Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
My assumption in this is that Russia wants the Eastern provinces of Poland to become independent (Russian client) states, and that those people who are inclined to support "the West" are effectively forced to leave their homes and head into rump Ukraine.
In addition, I think he wants rump Ukraine to abandon all ambitions to join NATO and/or the EU, and to recognise that it is inside Russia's sphere of influence.
Can Russia achieve this? Well, the first part certainly, but potentially at very high cost. Although Russia's armed forced are pretty good, invasions of well prepared enemies are far from risk-less.
Hopefully you mean Eastern Ukraine not Eastern Poland, but otherwise I agree
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
No.
We are standing in union with the nations that are willing to do so. That the Germans and French aren't willing to do so should be to their eternal shame, but we absolutely should not allow those to hold us back from unity with the likes of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States.
If countries like Germany and France want to abdicate social responsibility and absent themselves from the free world that's their prerogative. We are doing the right thing though.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
Fair point, but neither incarnation sounds particularly appealing.
For @Leon and @rcs1000 Inside Science on Radio 4 on the Wuhan Lab conspiracy. There is also a more details apparently on the web site, but I haven't read any of these.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
A defence alliance doesn't necessarily mean sending troops.
The idea that simply confiscating some oligarchs money now is a "simple and painless" solution is, of course, insane.
Simpler and less painful than a shooting war with Russia. Liar keeps ramping up our stand against Russia. Its a joke. His party is funded by Russia, and whats left of our armed forces would be quickly splatted in a shooting war with Russia.
Again again, NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. So we need to drop the bluster that we might. Putin isn't that stupid to believe that...
You talk more and more nonsense sadly and your bitterness over HMG is plain to see
Maybe you should listen to the US and Nato itself and criticise France and Germany who are letting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states down
I'm with Tom Tugendhadt. Warm words are a waste of time. We should have NATO forces in Ukraine and lots of them. He says the idea that Ukraine isn't in NATO is a spurious cop out.
We either negotiate a peace or we demonstrate we mean business. Preferably both.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
A defence alliance doesn't necessarily mean sending troops.
The idea that simply confiscating some oligarchs money now is a "simple and painless" solution is, of course, insane.
Simpler and less painful than a shooting war with Russia. Liar keeps ramping up our stand against Russia. Its a joke. His party is funded by Russia, and whats left of our armed forces would be quickly splatted in a shooting war with Russia.
Again again, NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. So we need to drop the bluster that we might. Putin isn't that stupid to believe that...
You talk more and more nonsense sadly and your bitterness over HMG is plain to see
Maybe you should listen to the US and Nato itself and criticise France and Germany who are letting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states down
We can agree to disagree on the idea of NATO fighting a general war with Russia to defend Ukraine.
Can you point to the specifics where I am wrong about the Conservative Party being in the pockets of Russian oligarchs? I can point both to their donations to the central party and to various MPs. Temerko himself turned up at a hustings in 2015 as he was doing a door of all his candidates to see how his money was being spent...
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
1. Stand with them how? In solidarity as Russia invades and we do nothing? We aren't going to war with Russia, we aren't going to provide Ukraine with a supply of weapons to defend themselves with - so what is standing with them other than hot air? 2. Are the Tories handing their millions back? They're complicit.
We already are supplying Ukraine with weapons so indicates you are not very knowledgeable on the subject
In a shooting war? Would be a bit different to our army being in Ukraine until recently doing "training"
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
Do you have any more information on the final point? I'd only seen the announcement of closing the Tier 1 visas - do we have details of the much-promised sanctions etc? (I couldn't spot anything on a quick skim of news sites)
Seems an announcement will be made by the Home Secretary when Parliament returns
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed such a referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed
Thanks for clearing that up on behalf of the Tory party. 🙂 Our ScotNats mostly still ruminating if it’s worth a brief sinful affair in return for another crack at independence, as they are so quiet responding to this.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
A defence alliance doesn't necessarily mean sending troops.
The idea that simply confiscating some oligarchs money now is a "simple and painless" solution is, of course, insane.
Simpler and less painful than a shooting war with Russia. Liar keeps ramping up our stand against Russia. Its a joke. His party is funded by Russia, and whats left of our armed forces would be quickly splatted in a shooting war with Russia.
Again again, NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. So we need to drop the bluster that we might. Putin isn't that stupid to believe that...
"His party is funded by Russia"
Do you think every single Russian is an agent of the state?
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
Fair point, but neither incarnation sounds particularly appealing.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
Do you have any more information on the final point? I'd only seen the announcement of closing the Tier 1 visas - do we have details of the much-promised sanctions etc? (I couldn't spot anything on a quick skim of news sites)
Seems an announcement will be made by the Home Secretary when Parliament returns
About time too. Not just the Russian influence, but the Chinese and Saudi too.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
But that's why we were right to leave. Because its the worst of both worlds.
A European nation with a European demos is an entirely reasonable thing to have, if that's what people want. A collection of European nations, all with the own decision making, is also entirely reasonable, if that's what people want.
But instead the EU is a mish-mash where it adopts superstate elements like the Euro, but without the demos, the democratic oversight, or the rest of the powers etc it needs to make decisions and to make it work.
Hence why I have previously described the EU as sclerotic, instead of an agile independent nation like Britain. Because its too dysfunctional, yet it has those elements that its already got, but dysfunctionally controlled. That isn't a good thing.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
A defence alliance doesn't necessarily mean sending troops.
The idea that simply confiscating some oligarchs money now is a "simple and painless" solution is, of course, insane.
Simpler and less painful than a shooting war with Russia. Liar keeps ramping up our stand against Russia. Its a joke. His party is funded by Russia, and whats left of our armed forces would be quickly splatted in a shooting war with Russia.
Again again, NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. So we need to drop the bluster that we might. Putin isn't that stupid to believe that...
You talk more and more nonsense sadly and your bitterness over HMG is plain to see
Maybe you should listen to the US and Nato itself and criticise France and Germany who are letting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states down
We can agree to disagree on the idea of NATO fighting a general war with Russia to defend Ukraine.
Can you point to the specifics where I am wrong about the Conservative Party being in the pockets of Russian oligarchs? I can point both to their donations to the central party and to various MPs. Temerko himself turned up at a hustings in 2015 as he was doing a door of all his candidates to see how his money was being spent...
The policy that the US and UK (among others) has adopted has been very clear.
1) Provide weapons to Ukraine 2) Support them diplomatically 3) Threaten a wide range of sanctions if Russia invades 4) Rule out direct military intervention.
If the Conservative party is in the pockets of Putin allied Russian Oligarchs, they seem to be getting less than nothing for their money.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
A defence alliance doesn't necessarily mean sending troops.
The idea that simply confiscating some oligarchs money now is a "simple and painless" solution is, of course, insane.
Simpler and less painful than a shooting war with Russia. Liar keeps ramping up our stand against Russia. Its a joke. His party is funded by Russia, and whats left of our armed forces would be quickly splatted in a shooting war with Russia.
Again again, NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. So we need to drop the bluster that we might. Putin isn't that stupid to believe that...
You talk more and more nonsense sadly and your bitterness over HMG is plain to see
Maybe you should listen to the US and Nato itself and criticise France and Germany who are letting Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states down
I'm with Tom Tugendhadt. Warm words are a waste of time. We should have NATO forces in Ukraine and lots of them. He says the idea that Ukraine isn't in NATO is a spurious cop out.
