World view – Friday

Thursday GMT


For posting on events, news, opinions and anything of interest from around the world.


  1. acrossthespectrum

     /  January 11, 2019

    Re the Don Trump Pic.
    1. Oh say can’t you be like the Don’s pearly whites?
    2.”The catfish I caught was this long.”
    3.This is how long the wall will be if the Dem’s get their way.
    4. Five + Five = err wait I’ll ask one of my aides.
    5. Congress just said “Your fired”.
    Is he saying
    All of the above?
    None of the above?
    What do you think he is saying?

  2. Joe Bloggs

     /  January 11, 2019

    “The fact is, if we don’t have barriers, walls, call it what you want, we don’t have very strong barriers, where people can not, any longer, drive right across. They have unbelievable vehicles. They make a lot of money, they have the best vehicles you can buy. They have stronger, bigger and faster vehicles than our police have, and that ICE has, and that the Border Patrol has.”
    – DOTUS

    King Moron’s been watching too many Roadrunner cartoons

    • Pink David

       /  January 11, 2019

      I’m surprised you have not fact checked this.

  3. The Consultant

     /  January 11, 2019

    If you’re going to San Francisco
    Be sure to wear
    Some flowers in your hair
    If you’re going to San Francisco
    You’re gonna meet….

    Sean Miller is the brains behind the app and told NBC Bay Area he was inspired to start the project when he moved from Vermont to San Francisco in 2017 and was surprised to find himself constantly stepping over human waste.

    San Francisco is known for its filthy streets; the 311 line receives about 65 calls regarding sidewalk poop every day.

    Surprised? In 2017? How ignorant can you be about a place you’re moving to.

    Doesn’t matter though. Being from Vermont he’ll quickly fall in line and vote for the One Party State that is Democrat controlled SF, and California.

  4. Missy

     /  January 11, 2019

    An interesting article from Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6, supporting a no deal Brexit. Something about the withdrawal agreement that hasn’t been discussed widely is the Defence and Security aspects, (I will admit to being unaware of the full implications of it). The agreement will tie the UK closer to the EU in Defence and Security matters, putting at risk their long established alliances with NATO, NZ, Australia, Canada and the US. Many shortsighted individuals don’t see this as a bad thing because of Trump, but Trump won’t be there forever.

    For those who can’t get behind the paywall:

    “At this late stage in the Brexit debate, it has become dominated by discussions of the economic risks of leaving the EU to trade on WTO terms, the behaviour of Westminster protesters and the antics of the Speaker. In the midst of this, we are losing sight of a far greater issue: the very real risks to our national security were Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement to be agreed by Parliament.

    Her deal – which the Government still maintains amounts to “taking back control” – would in reality erode our ability to take charge of our own affairs while putting at risk our place at the heart of Nato and the functioning of the vital Five Eyes information sharing alliance (made up of the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

    Given that the first duty of the state is the defence of its citizens, this is a grave matter indeed. So grave, in fact, that alongside my colleague Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, a former chief of the defence staff, I have taken the step of writing to the chairman of every Conservative association in the country, asking them to help persuade their MP to vote down Mrs May’s deal when it is finally put to the House of Commons.

    I did not think such a move would be necessary. When I joined a number of others, including businessmen, lawyers and senior politicians, in writing to the Prime Minister in November, I had hoped she would listen to our concerns.

    No 10 rapidly published a rebuttal, but sadly, nothing in it served to convince me that the Withdrawal Agreement amounts to anything more than a significant dilution of our national sovereignty on the issue of defence. That No 10’s response came so rapidly and so vociferously only showed that we had really struck a nerve.

    As I say in my letter to constituency chairmen, the key to my argument lies in the Withdrawal Agreement’s offer of a “new, deep and special relationship” with the EU in defence, security and intelligence.

    This sounds a harmless enough form of words. But in reality it would serve to cut across the three fundamentals of our national security policy: membership of Nato, our close bilateral defence and intelligence relationship with the US, and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.

    Were the UK to participate in EU defence frameworks in the way Mrs May proposes, it would entail onerous conditions. These would likely include full adherence to EU defence policy, and the high likelihood of having to become a “rule-taker” on intelligence, space, financial contributions and the European Defence Agency.

    It is surely not acceptable for us to agree to such terms when, during all our time as an EU member, we have managed to avoid such obligations.

    Moreover, do we really want to let an organisation which has thwarted our negotiating team so despicably and has used scaremongering and threats over the Irish border to have any say in the future operations of our military and intelligence services?

    Were MPs to sign off on the Withdrawal Agreement, it would be changing the fundamental character of Britain’s post-war approach to national security. Throughout this period, despite our muted support for the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, we have always relied on networks beyond Europe for our defence as well as our bilateral links with every European nation.

    For example, our closest military ally on the continent is France. Despite President Macron’s recent comments in support of an EU army – which he seems to have been goaded into by Donald Trump – this has always been a largely bilateral relationship.

    Like us, France has mostly tried to avoid giving supranational bodies the chance to have a say in the management of its defence, and we have cooperated successfully in a wide range of areas, including some of the most sensitive aspects of national security.

    Scorning the Withdrawal Agreement and instead leaving the EU to trade on WTO terms would not erode any such relationship. Indeed, the greater risk lies in our increasing involvement in EU affairs, thus alienating us from our global partners such as the US.

    It seems almost certain that MPs will vote down Mrs May’s deal next week, and one would need a crystal ball to see what the Government will do after that. But what I find increasingly clear is that a no-deal exit on WTO terms is the only way we are going to be able to fully extricate ourselves from the EU.

