We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The game goes on

Earlier this afternoon Guido posted a list of the amendments* to be voted on in Parliament this evening:

(a) Jeremy Corbyn – calls on the PM to rule out no deal while, predictably, keeping all options on the table

(o) Ian Blackford – notes that the SNP don’t like Brexit, calls for no deal to be ruled out and Article 50 extended

(g) Dominic Grieve – suspends normal Parliamentary procedure on six dates in February and March allowing MPs to hijack Brexit

(b) Yvette Cooper – suspends normal Parliamentary procedure on 5th February to allow MPs to bring a Brexit-blocking Bill in

(j) Rachel Reeves – calls on the PM to seek an extension to Article 50

(i) Caroline Spelman – notes that Parliament rejects leaving without a deal

(n) Graham Brady – calls for the Northern Ireland backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border

As Guido said,

However, of all the amendments, only Grieve and Cooper have any legal effect as they would actively change the Standing Orders of the House, upending centuries of precedent. All the others, including Brady, are only statements of the Commons’ preferences.

The votes have now taken place. All the amendments failed except Spelman’s and Brady’s. That is, the only amendments that passed were to authorise the writing of two new (and largely contradictory) entries on Parliament’s wish list. I was glad to see that the amendments by the Tory Dominic Grieves and Labour’s Yvette Cooper, both of which aimed to stop Brexit by procedural tricks, were voted down by larger than expected majorities, including fourteen Labour rebels voting against their Whip on the Cooper amendment.

Much of what we saw tonight was tail-covering. Spelman’s amendment passed so that if No Deal happens and the zombies come, MPs can say, “Don’t blame me, I voted against zombies”.

Regarding the successful Brady amendment, the EU side has repeatedly said it will not re-open negotiations, so I assume its main purpose is to put the guilt of being the last people to say “No” onto them.

All in all, not a bad night’s work.

* “Amendments to what?” you ask. No idea, unless “Theresa May’s Brexit Plan” is the name of a Bill.

44 comments to The game goes on

  • Julie near Chicago

    Steady as you go, Britain. That’s the girl. :>))))

  • Julie near Chicago

    [I assume that’s as good a result as it sounds. :>) ]

  • Mr Ecks

    I don’t like this Malthouse cockrot that is being discussed but considering the absolute piles of shite that were up for votes tonight it could have turned out a lot worse. God Bless the 14 ZaNu MPs who voted for the side of the Angels and piss on all the others in that benighted gang. Corbyn has done himself and his crew huge harm with his Brexit treason.

    Please everybody–Tory Party member or not –write to the Constituency Associations of the 17 traitorous Tory turds who voted for Coopers Coprolite and demand they be de-selected. That itself will put more pressure on the BluLabour crew.

    Given that the EU has never said anything but “Non” all the way through since Camoron then I can’t see more than bullshit rewordings being offered by Drunker and crew . Good. We are not out of the woods but the People’s Wank and cancelling Brexit now seem fairly dead.Only Treason May’s BRINO remains a credible threat with or without the backstop.

  • Mark

    I think you’re right Mr Ecks.

    It’s difficult not conclude that they are all clueless as how to actually stop a proper Brexit and are desperately arse covering.

    Fuck me, it’s like watching clowns playing Russian roulette with water pistols.

  • So, only 58 days to go until BRExit and none of the wrecking amendments to prevent exit from the EU on WTO terms have passed.

    In addition Treason May has pleaded with MP’S to be able to go back to Europe and beg for a reopening of the “signed and sealed” agreement. Hopefully they will treat her with the same shitty contempt that Dave Cameron got on his EU tour.

    For myself, I’m just praying for the clock to run down to March 29th @ 11.00 PM so that we can walk away free and clear. The political pantomime that has been going on since the referendum can then be passed off as “genuine attempts at negotiations with the EU” rather than the reality of attempts to reverse the referendum and/or deliver BRINO.

    Bollocks to them all.

  • Chester Draws

    Surely May says “no deal, no money”.

    Are the EU going to absolutely destroy their budget for this?

  • rapscallion

    I’m with Mr Ecks on this one. I also suspect the the EU ever present intransigence will be their undoing – thank God. They displayed that intransigence when “Call me Dave” asked for very little of substance way back in early 2016, and they couldn’t even give a little then. If they had been a little more flexible they may never have had Brexit, but they couldn’t. The result of that is their 2nd largest contributor is on the way out, and they only have themselves to blame.

