I’m sure my piece has been a global sensation.

“Primarily” ≠ “solely”.

Anyone who is determined not to understand, will not understand. Anyone who isn’t, will. In my opinion.

(And, BTW, I didn’t use the phrase in the article).

It didn’t.

But France was reluctant to take the huge step to EEC. 1956 changed that.

Also, although less immediately obviously, for the UK.

For the Trump administration to wreck it would be a disaster on both sides of the Atlantic.

For Europeans to rewrite history will impede their ability, and the USA’s, to steer a successful path through increasingly troubling times. /3. End

Important, because this has never been a cosy relationship.

But it has been a stupendously successful one.

For the USA.

For Europe. /2.

This isn’t historically accurate.

The USA used a “big stick” (threatened little short of economic destruction) against France & UK in 1956 (re: Suez). Rightly, no doubt.

It’s no coincidence the EEC was founded in 1957, with France/Germany/Benelux + Italy, & UK seeking membership in 1961. /1.

He probably would.

Remarkably enough, though, for Mr Dugin, Mr Putin and others, who have to engage in extraordinary mental contortions to come to terms with the fact: that peninsula has an economy around 11x Russia’s (per capita 3x), population 3.5x, in a land area about 30% of Russia’s.

Don’t you think the three named people do realise it?

At least one, maybe more, wants the EU destroyed.

The reasons are personal & , if one’s very charitable, ideological.

A “proper” Brexit can only “work” if the EU, massively powerful on the UK doorstep, is gone.

The implications are … huge.

That isn’t the painful bit (although some will see it as such).

In the article you’ll see the author & publisher understand (a) UK is part of Europe, although not EU/EEA, (b) this article is both published in the UK & primarily directed at a UK audience, so phrases like “Europe & the UK” signify a special focus on the UK alongside a wider European perspective.

I don’t know the case law. I suspect a lot would depend on that.

bsky.app/profile/andr...

If he’s wearing *any* uniform for political (or para-/quasi-military) purposes, he’s likely to be breaking the law, unless he has special permission. /2. End

It looks similar, particularly the form of the jacket, the buttons & their grouping, & the fact he’s wearing a black shirt & tie with that.

But he either doesn’t have or isn’t wearing the cap, armband & belt buckle with BUF symbols (bundle of rods with an axe, &/or lightning flash). /1.

It’s still in force (with amendments): see attached.

The issue, I think, is (a) what constitutes a uniform, (b) if it is a uniform, was he given permission by the police (seems unlikely to me, but I don’t know)?

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8an...

That’s true (it’s generating about twice as much of it as the USA is).

But it’s also true that 80% of the primary energy mix in China is fossil fuels; about 15% of the total is coal; and about 4% of the total is wind. (I stand to be corrected, but the figures are roughly right).

Link to full broadcast, from Wednesday 28 January. /2. End

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmTI...

There’s a big shift toward renewables in China.

But, current situation:

- primary energy mix: about 80% fossil fuels

- electricity generation: 50%+ coal; solar and wind combined are about 25% (roughly half and half solar and wind)

Roughly 30%+ of total Chinese energy use is electricity.