So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
Your reminder. Taiwan is not the Ukraine. If the PRC thought it could re-take Taiwan it would have done so long ago. It isn't just rolling some tanks in.
Your reminder x2.
China probably feels more strongly towards Taiwan than Russia does towards the Ukraine but is in no hurry. As to it would have done so long ago that is not so as we are seeing year by year it grow stronger. If you think China has reached the end of (its) history it is only just warming up.
As for IDS's point via @HYUFD such is the strength of feeling towards Taiwan and as their self-regarded Middle Kingdom, China likely doesn't care what anyone else thinks about Ukraine wrt Taiwan. Their calculations will be coldly pragmatic.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
I’m not the expert, but the simple answer is no.
The slightly longer answer is that Ukraine’s borders were designed in the Soviet Union era and reflected imperial priorities at the time, rather than notions of national identity. But see Kenya’s response at the UNSC to that.
Presumably they've seen the levels of dosh available to the likes of Joe Rogan and concluded they could do likewise.
I’m not convinced of the economics of podcasting. I think very few will make it work long-term. Even pros like David Runciman have given up.
It's very easy to start up and have a go though. You don't need a major investment. It's not obvious beforehand who will do well. Generally, though, the successful ones seem to be those which offer some level of humour and/or some level of insight greater than there is space for in the MSM. I'm not sure Maitlis/Sopel fall into that category. Though I may be being unduly harsh.
Presumably they've seen the levels of dosh available to the likes of Joe Rogan and concluded they could do likewise.
Not quite, they aren't going out alone, they have been signed up by "Global", the people who own LBC, Heart, Capital. They have signed a number of BBC people over the past few months e.g. Andrew Marr, after they bought a podcasting company in 2021. So its a play by Global to get into the podcasting space.
If it works out not is a different matter.
LOL, so moving from one six-figure corporate paycheck to another six-figure corporate paycheck, not actually taking any business risk of finding subscribers who want to watch their output.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
Presumably they've seen the levels of dosh available to the likes of Joe Rogan and concluded they could do likewise.
Krystal and Saagar are doing well with their Breaking Points show - but they are primarily making their money from subscriptions, and the US market is five times the size of the UK market. Oh, and they already had a huge personal audience from their show on The Hill.
Who will be subscribing to The Maitlis and Sopel Show?
Another reason Breaking Points is popular, is a bit like Rogan, they are seen as outsiders to the establishment of CNN etc. Also, its two people who have naturally different political outlooks, but can agree and disagree on a case by case basis, without resorting to screaming and shouting.
Maitlis and Sopel are both soft left, anti-Tory, anti-Brexit, anti-Trump. Two people talking to one another that will agree on basically everything.
Sanctions on five Russian banks and three "high net worth individuals" Gennady Timchenko, a billionaire who controls the Volga Group, Boris Rotenberg, co-owners of SMP Bank, and his nephew Igor Rotenberg, all already sanctioned by US
Five Russian banks to be sanctioned by UK - Rossiya (which has been important investor in Crimea), IS Bank, General Bank, Promsvyazbank, and the Black Sea Bank
Fortunately, at the moment, both the military action and the sanctions remain at a relatively 'pathetic' level. We know, they know, and we know they know (etc. etc.) that both could be ratcheted up if things progress from bad to worse. The immediate imposition of sanctions that could bring Russia to its knees may not be as easy or as straightforward as some might think. And it may not work in the manner intended.
After criticising Germany for doing nothing about their dependence on Russian gas a few days back, this tends to him look hypocritical as well as weak. And as has been pointed out, there is clearly cross party support for stronger measures.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
People arguing NS2 suspension is only temporary don’t understand German politics. Inertial forces are gigantic. Once you move to a new position it would take a dramatic improvement to create conditions for a reversal. Do you see Putin reverting yesterday’s declaration?
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Presumably they've seen the levels of dosh available to the likes of Joe Rogan and concluded they could do likewise.
Krystal and Saagar are doing well with their Breaking Points show - but they are primarily making their money from subscriptions, and the US market is five times the size of the UK market. Oh, and they already had a huge personal audience from their show on The Hill.