  • Yes. I think they will.

  • Itellyounothing

    Also Theresa continuing to duck at negotiating would help, so they keep going round in circles……

  • Mr Ed

    In temrs of what was actually going on in the House of Commons last night, the media never bother to say exactly what it is, ISTM, but after some digging around the Parliamentary website, it seems that it was about a resolution required to approve a Withdrawal Agreement, mandated by Section 13 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As you can see, the process is absurdly complicated, doubtless deliberately so, in the hope that it collapses.

    13Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU

    (1)The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
    (a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—
    (i)a statement that political agreement has been reached,
    (ii)a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and
    (iii)a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
    (b)the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,
    (c)a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
    (i)the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
    (ii)the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (b), and
    (d)an Act of Parliament has been passed which contains provision for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.
    (2)So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (1)(b) to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons before the European Parliament decides whether it consents to the withdrawal agreement being concluded on behalf of the EU in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
    (3)Subsection (4) applies if the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
    (4)A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
    (5)A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
    (6)A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—
    (a)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and
    (b)a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.
    (7)Subsection (8) applies if the Prime Minister makes a statement before the end of 21 January 2019 that no agreement in principle can be reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
    (a)the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and
    (b)the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
    (8)A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in subsection (7) is made—
    (a)make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed, and
    (b)make arrangements for—
    (i)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) is made, and
    (ii)a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) is made.
    (9)A statement under subsection (7) or (8)(a) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
    (10)Subsection (11) applies if, at the end of 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
    (a)the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and
    (b)the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
    (11)A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of five days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019—
    (a)make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed, and
    (b)make arrangements for—
    (i)a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Commons sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019, and
    (ii)a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019.
    (12)A statement under subsection (11)(a) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate
    (13)For the purposes of this section—
    (a)a statement made under subsection (4), (8)(a) or (11)(a) may be combined with a statement made under another of those provisions,
    (b)a motion falling within subsection (6)(a), (8)(b)(i) or (11)(b)(i) may be combined into a single motion with another motion falling within another of those provisions, and
    (c)a motion falling within subsection (6)(b), (8)(b)(ii) or (11)(b)(ii) may be combined into a single motion with another motion falling within another of those provisions.
    (14)This section does not affect the operation of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (ratification of treaties) in relation to the withdrawal agreement.
    (15)In subsection (1) “framework for the future relationship” means the document or documents identified, by the statement that political agreement has been reached, as reflecting the agreement in principle on the substance of the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
    (16)In this section—
    “Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
    “Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);
    “negotiated withdrawal agreement” means the draft of the withdrawal agreement identified by the statement that political agreement has been reached;
    “ratified”, in relation to the withdrawal agreement, has the same meaning as it does for the purposes of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in relation to a treaty (see section 25 of that Act);
    “statement that political agreement has been reached” means a statement made in writing by a Minister of the Crown which—
    (a)states that, in the Minister’s opinion, an agreement in principle has been reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
    (i)the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and
    (ii)the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal,
    (b)identifies a draft of the withdrawal agreement which, in the Minister’s opinion, reflects the agreement in principle so far as relating to the arrangements for withdrawal, and
    (c)identifies one or more documents which, in the Minister’s opinion, reflect the agreement in principle so far as relating to the framework.

  • Mark

    That’s right. It was theirs for the taking in 2016. A remain vote would have given then everything they wanted for all time.

    Could they not have helped Cameron then? It could have all been cynical lies and gullible, compliant remainers would have lapped it up but so what. Remain would have been for good. How could they not have seen this. Was it not worth a try to get all you want?

  • @Mark – I think the simplest answer is that, not only did they think they couldn’t lose, they also thought that to give the impression of being open to compromise on certain issues (which are affecting multiple EU member countries not just the UK) would be to open the flood gates and leave the EU hostage to fortune.

    The whole point of the EU is that it is an ever-greater union leading to the formation of a federal Europe. If individual member states are all pulling in different directions then that will never happen.

    Thank god.

    I don’t think that BRExit is the end of the EU, but it has shown the EU’s fundamental weaknesses and the loss of funding will be a hammer blow during the 2020’s. It will be when the next group of countries attempts to leave (probably the Visegrád Group of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) that the collapse will begin in earnest.