We either negotiate a peace or we demonstrate we mean business. Preferably both.
At this moment in time NATO troops entering Ukraine would see Russia invade
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
1. Stand with them how? In solidarity as Russia invades and we do nothing? We aren't going to war with Russia, we aren't going to provide Ukraine with a supply of weapons to defend themselves with - so what is standing with them other than hot air? 2. Are the Tories handing their millions back? They're complicit.
We already are supplying Ukraine with weapons so indicates you are not very knowledgeable on the subject
In a shooting war? Would be a bit different to our army being in Ukraine until recently doing "training"
Nope - you can be *neutral* in a war and sell weapons, legally, under international law.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed such a referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed
Thanks for clearing that up on behalf of the Tory party. 🙂 Our ScotNats mostly still ruminating if it’s worth a brief sinful affair in return for another crack at independence, as they are so quiet responding to this.
All on topic by the way!
If the SNP form part of a governing coalition, with ministerial posts etc., it will be difficult for them because it will make their central raison d'etre, that Scotland is a powerless colonial possession, a demonstrably ridiculous lie.
Meanwhile where is @BartholomewRoberts these days. Very interested to read his higher wages and higher prices and higher wages is a good thing posts. .
You’ll have noted that there was strong growth in real wages in 2021 being confirmed earlier this week? The increase in inflation since the beginning of the year has left wages behind temporarily but hopefully only for a few months.
"hopefully" indeed. But where does the cycle end? Costs and therefore prices rise so wages rise and costs and prices rise and wages rise.
This is good in your opinion? What are you some kind of pre-Thatcher era Union leader?
The main cause of inflation now is that we put the cost of the pandemic on the QE tab 2 years ago. We have a bit of that to work through but my hope is that increasing wages will drive increased investment to boost productivity and the general standard of living.
Blimey. You think that is going to happen. Now. When everyone is battered and businesses are having to pay more to get hitherto plentiful labour and raise prices just to stand still.
You think amidst this there will be a boost to increase productivity and the general standard of living.
At present price growth is outstripping wage growth. Once inflation takes hold then it is very difficult to get it out of the system. Better economists than you or I (and much better ones than @BartholomewRoberts) are praying that it will work its way through once energy price rises have worked their way through, etc. .
The main problem since 2008 has been deflation not inflation. The price of oil fell 5% yesterday and gas even more. No doubt they will be back up again today given the latest shenanigans but there is a big war premium in the price right now.
Yes of course, those rises are volatile and likely temporary. But if wages continue to go up then that will mean higher prices which leads to higher wages and that is not temporary; inflation becomes permanent or embedded and then we have a problem. And policy responses are equally problematic.
I got a notification that I was tagged in this by @TOPPING . Sorry, I'm not online as much as I used to be anymore as I'm quite busy IRL so not spending as much time here.
Wages going up is a good thing, so long as the wages are going up because of demand for the labour. Inflation for inflation's sake is a bad thing of course, but then wages aren't rising in real terms if that's all it is. Real wages rises are a good thing and David is entirely right that rising real wages leads to an increase in investment for productivity and it is productivity growth that makes us all better off.
What we're seeing now is really still very moderate inflation. We're not talking Zimbabwean thousands of percent inflation, we're talking about inflation of ~5.5% as the highest inflation in thirty years. Yet as I've pointed out before house price inflation has averaged 6.2% for the first two decades of this century.
So people are losing their minds and all perspective from inflation that is below inflation that we've been used to in recent decades. Its just that now prices are going up on things homeowners need to pay for and not just everyone else instead of them.
This is true, but like most things needs to be mildly caveated:
(1) Inflation is - fundamentally - a response to demand outstripping supply. To bring them back into balance, wages increase, which both brings people back into the workforce, and demand falls. We should be keener on the first that than the second, and it's important the policy response is calibrated to that.
(2) Rising wages will mean rising prices. Wage costs - whether in your local grocery store, or Amazon or Macdonalds - are passed on, or businesses go out of business. This is fine for those benefiting from higher wages, but will be less fun for those on fixed incomes.
(3) So far, the willingness of Central Banks to use interest rates to counter inflation has been minimal. It is generally considered (not without merit) that worldwide labour shortages are mostly transitory in nature as Covid recedes, and the spike in commodity prices is also likely to recede as drilling returns in the US. However, it is entirely possible that that attitude changes - especially if rising inflation means increased current account deficits.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
Do you have any more information on the final point? I'd only seen the announcement of closing the Tier 1 visas - do we have details of the much-promised sanctions etc? (I couldn't spot anything on a quick skim of news sites)
Seems an announcement will be made by the Home Secretary when Parliament returns
Well, that's good - I mean, it's not like there's any need to show we are taking serious and urgent action or anything.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
Fair point, but neither incarnation sounds particularly appealing.
True that
'Brexit wasn't a break with the EU, it was actually the prelude to a takeover bid...'
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
Yep. Well, my view (FWIW) was that there was no real apetite for e.g. common foreign policy beyond a few of the more integrationist MEPs. Many countries would not have been up for that, I think - UK, Netherlands, Sweden, likely Danes to name but a few from my experiences working in those countries. Which was why I was fairly relaxed about the idea.
If there was enthusiasm and an agreement was made for common foreign policy, then I think the general dysfunctionality and too many cooks would make it, in practice, fairly slow and toothless, as we saw with the vaccine situation. Fudge served up for every international situation.
So, I was only content being in the EU due to my perception of the lack of apetite. If I really thought it would be attempted then I think it would have been a bit of a disaster and good reason to be out.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
1. Stand with them how? In solidarity as Russia invades and we do nothing? We aren't going to war with Russia, we aren't going to provide Ukraine with a supply of weapons to defend themselves with - so what is standing with them other than hot air? 2. Are the Tories handing their millions back? They're complicit.
We already are supplying Ukraine with weapons so indicates you are not very knowledgeable on the subject
In a shooting war? Would be a bit different to our army being in Ukraine until recently doing "training"
So far today the Tory head of the Parliament Defence Committee has called on NATO to provide a no fly zone and air support to Ukraine, and called any sanctions counter productive and not in UKs strategic interest.
And the British PM has called shelling on a school in Russian held area an obvious false flag.
I still say Starmer is in trouble how to respond to this at PMQs. Boris and Biden claiming victory for any Russian withdraw because of the stance they took would be at most politest: unproven - so Starmer could be both wrong as nodding dog or head shaking Putin puppet. 😁
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
The EU is simultaneously on a path to being a superstate, and contains too many competing interests to make that work easily.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
1. Stand with them how? In solidarity as Russia invades and we do nothing? We aren't going to war with Russia, we aren't going to provide Ukraine with a supply of weapons to defend themselves with - so what is standing with them other than hot air? 2. Are the Tories handing their millions back? They're complicit.
We already are supplying Ukraine with weapons so indicates you are not very knowledgeable on the subject
In a shooting war? Would be a bit different to our army being in Ukraine until recently doing "training"
Nope - you can be *neutral* in a war and sell weapons, legally, under international law.
Whilst that is true, logically you need to be selling weapons to *both* sides. Which is of course why the American military-industrial complex has been so successful over the years...
I seem to remember our government saying that it would crack down mercilessly on dodgy Russian money following the annexation of Crimea. With little or no impact. I seem to remember exactly the same declaration after the Salisbury attack. With little or no impact. And now the same again. Don't blame me if I'm not convinced.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed such a referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed
Thanks for clearing that up on behalf of the Tory party. 🙂 Our ScotNats mostly still ruminating if it’s worth a brief sinful affair in return for another crack at independence, as they are so quiet responding to this.