Who will be subscribing to The Maitlis and Sopel Show?
Another reason Breaking Points is popular, is a bit like Rogan, they are seen as outsiders to the establishment of CNN etc. Also, its two people who have naturally different political outlooks, but can agree and disagree on a case by case basis, without resorting to screaming and shouting.
Indeed. They are something of an antidote to the terrible US cable news shows, which thanks to OFCOM haven’t really yet crossed the Pond.
After criticising Germany for doing nothing about their dependence on Russian gas a few days back, this tends to him look hypocritical as well as weak. And as has been pointed out, there is clearly cross party support for stronger measures.
BoZo has fluffed it
Growing criticism from MPs over scale of UK sanctions, including Tories
Iain Duncan Smith says Russia should be hit “hard” + “now”. “They need to feel the pain”
Britain's supposedly tough new sanctions regime is less robust than that of the US and would only catch 13 out of 35 oligarchs on Navalny's list, according to legal advice cited by @margarethodge. Boris Johnson disputes this. Interesting. Who is right? https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1496109751544991744
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
He's paid by the Russian government, whatever Companies House tells you.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.
Poland probably has a better claim than Russia. Eastern Ukraine was controlled by Russia for a century before the Russian revolution but they never had any legitimate claim to the West which passed from Polish control to the Hapsburg Empire.
It would be possible to say they had a tenuous claim to Crimea. That belonged to Russia (as opposed to just the USSR) from 1783 until it was given by Stalin to the Ukraine in 1954. Before it was Russian it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Hence the reason ethnic Ukrainians make up only 15% of the population.
None of this justifies what Putin did in 2014 nor what he is doing now. Ukraine was established as an independent state within defined borders under treaties signed by Russia. There is no justification for reneging on those promises now.
Your reminder. Taiwan is not the Ukraine. If the PRC thought it could re-take Taiwan it would have done so long ago. It isn't just rolling some tanks in.
Your reminder x2.
China probably feels more strongly towards Taiwan than Russia does towards the Ukraine but is in no hurry. As to it would have done so long ago that is not so as we are seeing year by year it grow stronger. If you think China has reached the end of (its) history it is only just warming up.
As for IDS's point via @HYUFD such is the strength of feeling towards Taiwan and as their self-regarded Middle Kingdom, China likely doesn't care what anyone else thinks about Ukraine wrt Taiwan. Their calculations will be coldly pragmatic.
Oh indeed. What happens in Taiwan is not really related to what goes on in Ukraine at all. The PRC is getting stronger, yes. But it isn't there yet. But every year Taiwan is drifting away from regarding itself as Chinese at all. Making the task more difficult.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Actually, withdrawing the broadcasting licence of RT would be quite a good sanction.
My own suspicion is that Boris wanted to be first out of the blocks, but can’t do much more than what he’s announced without US co-operation.
Also, he can’t really open up the can of worms that is the Russo-Tory-Brexit nexus without reputational risk to his own party and project, so that’s best left alone.
Your reminder. Taiwan is not the Ukraine. If the PRC thought it could re-take Taiwan it would have done so long ago. It isn't just rolling some tanks in.
China's single minded foreign policy objective for at least the past twenty years has been to displace the US as the World's Number One Hegemon. Once it has done that, at least in the Far East, probably five to ten years away, the Chinese leader, which depressingly might still be Xi Jinping, will call the people in Taipei to have a "chat".
Unless something goes wrong. But nothing has gone wrong with that plan so far.
Presumably they've seen the levels of dosh available to the likes of Joe Rogan and concluded they could do likewise.
Krystal and Saagar are doing well with their Breaking Points show - but they are primarily making their money from subscriptions, and the US market is five times the size of the UK market. Oh, and they already had a huge personal audience from their show on The Hill.
Who will be subscribing to The Maitlis and Sopel Show?
Another reason Breaking Points is popular, is a bit like Rogan, they are seen as outsiders to the establishment of CNN etc. Also, its two people who have naturally different political outlooks, but can agree and disagree on a case by case basis, without resorting to screaming and shouting.