    Britain is Europe’s leading defence, security and intelligence power. If we sign up to the Withdrawal Agreement and accept the dilution of our national sovereignty, it would potentially undermine the strength and efficacy of the British contribution to the security of the Western world.

    As MPs obsessed with pounds and pence continue to argue about “just in time” supply chains, shipping at Calais and lorry parks in Kent, they need to remember that there are far more important issues at stake.

  5. Blazer

     /  January 11, 2019

    ‘ Sir Richard Dearlove, – Field Marshal Lord Guthrie,—-

    ‘Guthrie himself has a pretty good idea of where a certain kind of power lies. Since retiring from the army, he has moved into the world of private intelligence firms. He is currently Senior Advisor to the Chairman of Arcanum Global, whose company boasts of having “Superstar spies that have graced Arcanum’s board, including the late Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad.”

    Shortly after the EU referendum in June 2016, Arcanum’s chairman, Ron Wahid, wrote an article for USA Today hailing the result as “an opportunity for American businesses” and saying that “international firms should look at Britain as a tax refuge in a European sea of high corporate rates”.

    Research by OpenDemocracy has shown that Guthrie has also made very large amounts of money through his extensive business links with Russia and other former Soviet-bloc countries. From 2008 to 2015 he was a director of Petropavlovsk, which mines gold in Russia’s far east. He also has lucrative ties with oil interests in the Middle East, and from 2012 to 2015 was a Director of Bermuda-registered Gulf Keystone Petroleum, which operates mainly in Iraqi Kurdistan.

    Guthrie is a shareholder in Palantir Technologies, a data analysis company co-founded by the US billionaire Peter Thiel and integral to the Brexit Syndicate, a major donor to Donald Trump and a board member and a significant investor in Facebook.

    Guthrie is or has been on the boards of an interesting range of other companies, including the investment bank N M Rothschild & Sons and the US arms manufacturer Colt Defense.’M.Cato.

    jolly good show…chaps!

    • Corky

       /  January 11, 2019

      So, his take on Brexit is …. wrong?

      • Blazer

         /  January 11, 2019

        of course ..can’t you see….’ But in reality it would serve to cut across the three fundamentals of our national security policy: membership of Nato, our close bilateral defence and intelligence relationship with the US, and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.’

        cake and eat it policy.

  6. Joe Bloggs

     /  January 11, 2019

    Calenders at the ready? Then mark down this day: 7th February EST

    What’s up? A white hot melt-down in the Oval Office as Michael Cohen testifies in an open session to the House Oversight and Reform Committee in Congress, a day’s worth of coverage, and a very big day for Cohen in terms of him coming out with his story.

    Now THAT will be something. I’ma lay in a keg, make me a bathtub of popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the testimony… and the trumpertantrum.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  January 11, 2019

      It’s amazing how many dates we have crossed off the calendar already before reaching this new date…

  7. This would be kind of ironic – the shutdown is due to an impasse on funding the wall which is supposedly to help enforce immigration.

  8. High Flying Duck

     /  January 11, 2019

    Mark my words…This is where WW3 begins:

  9. Blazer

     /  January 11, 2019

    The only thing I will ask you though is on the wall, you and I both have a political problem. My people stand up and say, “Mexico will pay for the wall” and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language. But the fact is we are both in a little bit of a political bind because I have to have Mexico pay for the wall – I have to. I have been talking about it for a two year period, and the reason I say they are going to pay for the wall is because Mexico has made a fortune out of the stupidity of U.S. trade representatives. They are beating us at trade and they are beating us at the border, and they are killing us with drugs. Now I know you are not involved with that, but regardless of who is making all the money, billions and billions and billions – some people say more – is being made on drug trafficking that is coming through Mexico. Some people say that the business of drug trafficking is bigger than the business of taking our factory jobs. So what I would like to recommend is – if we are going to have continued dialogue – we will work out the wall. They are going to say, “who is going to pay for the wall, Mr. President?” to both of us, and we should both say, “we will work it out.” It will work out in the formula somehow. As opposed to you saying, “we will not pay” and me saying, “we will not pay.”

    Because you and I are both at a point now where we are both saying we are not to pay for the wall. From a political standpoint, that is what we will say. We cannot say that anymore because if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that. I am willing to say that we will work it out, but that means it will come out in the wash and that is okay. But you cannot say anymore that the United States is going to pay for the wall. I am just going to say that we are working it out. Believe it or not, this is the least important thing that we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important talk about. But in terms of dollars – or pesos – it is the least important thing. I know how to build very inexpensively, so it will be much lower than these numbers I am being presented with, and it will be a better wall and it will look nice. And it will do the job.

    You know, you look at Israel – Israel has a wall and everyone said do not build a wall, walls do not work — 99.9 percent of people trying to come across that wall cannot get across and more. Bibi Netanyahu told me the wall works. We have also hired at least 15,000 more men and women on the border – patrolling the border very carefully. We just cannot play the game of stupidity anymore. I would love to continue talking. When Jared said, “the deal is off,” I was glad. Jared has a great feeling for the plan, though I know it would be politically much more popular in Mexico and, I think, it will be much less popular for me, to be honest. I think the most popular thing for me would just to put a tariff on the border. But I am willing to see if they can finish up a plan. From what I hear, they have great discussions and it looks good. I guess they have to wait 90 days – there might be a statutory period or something like that and that might be too bad. But that is okay, so we will get Congress involved and let them work through the statutory period. If you want to do that, Enrique, I am good with doing that. And I want to reiterate, you and I will always be friends do not worry.

    Donald Trump, on a phone call to Enrique Pena Nieto, January 2017