All on topic by the way!
If the SNP form part of a governing coalition, with ministerial posts etc., it will be difficult for them because it will make their central raison d'etre, that Scotland is a powerless colonial possession, a demonstrably ridiculous lie.
It's not a lie, given that Mr Johnson can close down the devolved governments whenever he wants (assuming he could get it through Westminster).
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
Far better to stand with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States as we can do as a third country, and not the appeasement being offered by France and Germany to Russia due to their need for Russian gas
And the closing of Russian money in the city has been announced today
1. Stand with them how? In solidarity as Russia invades and we do nothing? We aren't going to war with Russia, we aren't going to provide Ukraine with a supply of weapons to defend themselves with - so what is standing with them other than hot air? 2. Are the Tories handing their millions back? They're complicit.
We already are supplying Ukraine with weapons so indicates you are not very knowledgeable on the subject
In a shooting war? Would be a bit different to our army being in Ukraine until recently doing "training"
Nope - you can be *neutral* in a war and sell weapons, legally, under international law.
Whilst that is true, logically you need to be selling weapons to *both* sides. Which is of course why the American military-industrial complex has been so successful over the years...
No, you don't. Plenty of example in history of "neutrals" selling to the side they liked.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed such a referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed
Thanks for clearing that up on behalf of the Tory party. 🙂 Our ScotNats mostly still ruminating if it’s worth a brief sinful affair in return for another crack at independence, as they are so quiet responding to this.
All on topic by the way!
If the SNP form part of a governing coalition, with ministerial posts etc., it will be difficult for them because it will make their central raison d'etre, that Scotland is a powerless colonial possession, a demonstrably ridiculous lie.
They don’t have to do anything like that though - merely see off voncs and pass budget messuars till the referendum bill.
I seem to remember our government saying that it would crack down mercilessly on dodgy Russian money following the annexation of Crimea. With little or no impact. I seem to remember exactly the same declaration after the Salisbury attack. With little or no impact. And now the same again. Don't blame me if I'm not convinced.
Ah, but all the Russian money here is squeaky clean, obviously. Very civilised chaps. Invite you for lunch, make donations to the party... If any dodgy Russian money turns up, we will of course crack down mercilessly.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
You idea of "fit to serve" can safely be discarded as fringe bordering insane.
Especially since the PM has already demonstrated himself unfit to serve.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
The EU is simultaneously on a path to being a superstate, and contains too many competing interests to make that work easily.
The funniest part of Cameron's deal was that ever closer union was not to apply to the UK. Which was a somewhat bizarre situation. Either ever closer union was bollocks or we'd just created a semi-detached tier of EU membership which, presumably, some other countries would also find appealing (e.g. Sweden carefully avoiding the Euro). Just words, of course, but with a bit more commitment on all sides it could perhaps have turned into something interesting.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
The EU is simultaneously on a path to being a superstate, and contains too many competing interests to make that work easily.
And Britain's approach to the eastern EU states in the face of Russian aggression indicates British policy is things stay that way....???
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
On a point of order, I am not delighted by France and Germany behaviour rather very disappointed
My assumption in this is that Russia wants the Eastern provinces of Poland to become independent (Russian client) states, and that those people who are inclined to support "the West" are effectively forced to leave their homes and head into rump Ukraine.
I presume you mean Ukraine here? Eastern provinces of Poland would make things very interesting if Putin got that to happen, because I think all 'eastern' parts of Poland are very ethnically Polish and I doubt Poland would give those up in any circumstances.
Quite right.
In 1945 Russia basically kept the parts of Poland it had invaded in 1939 along a very similar line. Poland received a substantial chunk of pre-war Germany. It moved about a third of its width to the West.
It may be that the Western parts of Russia there are ethnically Polish, unless either a) Stalin expelled the population, or b) Stalin deported all of them elsewhere in the USSR (a la Cossacks) or killed them. Not sure off the top of my head what the actions were exactly. I think some stayed and some moved West into the new messy.
Plus Germans were expelled en masse from new and existing Polish areas, though there would perhaps be a mix between those who had been there for a long time and new ones imported by Hitler.
This was by agreement between the allies at the Yalta Conference (?). All very messy.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed such a referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed
Thanks for clearing that up on behalf of the Tory party. 🙂 Our ScotNats mostly still ruminating if it’s worth a brief sinful affair in return for another crack at independence, as they are so quiet responding to this.
All on topic by the way!
If the SNP form part of a governing coalition, with ministerial posts etc., it will be difficult for them because it will make their central raison d'etre, that Scotland is a powerless colonial possession, a demonstrably ridiculous lie.
They don’t have to do anything like that though - merely see off voncs and pass budget messuars till the referendum bill.
Indeed, but they would still have to refuse Government posts, which would be embarrassing, and a boon to other parties in Scotland - why vote for the SNP when they won't take the power that they say isn't on offer?
In the same vein, I had an idea a while ago to democratise the HOL, by tying peerages awarded to proportion of votes at the last GE. If the SNP refused their peerages, once again they would be placed in a position of refusing representation for Scotland. If they took them, it would sit very uncomfortably with many (if not most) of their supporters. What would they do? Probably refuse, and again give the other parties ammunition to say that they're deliberately wasting chances to give Scotland a bigger say at Westminster.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
But that's why we were right to leave. Because its the worst of both worlds.
A European nation with a European demos is an entirely reasonable thing to have, if that's what people want. A collection of European nations, all with the own decision making, is also entirely reasonable, if that's what people want.
But instead the EU is a mish-mash where it adopts superstate elements like the Euro, but without the demos, the democratic oversight, or the rest of the powers etc it needs to make decisions and to make it work.
Hence why I have previously described the EU as sclerotic, instead of an agile independent nation like Britain. Because its too dysfunctional, yet it has those elements that its already got, but dysfunctionally controlled. That isn't a good thing.
Yep. I have some sympathy with your viewpoint that we should either be fully in or fully out (where fully in is either a single state or at least much closer union).
The Euro, as we've seen, comes under strain because there's a bit too much* national autonomy (or countries that were too different were allowed to join).
*too much to make the Euro work well for everyone, not saying that national autonomy is a bad thing
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
France and Germany have a long standing policy of ceding to Putin "dominance of Eastern Europe". In Germany's case, this extends even (for some politicians) to the Baltic Republics - despite them being in the EU.
Quite simply, the attitude is that it's Putin's playground and he should be allowed to do whatever.
It's comes down to the problem of what happens next. If the Sudetenland *had* been the last territorial demand, would that have been right?
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
Golly, back from ‘the Tories will never allow another Indy ref’ to ‘once in a generation referendum’. I’m mildly curious what such backsliding means but I strongly suspect you don’t know yourself.
Spring coming. Sun shining. The city is full of young families on trips flocking to museums, sights. London is back. The place is surging with energy and optimism again. Great to see.
My assumption in this is that Russia wants the Eastern provinces of Poland to become independent (Russian client) states, and that those people who are inclined to support "the West" are effectively forced to leave their homes and head into rump Ukraine.
I presume you mean Ukraine here? Eastern provinces of Poland would make things very interesting if Putin got that to happen, because I think all 'eastern' parts of Poland are very ethnically Polish and I doubt Poland would give those up in any circumstances.
Quite right.
