Debunking WTO, and what "trading on WTO terms" really means...
As EU members, we participate in over 750 international treaties.
Many relate to trade, enabling us to trade freely with the EU, the EEA, and 40+ other countries. 1/26
BBC: "have you ever been to Clacton?"
@CountBinface: "no, because I understand from the current incumbent that is part of how you do the job."
politics is BACK, baby
I will accept Nigel Farage’s request to be appointed Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.
It is a farce and a desperate distraction, and the people of Clacton deserve better.
But if he wants to spend the summer arguing with a bin, I won't stop him.
GB News, "If Net Zero is so blessed, why does the UK have the most expensive energy?"
Dr Rupert Read, "The energy companies are ripping us off"
GB News, "Centrica, parent company of British Gas said Net Zero will not reduce prices"
Dr Rupert Read, "Centrica is one of the companies ripping you off, obviously they're not going to tell you the truth"
"Just like GB News won't tell you the truth because you're owned by Paul Marshall who is a fossil fuel magnate"
"You're playing the tune your boss wants you to play"
Yes, I've played elite level sport where my particular job was running with a ball at feet at around 30kph+ multiple times a half.
6 ft 4, 95kg.
The tactical information given to me through a 7 day, not 3 minute period sufficed, as did the occasional squirt of electrolyte water per half.
My performance would not have been improved at all by a hydration or tactical break.
Pretty much like 99% of players over a 150 year period playing the most popular and most played sport on the planet by far.
So maybe you can tell me. When was the last time you put your fucking dorittos, big gulp and chicken wings down long enough to know what professional sportsmen need rather than advertising executives or couch potatoes who need to be told 6 times in 20 minutes to buy a Jeep Cherokee, Whopper or diabetes medication instead of just enjoying the sport?
🚨 BREAKING:
World-renowned US rapper Kendrick Lamar:
"Donald Trump is a narcissist who runs a country built on fear and division, trampling over democratic values; you either stand for equality and the truth, or you are part of this climate of hate."
Female pub staff: “It’s now time to leave or I’ll call the police.”
British patriot James Wimsett wasn’t happy with her response so he headbutted her.
Disgusting behaviour against a woman.
WWII Veteran and Purple Heart recipient Robert Hilliard:
"Next week I'll be 101 years old. In February 1944 when I was 18 years old I was inducted into the army and what they taught me to do there was to kill people who set up detention camps. Can you imagine how I felt earlier this year when they announced that one of the future detention camps would be at that same camp landing in Florida? We have a fascist, a fascist government, that allows innocent people to be put in detention camps and incarcerated."
Source: @tomaskenn
One billionaire family controls the bridge that carries 25% of all U.S.–Canada trade.
The good news? There's a brand new public bridge right next door (and Canada paid for the whole thing).
The bad news? Donald Trump won't let it open.
Here's the story:
For more than a decade, Michigan and Canada worked together to build a new public crossing right next to it — six lanes over the Detroit River, named for a Canadian-born Red Wings legend, built by thousands of union workers. Canada paid the entire bill. Michigan co-owns it. It's finished. It’s a shining example of international cooperation and collaboration, with a tremendous return for both sides: more jobs, faster trade, and lower costs.
So why isn't it open?
Because the Moroun family, who own the rival Ambassador Bridge just up the river, doesn’t want the competition. They spent years and tens of millions of dollars trying to stop any competing international crossing from being built or opening. They lost. So they went to the White House instead.
In January, Matthew Moroun gave $1 million to a pro-Trump super PAC. Then the billionaire called Trump's Commerce Secretary and, just hours later, Trump suddenly attacked the same publicly owned bridge he praised in his own first term and threatened to block it.
Then, the day before the June 12th ribbon-cutting, the opening was called off indefinitely.
It's corruption so flagrant it would be laughable if it weren't so damaging.
Trump is screwing over Michiganders for the interests of billionaires — holding a finished, publicly owned project hostage to protect one donor's toll booth.
So a finished bridge sits closed, Michiganders keep paying the higher tolls, cars and trucks cost more, and a billionaire family keeps its monopoly.
Mr. President: stop playing games. Open the damn bridge.
Seeing some of the embarrassingly hateful reactions to Starmer's resignation today, I thought it was worth resharing this.
The level of personal hostility directed at Keir Starmer deserves scrutiny in its own right. Not because he should be immune from criticism, but because the tone and intensity of the attacks tell us something unhealthy about the state of democratic politics.
Starmer is a conventional political figure. Cautious, legalistic, incremental. He frustrates people precisely because he is managerial rather than messianic. Yet the reaction to him often goes far beyond disagreement, tipping into visceral hatred more commonly reserved for authoritarians or demagogues.
Much of this hostility is disconnected from concrete policy. It is not about specific votes, proposals or outcomes, but about projection. A belief that Starmer embodies betrayal, bad faith or hidden malice. That kind of politics runs on suspicion rather than evidence.
This matters because democracy depends on the assumption of good faith among opponents. You can think a leader is wrong, timid, or misguided without believing they are fundamentally illegitimate. Once politics becomes moralised to the point of demonisation, compromise is reframed as treachery and pluralism as weakness.
The pattern is familiar. In fragmented, polarised systems, anger concentrates not on extremists, whose intentions are clear, but on moderates, who disappoint maximalists on all sides. The centre becomes the lightning rod precisely because it resists totalising narratives.
There is also a media and online dynamic at work. Incentives reward outrage, not proportionality. Algorithms favour contempt over analysis. Over time, this creates a political culture in which relentless personal attack feels normal, even virtuous, rather than disgusting.
None of this is a defence of Starmer’s decisions, instincts or record. Those should be argued over robustly as you do in a democracy. The problem is the substitution of critique with hostility and the quiet erosion of democratic norms that follows when political opponents are treated as enemies rather than rivals.
A democracy cannot function if every election is framed as an existential struggle against internal evil. At some point, the target may change, but the damage to trust, restraint and culture remains.
2026 and we’re still expected to be impressed by geriatric millionaires in medieval fancy dress with page boys carrying their trains.
This shit is past its sell-by date! #AbolishTheMonarchy
I once asked Henry Kissinger after a press conference what a superpower should do to avoid looking weak. ‘Don’t start a war,’ he said. He meant Vietnam, but it seems particularly relevant now.