for rewilding etc. A new town in the Cambridge/Oxford area would be great for the economy; but it would also be an ecological improvement replacing a modern farm desert with all the complexity of an urban environment including suburban gardens. Similarly, ecological conservatism highly values the sheep-infested environments of Northern England which are totally man-made ecological deserts that require extensive subsidies from government to keep the businesses going. Stop the subsidies and let the land revert, the unemployed farmers can find work helping to build new towns.

Incidentally, if you like the appearance of the Lake District, be careful not to read too much George Monbiot; he has completely changed my view of the place.

[The Brain]

Hobbits are set in their ways.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, if you want to understand the English then the LOTR is a key text. Tolkien nailed it better than most sociologists 

[Tamas]

Yeah they need to do environmental impact assessments.

Worth noting this is the data centre on the Iver landfill site - so while it is in the greenbelt it's very much a brownfield development. There's been a few brownfield developments that have been stymied at the environmental impact asseessment stage because there are some very rare species of spiders that basically thrive in post-industrial landscapes

This is the example Starmer gave of spiders blocking the development of a whole new town which is basically true. A train station was built with a plan for a new town around it and nothing has been built and 15,000 homes blocked (largely on brownfield sites) because it's now the home of a rare spider so a protected site

OMFG.

Yeah because spiders are unheard in gardens and homes. Bloody hell, I need to make sure never to let these environmentalists into my garage or they'll have me empty the place so as not to disturb the thriving spider ecosystem in there.

[garbon]

Why did British media spend the whole day discussing Trump's line on national and Afghanistan? Why did we need a televised clip from Starmer on it? I get when it is something serious like Greenland debacle but with this...like we want him to live rent free in our heads all of the time.

[Sheilbh]

I don't agree. While I think we are sentimentalising veterans in an unhelpful way in this country, in the UK and I suspect every other NATO country his line will have been interpreted as an attack on our veterans and our dead. I think this is the emotional side of the "death of NATO".

Article 5 was used because of an attack on America. In the subsequent war in Afghanistan, Denmark, Estonia, the UK and Canada all suffered more losses per capita than the US. My own view to Trump questioning the commitment of allies is, to nick a phrase from the Vice-President, "have you said thank you once?"

I don't think this is Trump living rent free in our heads, I think it's is like a British PM going to Arlington Cemetery or the Arc de Triomphe and asking if the Americans or French have ever really done anything for our alliance.

I would also say for all the gags about Farage or the slightly more pro-Trump view among Reform voters - this is the sort of thing that really cuts through with the patriotic, "our boys" kind of person who may, in other respects, be a bit more sympathetic to Trump.

Edit: And I'd add - I have family who are veterans - my social media after the Zelensky ambush in the White House and again today has been clogged with them re-sharing images of coffins coming through Wootton Bassett with a union jack on them and people quoting that "have you said thank you once?" line. I think this is the sort of thing that is actually vastly more toxic for Trump and America's brand in the rest of the world than, say, ICE.

Edit: Just as an addition on the veteran point - I'm not sure about Canada and Estonia (but given their casualties I suspect true for them ) - but with veterans the idea of British and Danish forces being behind the safety of the front-lines is also insulting. They were in Helmand province which was a Taliban stronghold - and why their casualty figures are so high. Both Denmark and the UK (and I assume Canada and Estonia) were deployed to areas with some of the most intensive fighting in Afghanistan and the US President is now basically saying they were in the Green Zone by the pool.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

it's things like this that can and do sour the trump-aligned parties in europe on trump.
Cause they now have to chose: lick trumps boots and look like patsies, or be patriotric and defend the veterans/honour of the nation.

push 'em in such a situation enough times and even there support will start to vaporise

[garbon]

I don't agree. While I think we are sentimentalising veterans in an unhelpful way in this country, in the UK and I suspect every other NATO country his line will have been interpreted as an attack on our veterans and our dead. I think this is the emotional side of the "death of NATO".

Article 5 was used because of an attack on America. In the subsequent war in Afghanistan, Denmark, Estonia, the UK and Canada all suffered more losses per capita than the US. My own view to Trump questioning the commitment of allies is, to nick a phrase from the Vice-President, "have you said thank you once?"

I don't think this is Trump living rent free in our heads, I think it's is like a British PM going to Arlington Cemetery or the Arc de Triomphe and asking if the Americans or French have ever really done anything for our alliance.

I would also say for all the gags about Farage or the slightly more pro-Trump view among Reform voters - this is the sort of thing that really cuts through with the patriotic, "our boys" kind of person who may, in other respects, be a bit more sympathetic to Trump.

Edit: And I'd add - I have family who are veterans - my social media after the Zelensky ambush in the White House and again today has been clogged with them re-sharing images of coffins coming through Wootton Bassett with a union jack on them and people quoting that "have you said thank you once?" line. I think this is the sort of thing that is actually vastly more toxic for Trump and America's brand in the rest of the world than, say, ICE.

Edit: Just as an addition on the veteran point - I'm not sure about Canada and Estonia (but given their casualties I suspect true for them ) - but with veterans the idea of British and Danish forces being behind the safety of the front-lines is also insulting. They were in Helmand province which was a Taliban stronghold - and why their casualty figures are so high. Both Denmark and the UK (and I assume Canada and Estonia) were deployed to areas with some of the most intensive fighting in Afghanistan and the US President is now basically saying they were in the Green Zone by the pool.

I get that we are at the end of a very contentious week and hackles are raised but I also think a lot of the reaction overstates the significance of his Afghanistan comment. Let's remind ourselves what he said:

"I've always said, 'Will they be there, if we ever needed them?' And that's really the ultimate test. And I'm not sure of that. I know that we would have been there, or we would be there, but will they be there?" Trump said Thursday in an interview with Fox News in Davos, Switzerland.

...

"We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan, or this or that. And they did - they stayed a little back, a little off the front lines," he said.

Is it ugly, is it disrespectful? Certainly. Was he making a considered critique of NATO troops and their sacrifices? I don't think so. I think he was rather continuing with his already established argument that America's allies are dispensible/worthless. Maybe a little bit of an additional stinger thrown in given how he had to climb down from his sabre rattling.

Responding to that by cataloguing casualties and the operations allies participated in strikes me as assuming a level of historical engagement and moral seriousness that simply isn't there with Trump. It is taking his provocative rhetoric and making it more elevated than it actually is. This isn't Trump disrespecting veterans because he's weighed their service and found it wanting, its Trump not really thinking about them at all. 

That's not to downplay how people, especially veterans, might feel or suggest they should toughen up. Far from that as I hate the idea of society becoming enured to Trumpian behaviour and accepting it as normal. But after having spent the last couple weeks rightfully indignant about Trump on Greenland it all feels a little 'surprised pikachu' to get all lathered up again about rhetoric in a Fox News interview. Are we just going to be angry forever?

I don't know if this will stick those individuals who have still been Trump-inclined in Europe. He has said many morally repugnant things which have been accepted. I'm not sure this 'incident' will have the heft to enter into people's long term memory. And these are people that were already 'okay' with Trump doing down their militaries.

I don't think this is Trump living rent free in our heads, I think it's is like a British PM going to Arlington Cemetery or the Arc de Triomphe and asking if the Americans or French have ever really done anything for our alliance.

I really don't get this bit. Am I missing something about the significance of Davos that puts it symbolically on par with Arlington Cemetery or the Arc de Triomphe?

[Tonitrus]

I agree that it was mostly a dig at NATO, but also follows on from his complete contempt for those who serve in the military, including our own.