In 1945 Russia basically kept the parts of Poland it had invaded in 1939 along a very similar line. Poland received a substantial chunk of pre-war Germany. It moved about a third of its width to the West.
It may be that the Western parts of Russia there are ethnically Polish, unless either a) Stalin expelled the population, or b) Stalin deported all of them elsewhere in the USSR (a la Cossacks) or killed them. Not sure off the top of my head what the actions were exactly. I think some stayed and some moved West.
Plus Germans were expelled en masse from new and existing Polish areas, though there would perhaps be a mix between those who had been there for a long time and new ones imported by Hitler.
This was by agreement between the allies at the Yalta Conference (?).
Most of the Polish population left in Russia by the new border was moved into Poland. By force. Once the new lines were drawn, populations were moved to match them. This was done across Europe.
The Sudeten Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, for example. Or the Italians inside the new Yugoslavia. This was accompanied by massive efforts to erase the histories of the groups in question - towns renamed, churches demolished etc etc.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
On a point of order, I am not delighted by France and Germany behaviour rather very disappointed
IF you are disappointed we can only imagine how the eastern EU states feel. What's the point of this club? Our best mate seems to be bloke what left it?
Its that the real intention of Johnson and Truss here? undermine the club? If so, its a dangerous and foolish game I reckon.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
A defence alliance with a country on the verge of being invaded by Russia. So when that happens what are our obligations? To provide them with weapons? Or to defend them?
The alternative is simple and painless - seize the assets of Russian oligarchs in the UK. Sadly as several Russian oligarchs are large donors of the Conservative Party, for some reason the government seems reluctant to engage with such a thing.
A defence alliance doesn't necessarily mean sending troops.
The idea that simply confiscating some oligarchs money now is a "simple and painless" solution is, of course, insane.
Simpler and less painful than a shooting war with Russia. Liar keeps ramping up our stand against Russia. Its a joke. His party is funded by Russia, and whats left of our armed forces would be quickly splatted in a shooting war with Russia.
Again again, NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. So we need to drop the bluster that we might. Putin isn't that stupid to believe that...
"His party is funded by Russia"
Do you think every single Russian is an agent of the state?
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
On a point of order, I am not delighted by France and Germany behaviour rather very disappointed
IF you are disappointed we can only imagine how the eastern EU states feel. What's the point of this club? Our best mate seems to be bloke what left it?
Its that the real intention of Johnson and Truss here? undermine the club? If so, its a dangerous and foolish game I reckon.
The Eastern states are really not impressed by the idea of Western powers doing deals about how the neighbourhood gets carved up, against their wishes.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
The EU is simultaneously on a path to being a superstate, and contains too many competing interests to make that work easily.
The funniest part of Cameron's deal was that ever closer union was not to apply to the UK. Which was a somewhat bizarre situation. Either ever closer union was bollocks or we'd just created a semi-detached tier of EU membership which, presumably, some other countries would also find appealing (e.g. Sweden carefully avoiding the Euro). Just words, of course, but with a bit more commitment on all sides it could perhaps have turned into something interesting.
I think that "Ever Closer Union" has turned out to be far less "just words" than was expected, certainly by the UK.
My assumption in this is that Russia wants the Eastern provinces of Poland to become independent (Russian client) states, and that those people who are inclined to support "the West" are effectively forced to leave their homes and head into rump Ukraine.
I presume you mean Ukraine here? Eastern provinces of Poland would make things very interesting if Putin got that to happen, because I think all 'eastern' parts of Poland are very ethnically Polish and I doubt Poland would give those up in any circumstances.
Quite right.
In 1945 Russia basically kept the parts of Poland it had invaded in 1939 along a very similar line. Poland received a substantial chunk of pre-war Germany. It moved about a third of its width to the West.
It may be that the Western parts of Russia there are ethnically Polish, unless either a) Stalin expelled the population, or b) Stalin deported all of them elsewhere in the USSR (a la Cossacks) or killed them. Not sure off the top of my head what the actions were exactly. I think some stayed and some moved West into the new messy.
Plus Germans were expelled en masse from new and existing Polish areas, though there would perhaps be a mix between those who had been there for a long time and new ones imported by Hitler.
This was by agreement between the allies at the Yalta Conference (?). All very messy.
There were incentives for Poles to settle the newly acquired western areas, from which the German speakers had almost entirely left, as you say. Very many Poles from the areas to be ceded to the Soviet Union took the opportunity to move west. Many to avoid communism, which sadly didn’t work out too well.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
On a point of order, I am not delighted by France and Germany behaviour rather very disappointed
IF you are disappointed we can only imagine how the eastern EU states feel. What's the point of this club? Our best mate seems to be bloke what left it?
Its that the real intention of Johnson and Truss here? undermine the club? If so, its a dangerous and foolish game I reckon.
The Eastern states are really not impressed by the idea of Western powers doing deals about how the neighbourhood gets carved up, against their wishes.
I wonder why?
Are you saying the Poles, Lithuanians etc don't want our help? Good. Britain is on its uppers and with big issues at home. We can't cash these cheques. Putin surely knows that.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
The EU is simultaneously on a path to being a superstate, and contains too many competing interests to make that work easily.
The funniest part of Cameron's deal was that ever closer union was not to apply to the UK. Which was a somewhat bizarre situation. Either ever closer union was bollocks or we'd just created a semi-detached tier of EU membership which, presumably, some other countries would also find appealing (e.g. Sweden carefully avoiding the Euro). Just words, of course, but with a bit more commitment on all sides it could perhaps have turned into something interesting.
I think that "Ever Closer Union" has turned out to be far less "just words" than was expected, certainly by the UK.
I was referring to the bit about it not applying to the UK. Just words, but actually, for those committed to ever closer union, an important set of words. More of a concession than it appeared, I think. Once (if) integrationists accept the idea that ever closer union is not a thing - or, at least, not a universal thing for all members of the EU - then there was scope to get creative about what the EU (or trading arrangments under a differently named body) could mean.
Spring coming. Sun shining. The city is full of young families on trips flocking to museums, sights. London is back. The place is surging with energy and optimism again. Great to see.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
The US UK and Nato are all on the same page, pity France and Germany are not
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
The EU is simultaneously on a path to being a superstate, and contains too many competing interests to make that work easily.
The funniest part of Cameron's deal was that ever closer union was not to apply to the UK. Which was a somewhat bizarre situation. Either ever closer union was bollocks or we'd just created a semi-detached tier of EU membership which, presumably, some other countries would also find appealing (e.g. Sweden carefully avoiding the Euro). Just words, of course, but with a bit more commitment on all sides it could perhaps have turned into something interesting.
Yes, the "twin-track" or "two-speed" Europe. The basic problem was that it was a big slice of classic European fudge, not really believed by either group as sustainable.
Ultimately there is the EU, and there is the trading block. Our unique piece of genius is that having largely set up and driven the creation of the trading block and opted out of the worst of the ever closer union, we've now flounced from the lot.
Having spent decades removing red tape and abolishing trade barriers we have voluntarily reinstalled them having persuaded people that the trading block is the ever closer union. Which of course it isn't and never was.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
How has Putin benefitted in Ukraine from the UK leaving the EU? Surely his position would have been better if the UK had been tied to an EU position by majority voting, rather than having us be a powerful and noisy force in NATO?
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
How has Putin benefitted in Ukraine from the UK leaving the EU? Surely his position would have been better if the UK had been tied to an EU position by majority voting, rather than having us be a powerful and noisy force in NATO?