    The EU is in a battle for its own existence and doesn’t even seem to realise this.

  • Mark

    Indeed.

    Their absolute intransigence has become apparent in the last three years. Not only that, but the reasons for it. As you say, this is an existential crisis for them. And as you say, they seem not to realise it.

    I realise now that I had underestimated them, or rather their capacity for denial. It seems that they are still believing that there is going to be some last minute total capitulation. The remain establishment has been trying desperately to do this and the EU has steadfastly refused to even contemplate helping in any way, shape or form.

    I used to think that the remainders were their creatures following instructions. I not sure I believe this anymore and I’m wondering how many of those who have worked and supported the EU so assiduously over the years are feeling betrayed and let down.

    I’m hoping for no deal but I’m not so naive as to believe this will be trouble free. But these difficulties for us will be temporary. For the EU they will not be.

  • After a very long day’s work, I caught the opening minute of ‘Newsnight’. In a professional but unmistakably disappointed tone, the woman said that “Extending the Brexit deadline is off the table” – and then she quickly added, “as yet”, to show she had not given up hope. I did not of course watch the programme, but was grateful for its prompt supply of the information I wanted.

    I also have by no means given up hope. 🙂

  • Chthon

    By reneging on the Good Friday Agreement, May has proved beyond doubt that the backstop is absolutely essential; Britain cannot be trusted.

    The Irish government has been proven correct in it’s stance by the behaviour of Maybot and the treacherous Tory spivs, and mentally deficient sponges of the DUP.

    With the US Congress now rallying behind the Irish Government, the UK is going to be even more isolated.

  • Brian Micklethwait

    I remain hopeful too.

    But, an alternative explanation of the EU’s behaviour seems to me worth thinking about. (If I was certain it was right, I would say so, but I merely suggest it as a possibility.)

    Which is: That the EU (read Germany+France) has become utterly fed up with the UK, and has believed for some time that the UK joined the EU only to fuck it up, by expanding it too much, and by generally being inside and pissing in. So, they want us out. We vote out. Fine. Fuck off. You want “reasonable terms”. Also fuck off. We are now busy doing our thing. The UK can do what it likes, and we will then treat it as the enemy we have long regarded it to be.

    Does this make sense of what they are doing? I tend to prefer rational explanations to “they’re just idiots who don’t have a clue what they are doing”.

  • With the US Congress now rallying behind the Irish Government…

    How many votes in Parliament does the US Congress have? 😆

  • Johnathan Pearce

    De Gaulle predicted this problem, hence his veto vs UK membership back when Harold Macmillan was PM in the early 60s.

    De Gaulle saw the UK as a more Atlanticist nation and would be an awkward member of a bloc designed to allow France to run a continent. He was right.

  • by expanding it too much (Brian Micklethwait, January 30, 2019 at 12:46 pm

    Firstly, I don’t think that particular issue can be the reason. At least, it is certainly news to me if the UK was pushing for expansion and achieving it against the wishes of France and Germany. Of course, De Gaulle warned that admitting the UK itself was expanding the EU (the EEC it then was) too much and they may belatedly be agreeing with him.

    Secondly, they must be fed up with us indeed to follow any strategy that chooses to forgo our financial contribution if they feel they have any such choice.

    The discussion is well-worth having (and I’d be unsurprised if some sour-grapes statements are made after we leave) but for now, I believe that:

    – before the Brexit vote, the EUrocrats thought it impossible VoteLeave could win, so needless for them to make the slightest concessions

    – after the Brexit vote, they thought (and maybe still think) that we could be made to vote again and “get it right this time” and/or ‘sensible’ people in the UK would negate it, so helped Project Fear as far as they could in their negotiating (encouraged of course by May’s ineptness and remoaner MP antics)

    But I also think that punishing us to deter anyone else from thinking of leaving matters even more to them than whether we leave or stay.

  • By reneging on the Good Friday Agreement, May has proved beyond doubt that the backstop is absolutely essential; Britain cannot be trusted.

    The Irish government has been proven correct in it’s stance by the behaviour of Maybot and the treacherous Tory spivs, and mentally deficient sponges of the DUP.

    With the US Congress now rallying behind the Irish Government, the UK is going to be even more isolated.

    I’ve never heard such a lot of cockrot in my life.