Pretty much this. We’ve been far more agile outside
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
That's the European Union working, right there.
Oh wait....
Thing is, we were told the EU was on the fast track to become (or was already) a superstate, unified army, defence policy etc and therefore must GET OUT NOW!
Turns out it is in fact (1) a collection of sovereign countries with their own defence policies and/or (2) too dysfunctional to come to a unified position which suggests it is either unwilling or unable (or both) to become that unified superstate.
A surprising number of the arguments against Brexit eventually boil down to "No, because the EU is too useless/bureaucratic/dysfunctional for your concerns to be realised".
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
The EU is simultaneously on a path to being a superstate, and contains too many competing interests to make that work easily.
The funniest part of Cameron's deal was that ever closer union was not to apply to the UK. Which was a somewhat bizarre situation. Either ever closer union was bollocks or we'd just created a semi-detached tier of EU membership which, presumably, some other countries would also find appealing (e.g. Sweden carefully avoiding the Euro). Just words, of course, but with a bit more commitment on all sides it could perhaps have turned into something interesting.
I think that "Ever Closer Union" has turned out to be far less "just words" than was expected, certainly by the UK.
I was referring to the bit about it not applying to the UK. Just words, but actually, for those committed to ever closer union, an important set of words. More of a concession than it appeared, I think. Once (if) integrationists accept the idea that ever closer union is not a thing - or, at least, not a universal thing for all members of the EU - then there was scope to get creative about what the EU (or trading arrangments under a differently named body) could mean.
But anyway, that boat sailed.
Aside from immigration, which Cameron never saw as a priority issue, Cammo’s deal was an excellent one for the UK. More fool us for turning it down.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
How has Putin benefitted in Ukraine from the UK leaving the EU? Surely his position would have been better if the UK had been tied to an EU position by majority voting, rather than having us be a powerful and noisy force in NATO?
Putin wants fragmentation. Drive wedges between the NATO members who are also EU members. The fall of the UK in terms of both military power and diplomatic reach weakens the rest of the EU, as does internal divisions over things like energy supplies.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
We’d nevertheless be safer with a PM interested in more than his own self preservation.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
I'm definitely on your list of petulant sniping but then again most people are. Having a clown laughed at by the major powers as PM does not help us. Having smashed our armed forces does not help us. Isolating ourselves diplomatically by replacing big block membership with nothing does not help us.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
The US UK and Nato are all on the same page, pity France and Germany are not
Strange. I could have sworn that France and Germany are Nato members.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
How has Putin benefitted in Ukraine from the UK leaving the EU? Surely his position would have been better if the UK had been tied to an EU position by majority voting, rather than having us be a powerful and noisy force in NATO?
Putin wants fragmentation. Drive wedges between the NATO members who are also EU members. The fall of the UK in terms of both military power and diplomatic reach weakens the rest of the EU, as does internal divisions over things like energy supplies.
That's right. 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.'
The UK became an enemy of the EU, which became weaker as a result.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
We’d nevertheless be safer with a PM interested in more than his own self preservation.
Again, not helpful
I want Boris replaced but sniping at each other is not the best action at present and to be fair to Starmer he is very much supporting Boris on this
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
They have not. Different parliament, electoral mandate asked for and given to then and the SGs, driven in large part by the lies of Cameron and Co during the refertendum (vote No to stay in the EU and all that).
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
They have not. Different parliament, electoral mandate asked for and given to then and the SGs, driven in large part by the lies of Cameron and Co during the refertendum (vote No to stay in the EU and all that).
A Scottish Parliament election cannot give a mandate for a referendum (or independence) as the constitution is a reserved matter.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
They have not. Different parliament, electoral mandate asked for and given to then and the SGs, driven in large part by the lies of Cameron and Co during the refertendum (vote No to stay in the EU and all that).
You know when someone starts weasel wording ‘implicit’ into an argument that the game’s a bogey.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
I'm definitely on your list of petulant sniping but then again most people are. Having a clown laughed at by the major powers as PM does not help us. Having smashed our armed forces does not help us. Isolating ourselves diplomatically by replacing big block membership with nothing does not help us.
I think on this most people are not
It is far too serious and you look just full of angst largely over your perceived differences over brexit and maybe concern that within the EU, member states appreciate the lead the UK along with the US is giving as independent third countries
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
The US UK and Nato are all on the same page, pity France and Germany are not
Strange. I could have sworn that France and Germany are Nato members.
They are and their stance on this is not on the same page
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
I'm definitely on your list of petulant sniping but then again most people are. Having a clown laughed at by the major powers as PM does not help us. Having smashed our armed forces does not help us. Isolating ourselves diplomatically by replacing big block membership with nothing does not help us.
I think on this most people are not
It is far too serious and you look just full of angst largely over your perceived differences over brexit and maybe concern that within the EU, member states appreciate the lead the UK along with the US is giving as independent third countries
Just checking, does describing Germany and France as ‘appeasing’ Russia count as petulant sniping?
Comedian whinging all over R4 PM about "Caulk" on Wordle.
"No one would know it unless they were in the painter/decorator profession."
(plainspeaking) No, dear, it is not known to people who sit on their bottoms and are rich enough to pay interior designers and tradespeople to decorate their houses. It costs £1.12 a tube in B&Q. (/plainspeaking)
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
We’d nevertheless be safer with a PM interested in more than his own self preservation.
Again, not helpful
I want Boris replaced but sniping at each other is not the best action at present and to be fair to Starmer he is very much supporting Boris on this
You are clearly more relaxed about our country being represented on the international stage by this dishonest narcissistic numpty than I am. But then you actually voted for him (despite warning us for months about his weaknesses), whereas I did not.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
I'm definitely on your list of petulant sniping but then again most people are. Having a clown laughed at by the major powers as PM does not help us. Having smashed our armed forces does not help us. Isolating ourselves diplomatically by replacing big block membership with nothing does not help us.
I think on this most people are not
It is far too serious and you look just full of angst largely over your perceived differences over brexit and maybe concern that within the EU, member states appreciate the lead the UK along with the US is giving as independent third countries
Just checking, does describing Germany and France as ‘appeasing’ Russia count as petulant sniping?
I would suggest the person best qualified to answer your question on this is the Ukraine president
God bless those people who one day moan about the EU becoming a superstate with its own foreign and defence policy and the next day complain about various EU nations having their own independent foreign and defence policies.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
They have not. Different parliament, electoral mandate asked for and given to then and the SGs, driven in large part by the lies of Cameron and Co during the refertendum (vote No to stay in the EU and all that).
A Scottish Parliament election cannot give a mandate for a referendum (or independence) as the constitution is a reserved matter.
I want to ask a hypothetical. Suppose a vast majority of people in Scotland wanted independence. Let's say 75% in favour to make it totally unambiguous. What should happen?
Technically a majority Conservative UK government could refuse it even if 99% wanted it and independence.
Though it might be a little more difficult practically to enforce that than the roughly 50% for 50% against in Scotland now
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
Not really. I am as sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainian people as the next PB’er, and would bet that I am better read on the subject than most. But even in the worst case that Russia finds a way of subjecting Ukraine to its influence or even its rule, the world isn’t going to end and the direct consequences for us will be a marginal.
In terms of our own lives the economic and political events at home are the things we should be focusing on.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
We’d nevertheless be safer with a PM interested in more than his own self preservation.
Again, not helpful
I want Boris replaced but sniping at each other is not the best action at present and to be fair to Starmer he is very much supporting Boris on this
You are clearly more relaxed about our country being represented on the international stage by this dishonest narcissistic numpty than I am. But then you actually voted for him (despite warning us for months about his weaknesses), whereas I did not.
On this there is no choice and yes I voted conservative in 2019 and upto Paterson and partygate etc he had my support as he took us out of EU and handled covid well
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
We’d nevertheless be safer with a PM interested in more than his own self preservation.
Again, not helpful
I want Boris replaced but sniping at each other is not the best action at present and to be fair to Starmer he is very much supporting Boris on this
You are clearly more relaxed about our country being represented on the international stage by this dishonest narcissistic numpty than I am. But then you actually voted for him (despite warning us for months about his weaknesses), whereas I did not.
On this there is no choice and yes I voted conservative in 2019 and upto Paterson and partygate etc he had my support as he took us out of EU and handled covid well
Taking us out of the EU in the way that he did was a disastrous mistake, and he didn’t handle covid well at all.
God bless those people who one day moan about the EU becoming a superstate with its own foreign and defence policy and the next day complain about various EU nations having their own independent foreign and defence policies.
1. We're leaving the EU because we don't want to be part of the superstate it's heading towards, with its own army and all that - and the UK would hold it back. We want our own sovereignty, thanks. So we're off.
2. The EU is fucking useless. Why hasn't it got its own army, and a unified defence and foreign policy? What makes the French and the Germans think they're entitled to any sovereignty? Good job we left.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
The US UK and Nato are all on the same page, pity France and Germany are not
Strange. I could have sworn that France and Germany are Nato members.
Yes, but consider eg Macron's words on NATO:
President Emmanuel Macron of France has described Nato as "brain dead", stressing what he sees as waning commitment to the transatlantic alliance by its main guarantor, the US. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50335257
There *are* different attitudes, and a lot of politics overlaying. Mons. Macron wants to build up the concept of an EU army patterned on the French view, and defined over against NATO, and what he calls the Anglosphere.
There are other politics elsewhere - Merkel has pursued a version of Ostpolitik, and certain of the wheels have come off it. But there are still parts of the German coalition (mainly SPD) that are more attached to the previous view.
US-UK-Canada, Scandis, the EUs frontline states, and some Mediterraneans have a more robust view.
Despite all of that there is much more practical alignment than even say 3 months ago.
Overlaid on that for us are tensions about Brexit or opposition to Brexit, and a political need to diss BJ and the UK for some, which means soft-pedalling any critique of Brussels or Macron. I'm not keen on Boris, but I do tend to hold up the UK view on Brexit.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
Not really. I am as sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainian people as the next PB’er, and would bet that I am better read on the subject than most. But even in the worst case that Russia finds a way of subjecting Ukraine to its influence or even its rule, the world isn’t going to end and the direct consequences for us will be a marginal.
In terms of our own lives the economic and political events at home are the things we should be focusing on.
I too am sympathetic to Ukraine, however it is crazy to go to war with Russia over it. Not least because there is no chance of us giving significant military support.
If support stops short of anything military, how does that differ from other countries such as the USA?
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
Not really. I am as sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainian people as the next PB’er, and would bet that I am better read on the subject than most. But even in the worst case that Russia finds a way of subjecting Ukraine to its influence or even its rule, the world isn’t going to end and the direct consequences for us will be a marginal.
In terms of our own lives the economic and political events at home are the things we should be focusing on.
I cannot believe you say you are better read on the subject and blandly suggest Russia taking over Ukraine is only a marginal event for us
The millions of Ukrainians escaping into Europe would be a crisis of immense proportions, and the consequences for the Baltic states and their security immense
Boris will be gone but the ramifications of a Russian invasion or takeover of Ukraine will impact Europe for decades
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
They have not. Different parliament, electoral mandate asked for and given to then and the SGs, driven in large part by the lies of Cameron and Co during the refertendum (vote No to stay in the EU and all that).
A Scottish Parliament election cannot give a mandate for a referendum (or independence) as the constitution is a reserved matter.
I want to ask a hypothetical. Suppose a vast majority of people in Scotland wanted independence. Let's say 75% in favour to make it totally unambiguous. What should happen?
Technically a majority Conservative UK government could refuse it even if 99% wanted it and independence.
Though it might be a little more difficult practically to enforce that than the roughly 50% for 50% against in Scotland now
This is actually a very important hyufd post with that second paragraph caveating things and the opening being 'technicall'.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
The US UK and Nato are all on the same page, pity France and Germany are not
Strange. I could have sworn that France and Germany are Nato members.
Yes, but consider eg Macron's words on NATO:
President Emmanuel Macron of France has described Nato as "brain dead", stressing what he sees as waning commitment to the transatlantic alliance by its main guarantor, the US. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50335257
There *are* different attitudes, and a lot of politics overlaying. Mons. Macron wants to build up the concept of an EU army patterned on the French view, and defined over against NATO, and what he calls the Anglosphere.
There are other politics elsewhere - Merkel has pursued a version of Ostpolitik, and certain of the wheels have come off it. But there are still parts of the German coalition (mainly SPD) that are more attached to the previous view.
US-UK-Canada, Scandis, the EUs frontline states, and some Mediterraneans have a more robust view.
Despite all of that there is much more practical alignment than even say 3 months ago.
Overlaid on that for us are tensions about Brexit or opposition to Brexit, and a political need to diss BJ and the UK for some. I'm not keen on Boris, but I do tend to hold up the UK view on Brexit.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs. We now have a Tory majority government.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
But there is a pro-referendum majority at Holyrood now. So you are misleading on that.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
Implicit in paragraph 30, since both sides were clear before the referendum that it was once in a generation.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
They have not. Different parliament, electoral mandate asked for and given to then and the SGs, driven in large part by the lies of Cameron and Co during the refertendum (vote No to stay in the EU and all that).
A Scottish Parliament election cannot give a mandate for a referendum (or independence) as the constitution is a reserved matter.
Mandate doesn't really mean anything anyway the way people use it.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
Not really. I am as sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainian people as the next PB’er, and would bet that I am better read on the subject than most. But even in the worst case that Russia finds a way of subjecting Ukraine to its influence or even its rule, the world isn’t going to end and the direct consequences for us will be a marginal.
In terms of our own lives the economic and political events at home are the things we should be focusing on.
Eh?
Farooq's analysis was simply that it is the Russians who are behaving badly. Others may be foolish or weak, but it is them who are threatening to invade another country.
And I really don't think you need to read any more into his piece than that.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
How has Putin benefitted in Ukraine from the UK leaving the EU? Surely his position would have been better if the UK had been tied to an EU position by majority voting, rather than having us be a powerful and noisy force in NATO?
Putin wants fragmentation. Drive wedges between the NATO members who are also EU members. The fall of the UK in terms of both military power and diplomatic reach weakens the rest of the EU, as does internal divisions over things like energy supplies.
That's right. 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.'
The UK became an enemy of the EU, which became weaker as a result.
My enemy's enemy is my friend - the policy of idiots who can't read history.
It leads to maths like this
a) Bosnian Muslims + West = Friends. b) Serbs + Bosnia Muslims = Enemies c) The West = my enemy.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
Not really. I am as sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainian people as the next PB’er, and would bet that I am better read on the subject than most. But even in the worst case that Russia finds a way of subjecting Ukraine to its influence or even its rule, the world isn’t going to end and the direct consequences for us will be a marginal.