    1. The Good Friday Agreement says not one word about borders or anything related to the backstop.
    2. The Irish government is in denial because all of the options are bad, just that May’s current deal and the backstop are “least worse”. They prefer we stayed in, but even the delusional gay Indian pretending to be Taoiseach recognise’s that is no longer possible.

  • With the US Congress now rallying behind the Irish Government, the UK is going to be even more isolated.

    The US Congress is free to emote or resolve whatever they wish about the impact of BRExit on the island of Ireland, but the impact of any such resolution will be the square root of sweet Fanny Adams (presumably Gerry Adams molested niece) 😆

    They might try and put pressure on the post-BRExit trade negotiations, but I expect the USA to do what it normally does and negotiate in good faith in its own economic interest. Sure, there will be pork attached and we’ll probably have to give way on things like GM and chlorinated chicken, but there’s a big difference between banning something and people just not buying it.

    Talk of UK isolation is fantasy land rhetoric from the Project Fear playbook.

  • bob sykes

    As an American living in Ohio, it is news to me that the US Congress is rallying behind the Irish government.

  • Mark

    I don’t think France or Germany need any help in fucking up Europe.

  • Mark

    They seem to have trouble rallying behind the USA.

    Not too different from the shower of shite we have here.

  • bobby b

    “With the US Congress now rallying behind the Irish Government, the UK is going to be even more isolated.”

    What you meant to say, I’m sure, is that four or five members of the House of Representatives who belong to the “Irish-American caucus” – out of 435 total members – have expressed concern that whatever happens shouldn’t affect the relationship so tenuously established between the two Irelands.

    This is a complete nothing, a waste of breath, except for the dishonest innuendo that it allows to be generated in discussions like this one.

    “Rallying”? More like a faint whiff of hot pro-EU air.

  • nemesis

    “After a very long day’s work, I caught the opening minute of ‘Newsnight.”
    Pity you didn’t see it till the end and caught this gem. Anna Soubry in meltdown. It was worth it just for that.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1090380482812887040

  • rapscallion

    Mark at 2:43

    Quite. Let’s face it they have plenty of form on that particular front!

  • Anna Soubry in meltdown.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1090380482812887040

    “…Loyalty to constituents, to party and to country…” – That’s a bit rich coming from one of the most divisive members currently sat in the Commons. They need to give deselection another go.

  • Paul Marks

    I telephoned my Member of Parliament as soon as the Amendment to rule out “no deal” (i.e. rule out independence was passed) and he told me not to worry – as the Amendment had no legal force.

    Mr Ed has said the same.

    But I am still concerned – let us see what the intellectually corrupt courts do with this “legally meaningless” Amendment.

  • Zerren Yeoville

    After all the scare stories, all the ‘Project Fear v3.0’, … despite all that, the anti-no-deal amendment passed by just 8 votes, or in other words, a mere 50.64% to 49.36% majority against a clean, vassalage-free Brexit.

    That’s quite a feeble sort of majority considering all the Remainers in Parliament.

    No doubt we will be constantly assailed by the Brexitphobes with the fact that ‘Parliament voted against no-deal’, but the Continuity I-Remain-Army – those noisy face-painted fools who give every impression that they would gladly crawl naked on their bellies across broken glass for the chance to kiss Juncker’s or Verhofstadt’s shoes – have spent the past thirty-odd months decrying and belittling a 51.9% to 48.1% majority in favour of removing our necks from the Brussels noose. Why, then, should Leavers be expected to respect the Spelman amendment which received a much slimmer majority, to the extent that if just five MPs had voted the other way, it would have failed?

  • George Atkisson

    At what point does Britain throw a coquettish glance across the Atlantic, and say, “Hey there, my divorce will be finalized by April. Are you free the weekend after that? Can we talk?”

  • Jim

    @Zerren Yeoville: precisely. There’s less support in Parliament for ignoring Brexit than one might suspect from listening to the usual suspects. And I suspect the actual support for a blatant reversal of Brexit is far less than the support for the Spelman amendment, because that was a free virtue signal – it didn’t actually mean anything, it was non-binding, so those voting for it faced no comebacks at the ballot box.