In terms of our own lives the economic and political events at home are the things we should be focusing on.
Standing up for Ukraine as part of an international coalition aimed at opposing Russian aggression is one thing.
What Johnson and Truss are doing is beyond that, which would be fine if they could back up their actions with hardware and hard cash.
They cannot. Post covid Britain is a debt laden, economically misfiring paper tiger. We cannot cash these cheques. Johnson can no more fulfill commitments to eastern EU states than he can to anyone else. They will just join the ever lengthening list of the let down.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
I think it's seen not so much as 30 (not 40) 5p bits but more as the Temptation by Satan. But equally even Tories have their standards, from their point of view. Can you ever see Mr Johnson ever allowing a referendum? He'd have to do some work and to keep his tongue under total control.
I would support a VONC in any Tory leader and PM who allowed an indyref2, as I expect would most Tory MPs and members.
If the only way a Tory government can stay in power is with SNP support we should go into opposition. There is zero chance the SNP would do a deal with the Tories anyway
But you didn’t vonc Cameron, and he did it?
Cameron was not leading a Tory majority government in 2014, it was a coalition with the LDs.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed such a referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed
Thanks for clearing that up on behalf of the Tory party. 🙂 Our ScotNats mostly still ruminating if it’s worth a brief sinful affair in return for another crack at independence, as they are so quiet responding to this.
All on topic by the way!
HYfud talking bollox as ever, given the SNP and Greens have a majority in Holyrood, they would be signing their death warrant if they had any kind of formal alliance with Tories.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
Hard to disagree with this analysis.
I disagree with @Farooq 's analysis. And I can point to Kyiv on map.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
So, PB managed to turn the Russian-Ukrainian contretemps into an excuse to argue about Brexit and Scotland?
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
I believe there is a formal equation stating that as the length of a thread increases the changes of Scotland or Brexit being mentioned increases exponentially until it becomes a mathematical certainty.
Breaking: Ukraine, the UK and Poland announce a creation of a trilateral alliance during the UK foreign secretary @trussliz visit to Kyiv. Countries will cooperate in the areas of defense, economy, trade and countering disinformation. More information to follow soon
Is it? That rather depends on what the terms of the arrangement are.
UK standing with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States in a way France and Germany are not
Yes you have hit the nail on the head Big G. That’s the mental bit. We need to be standing, voicing and acting in Union on these things don’t we?
Why is that mental?
Or should we just offer Putin Schleswig-Holstein, for traditions sake?
Because if his plan all along is to split - first making us gas junkies, then sabre rattling - where there is more impact us all acting as one against him, it means he’s winning. Do you see my point?
Well, unanimity in sacrificing Ukraine will only mean that Putin moves onto the Baltics. Ask @Cicero....
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
If Putin’s design is to split us - like with how much money and resources Putin pumped into cheap gas pipelines and allegedly into securing Brexit vote he wanted, and now people as moderate and sensible as Big G are posting on here delighted we are split from EU allies, Putin’s useful idiots and traitors - straight away I’m not comfortable with that. We shouldn’t be should we? If What is ranged against him is weaker going forward?
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
Putin has spent a long time and a lot of money undermining western societies. Having us all fighting with each other is precisely what his money was trying to achieve.
This is true, which is why over this I tend to think twice over dishing criticism too liberally over this issue. I think the UK has got it more right than Germany, but I don't think it's helpful to be attacking anyone other than Russia right now. The eagerness with which some people are seizing upon this situation to attack Boris, Macron, the EU, Ukraine, Biden, NATO, etc. is a disturbing sign. It feels like arguing over whose deckchair is whose on the deck of a ship when we're at risk of hitting an iceberg. Lift your eyes up, people. If you think this crisis is useful ammunition in your longstanding grudge against [whoever], you're not seeing the big picture.
Which is not to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made here, but most of the criticisms I see on here about this are low-energy partisan snipes by people who probably couldn't even point to Kyiv on a map.
We’d nevertheless be safer with a PM interested in more than his own self preservation.
Again, not helpful
I want Boris replaced but sniping at each other is not the best action at present and to be fair to Starmer he is very much supporting Boris on this
You are clearly more relaxed about our country being represented on the international stage by this dishonest narcissistic numpty than I am. But then you actually voted for him (despite warning us for months about his weaknesses), whereas I did not.
On this there is no choice and yes I voted conservative in 2019 and upto Paterson and partygate etc he had my support as he took us out of EU and handled covid well
Taking us out of the EU in the way that he did was a disastrous mistake, and he didn’t handle covid well at all.
Comments
Unanimity is nice. But stopping people from re-drawing maps with guns is more important.
If we are going to live in a world where re-drawing the maps with guns is cool, I have a list of territorial demands of my own.
Don't worry - they are absolutely my last set of demands.
The SNP had also won a Holyrood majority in 2011, there is no such SNP majority at Holyrood now.
The 2014 referendum was held on the basis it would be a 'once in a generation referendum.' Any Tory PM who allowed an indyref2 referendum before such a generation elapsed and did a deal with the SNP would not be fit to serve and must be removed.
We are standing in union with the nations that are willing to do so. That the Germans and French aren't willing to do so should be to their eternal shame, but we absolutely should not allow those to hold us back from unity with the likes of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States.
If countries like Germany and France want to abdicate social responsibility and absent themselves from the free world that's their prerogative. We are doing the right thing though.
We either negotiate a peace or we demonstrate we mean business. Preferably both.
Can you point to the specifics where I am wrong about the Conservative Party being in the pockets of Russian oligarchs? I can point both to their donations to the central party and to various MPs. Temerko himself turned up at a hustings in 2015 as he was doing a door of all his candidates to see how his money was being spent...
Quite why this should be presented as an enticement to membership remains beyond me.
All on topic by the way!
A European nation with a European demos is an entirely reasonable thing to have, if that's what people want.
A collection of European nations, all with the own decision making, is also entirely reasonable, if that's what people want.
But instead the EU is a mish-mash where it adopts superstate elements like the Euro, but without the demos, the democratic oversight, or the rest of the powers etc it needs to make decisions and to make it work.
Hence why I have previously described the EU as sclerotic, instead of an agile independent nation like Britain. Because its too dysfunctional, yet it has those elements that its already got, but dysfunctionally controlled. That isn't a good thing.
1) Provide weapons to Ukraine
2) Support them diplomatically
3) Threaten a wide range of sanctions if Russia invades
4) Rule out direct military intervention.
If the Conservative party is in the pockets of Putin allied Russian Oligarchs, they seem to be getting less than nothing for their money.
Temerko , incidentally is *extremely* anti-Putin.
(1) Inflation is - fundamentally - a response to demand outstripping supply. To bring them back into balance, wages increase, which both brings people back into the workforce, and demand falls. We should be keener on the first that than the second, and it's important the policy response is calibrated to that.
(2) Rising wages will mean rising prices. Wage costs - whether in your local grocery store, or Amazon or Macdonalds - are passed on, or businesses go out of business. This is fine for those benefiting from higher wages, but will be less fun for those on fixed incomes.
(3) So far, the willingness of Central Banks to use interest rates to counter inflation has been minimal. It is generally considered (not without merit) that worldwide labour shortages are mostly transitory in nature as Covid recedes, and the spike in commodity prices is also likely to recede as drilling returns in the US. However, it is entirely possible that that attitude changes - especially if rising inflation means increased current account deficits.
...discuss...
If there was enthusiasm and an agreement was made for common foreign policy, then I think the general dysfunctionality and too many cooks would make it, in practice, fairly slow and toothless, as we saw with the vaccine situation. Fudge served up for every international situation.
So, I was only content being in the EU due to my perception of the lack of apetite. If I really thought it would be attempted then I think it would have been a bit of a disaster and good reason to be out.
And you are also wrong on indiyref 1 being held on a generation basis. Where does it say that in the Edinburgh Agreement? As you have been asked very many times.
And the British PM has called shelling on a school in Russian held area an obvious false flag.
I still say Starmer is in trouble how to respond to this at PMQs. Boris and Biden claiming victory for any Russian withdraw because of the stance they took would be at most politest: unproven - so Starmer could be both wrong as nodding dog or head shaking Putin puppet. 😁
I seem to remember exactly the same declaration after the Salisbury attack. With little or no impact.
And now the same again. Don't blame me if I'm not convinced.
Are we not influencing France and Germany enough because we’ve brexited? Genuine question that and deserves more than insults when asked.
It may be that the Western parts of Russia there are ethnically Polish, unless either a) Stalin expelled the population, or b) Stalin deported all of them elsewhere in the USSR (a la Cossacks) or killed them. Not sure off the top of my head what the actions were exactly. I think some stayed and some moved West into the new messy.
Plus Germans were expelled en masse from new and existing Polish areas, though there would perhaps be a mix between those who had been there for a long time and new ones imported by Hitler.
This was by agreement between the allies at the Yalta Conference (?). All very messy.
Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_population_transfers_(1944–1946)#:~:text=The Polish population transfers in,was ratified by the Allies.
In the same vein, I had an idea a while ago to democratise the HOL, by tying peerages awarded to proportion of votes at the last GE. If the SNP refused their peerages, once again they would be placed in a position of refusing representation for Scotland. If they took them, it would sit very uncomfortably with many (if not most) of their supporters. What would they do? Probably refuse, and again give the other parties ammunition to say that they're deliberately wasting chances to give Scotland a bigger say at Westminster.
The Euro, as we've seen, comes under strain because there's a bit too much* national autonomy (or countries that were too different were allowed to join).
*too much to make the Euro work well for everyone, not saying that national autonomy is a bad thing
Quite simply, the attitude is that it's Putin's playground and he should be allowed to do whatever.
It's comes down to the problem of what happens next. If the Sudetenland *had* been the last territorial demand, would that have been right?
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1494351580296007687?t=Q3myJNnQh0vS_2YNrTf4Ow&s=19
@iainmartin1
Spring coming. Sun shining. The city is full of young families on trips flocking to museums, sights. London is back. The place is surging with energy and optimism again. Great to see.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1
===
Is @Leon really Iain Martin? We should be told!
The Sudeten Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, for example. Or the Italians inside the new Yugoslavia. This was accompanied by massive efforts to erase the histories of the groups in question - towns renamed, churches demolished etc etc.
Its that the real intention of Johnson and Truss here? undermine the club? If so, its a dangerous and foolish game I reckon.
I wonder why?
But anyway, that boat sailed.
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/1494363825856000007
Ultimately there is the EU, and there is the trading block. Our unique piece of genius is that having largely set up and driven the creation of the trading block and opted out of the worst of the ever closer union, we've now flounced from the lot.
Having spent decades removing red tape and abolishing trade barriers we have voluntarily reinstalled them having persuaded people that the trading block is the ever closer union. Which of course it isn't and never was.
They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome.
The SNP have clearly broken this part of the agreement.
The UK became an enemy of the EU, which became weaker as a result.
I want Boris replaced but sniping at each other is not the best action at present and to be fair to Starmer he is very much supporting Boris on this
It is far too serious and you look just full of angst largely over your perceived differences over brexit and maybe concern that within the EU, member states appreciate the lead the UK along with the US is giving as independent third countries
Comedian whinging all over R4 PM about "Caulk" on Wordle.
"No one would know it unless they were in the painter/decorator profession."
(plainspeaking)
No, dear, it is not known to people who sit on their bottoms and are rich enough to pay interior designers and tradespeople to decorate their houses. It costs £1.12 a tube in B&Q.
(/plainspeaking)
Though it might be a little more difficult practically to enforce that than the roughly 50% for 50% against in Scotland now
"Guess what? The Spectator now sells more copies than The Guardian. @spectator up 16% to an all-time high of 106,900. Congratulations to @FraserNelson, @afneil, @JGForsyth,@IsabelHardman, @KateAndrs, @toadmeister, @questingvole, @JamesDelingpole and most of all Mary Killen!"
https://twitter.com/harryph/status/1494364220451954694?s=20&t=JFgVkr5MUPJmJfjIkabEHQ
In terms of our own lives the economic and political events at home are the things we should be focusing on.
2. The EU is fucking useless. Why hasn't it got its own army, and a unified defence and foreign policy? What makes the French and the Germans think they're entitled to any sovereignty? Good job we left.
President Emmanuel Macron of France has described Nato as "brain dead", stressing what he sees as waning commitment to the transatlantic alliance by its main guarantor, the US.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50335257
There *are* different attitudes, and a lot of politics overlaying. Mons. Macron wants to build up the concept of an EU army patterned on the French view, and defined over against NATO, and what he calls the Anglosphere.
There are other politics elsewhere - Merkel has pursued a version of Ostpolitik, and certain of the wheels have come off it. But there are still parts of the German coalition (mainly SPD) that are more attached to the previous view.
US-UK-Canada, Scandis, the EUs frontline states, and some Mediterraneans have a more robust view.
Despite all of that there is much more practical alignment than even say 3 months ago.
Overlaid on that for us are tensions about Brexit or opposition to Brexit, and a political need to diss BJ and the UK for some, which means soft-pedalling any critique of Brussels or Macron. I'm not keen on Boris, but I do tend to hold up the UK view on Brexit.
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
If support stops short of anything military, how does that differ from other countries such as the USA?
The millions of Ukrainians escaping into Europe would be a crisis of immense proportions, and the consequences for the Baltic states and their security immense
Boris will be gone but the ramifications of a Russian invasion or takeover of Ukraine will impact Europe for decades
Farooq's analysis was simply that it is the Russians who are behaving badly. Others may be foolish or weak, but it is them who are threatening to invade another country.
And I really don't think you need to read any more into his piece than that.
It leads to maths like this
a) Bosnian Muslims + West = Friends.
b) Serbs + Bosnia Muslims = Enemies
c) The West = my enemy.
Therefore - I am a friend of Arkan.
What Johnson and Truss are doing is beyond that, which would be fine if they could back up their actions with hardware and hard cash.
They cannot. Post covid Britain is a debt laden, economically misfiring paper tiger. We cannot cash these cheques. Johnson can no more fulfill commitments to eastern EU states than he can to anyone else. They will just join the ever lengthening list of the let down.
What Russia is doing over Crimea, Luhansk & Donetsk is not any different to what Britain did over Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh & Tyrone.
In fact, Russia probably has a far better claim to these territories than Britain to the Six Counties.
We should sort out our own dreadful record first. Then we will have earned the right to lecture Russia.
And I love the way pb.com has recently discovered there was a famine in the Ukraine and this was genocide. (Pretty sure it was wider than the Ukraine).
I have never, ever heard anyone on pb.com refer to the Irish Genocide of 1845-1849 or the Bengal Genocide of 1943-1945.
pb.com is in the mood for a lynching.
Also, nice use of contretemps.