    I suspect that if Parliament is faced with a binary choice, a No Deal Brexit vs Reversal of Brexit vote, then electoral maths will come into play – there are 400+ MPs with a majority of Leave voters in their constituency. They will not want to present themselves to those voters come the next election having voted to directly ignore those people’s wishes. Regardless of any personal pro-EU sentiment, self preservation will kick in when the vote means something, a choice of ‘We do this vs We do that’, and those who vote for reversing Brexit have to stand by their decision.

    And if the EU is as intransigent over the next few weeks as the noises it is making right now then thats what Parliament is going to have to face – a cold hard vote on leaving on the 29th March without a deal vs slapping 17.4m voters in the face.

  • Roué le Jour

    You could make a opera about it. The Unattractive Heiress and the Ambitious Scion. We’re tolerated as long as we hand over the cash, shut up and don’t interfere.

  • Chthon

    The British government cannot run a bath, what makes deluded morons think it is capable of running the country in the chaos of No Deal?

    Rest assured, the smelly fat steaming turd that is Christopher “Pizza Boat” Grayling will no doubt be handing out “emergency” “No bid” contracts to his fellow criminals and stealing from the British taxpayer.

    To reiterate; we live in a country where Grayling has not been sacked and given a good hard kicking to his fat ugly face.

  • Mr Ed

    But I am still concerned – let us see what the intellectually corrupt courts do with this

    Fear not, Sir. Last time I checked, the courts still obeyed the Bill of Rights 1688:

    Freedom of Speech.

    That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

    So praying in aid a vote in the House of Commons is questioning proceedings in Parliament. It can’t be done, except to aid construction under Pepper v Hart, which is itself a blatant outrage.

    A US judge might decide that as ‘Parlyament’ is not ‘Parliament’, the Act is void, and therefore the bench must step in. We aren’t quite there yet.

  • Mark

    Neither can the unelected gnomes of Brussels.

    An independent Britain can at least try and do something about a shite government which is the whole point of leave.

  • The British government cannot run a bath, (Chthon, January 31, 2019 at 7:13 am)

    I’m glad to know it. If they could, our current government would soon be regulating the running of baths, and offering only weak opposition to Corbyn’s demand that all baths be nationalised.

    what makes deluded morons think it is capable of running the country in the chaos of No Deal?

    For this to avoid being a gigantic non-sequiter, you should first present evidence that the EUrocrats can run a bath.

    My poem noted that the pride of remoaner MPs, and their refusal to undermine faith in the superior competence of government, blocked their deploying such arguments:

    Too statist to say, even at their most livid,
    “Take back control? Look at us, to whom you’ll give it!”,
    Instead, as the fast-nearing date makes them manic,
    Their failed Project Fear has become Project Panic.

    There are those who would say that denying our representatives the ability even to run a bath is a good example of Project Panic, but on this blog you might find serious takers for that proposition – though I am not yet quite one of them. 🙂

  • Elrond Hubbard

    Full Brexit on 29 March is starting to look very likely indeed.
    Followed by the UK sheepishly going back to Brussels a few years later, under a different government, to get back in. On worse terms than its original black sheep membership, of course.

  • Followed by the UK sheepishly going back to Brussels a few years later, under a different government, to get back in.

    Sorry but that is either delusional or indicates a very poor understanding of the dynamics of British politics 😆

  • Elrond Hubbard

    As delusional as the fantasies of some unspecified better trade outcome after a hard Brexit?
    Not even close.

  • Mark

    What exactly is it you think we’ll be “sheepishly” going back to?

  • What exactly is it you think we’ll be “sheepishly” going back to?

    Cue Sir Humphrey Appleby, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon).

    Yes Minister — Why Britain Joined the European Union

  • Julie near Chicago

    JG — I needed that! 😆

  • Mark

    If you go by the dictum that politics is a continuation of war by other means either Germany will win and secure it’s empire (Aka the euro) or it won’t.

    If the former, the gradual deindustrialisation and economic colonisation of the periphery (Italy, Spain etc, and yes this would include France) will continue to it’s logical conclusion: these countries essentially having whatever level of industrial and economic development suits Germany.

    Can’t see other countries putting up with this really, so Germany will likely lose. If defeated in this “war” there will be no fair minded Brits and particularly no generous Americans with deep pockets (nor a Russian boot for that matter) to ensure that Europe doesn’t fall on Germany like a pack of hyenas (metaphorically, not literally).

    What would Germany look like today had it’s fate in 1945 been decided by France, Belgium, Poland etc.

    Think about it.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>