Indeed. They are something of an antidote to the terrible US cable news shows, which thanks to OFCOM haven’t really yet crossed the Pond.
Where a lot of these mainstream names don't understand the internet (why they do piss poor on the internet despite name recognition e.g. Owen Jones) is the way to succeed is either a) to be an absolute expert in a particular field, b) massive volume or (unfortunately) c) be massively extreme / whacky.
A lot of these people from mainstream aren't experts, don't do the volume and by their nature are quite predictable in their response to everything. So they think an hour or two a week is plenty, because well everybody knows me off the BBC.
People arguing NS2 suspension is only temporary don’t understand German politics. Inertial forces are gigantic. Once you move to a new position it would take a dramatic improvement to create conditions for a reversal. Do you see Putin reverting yesterday’s declaration?
Sounds like a pause for today an unpause on a different tomorrow not cancellation to me, however Germany wish to spin it. Last week the German leadership were in Ukraine urging the Ukraine government to surrender that territory to Putin - hence we arn’t shocked they merely paused Nord2 until a day they can unpause.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Actually, withdrawing the broadcasting licence of RT would be quite a good sanction.
They’re already on a final warning from OFCOM, over the impartiality of their coverage of the Skripal case. Won’t take much more to have them stripped of their broadcast licence.
I wonder if today was a nail in the coffin for Boris. Nevermind partygate, Peppapig and all the other recent embarrassments. If he can't even deliver a coherent foreign policy speech then what's he for?
Get those letters in, and maybe the time is opportune for Tugendhat or Mordaunt. Truss counted herself out with the humiliation in Moscow, and Rishi feels like someone more suited to peacetime.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
People arguing NS2 suspension is only temporary don’t understand German politics. Inertial forces are gigantic. Once you move to a new position it would take a dramatic improvement to create conditions for a reversal. Do you see Putin reverting yesterday’s declaration?
Sounds like a pause for today an unpause on a different tomorrow not cancellation to me, however Germany wish to spin it. Last week the German leadership were in Ukraine urging the Ukraine government to surrender that territory to Putin - hence we arn’t shocked they merely paused Nord2 until a day they can unpause.
Surely it makes sense to pause, rather than cancel, the project? That way the Germans still have the carrot of reopening to wave at Putin. Cancelling would simply remove that option from their arsenal without giving them any advantages.
And I don't believe for a moment that "the German leadership were in Ukraine urging the Ukraine government to surrender that territory to Putin". Where did you read that?
My own suspicion is that Boris wanted to be first out of the blocks, but can’t do much more than what he’s announced without US co-operation.
Also, he can’t really open up the can of worms that is the Russo-Tory-Brexit nexus without reputational risk to his own party and project, so that’s best left alone.
I agree with all that post. But it’s not coming without personal cost to him though, is it. His share price is even lower after this announcement. 🤷♀️
Britain's supposedly tough new sanctions regime is less robust than that of the US and would only catch 13 out of 35 oligarchs on Navalny's list, according to legal advice cited by @margarethodge. Boris Johnson disputes this. Interesting. Who is right? https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1496109751544991744
You've got to hope more measures to follow.
Hats what has been said and SKS said he supported that approach.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Actually, withdrawing the broadcasting licence of RT would be quite a good sanction.
They’re already on a final warning from OFCOM, over the impartiality of their coverage of the Skripal case. Won’t take much more to have them stripped of their broadcast licence.
However, that isn't something the PM can announce in the House unilaterally - it's Ofcom's decision.
Can you imagine the howls of outrage from the Tory haters if he "trampled on Ofcom's independence"?
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.
Poland probably has a better claim than Russia. Eastern Ukraine was controlled by Russia for a century before the Russian revolution but they never had any legitimate claim to the West which passed from Polish control to the Hapsburg Empire.
It would be possible to say they had a tenuous claim to Crimea. That belonged to Russia (as opposed to just the USSR) from 1783 until it was given by Stalin to the Ukraine in 1954. Before it was Russian it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Hence the reason ethnic Ukrainians make up only 15% of the population.
None of this justifies what Putin did in 2014 nor what he is doing now. Ukraine was established as an independent state within defined borders under treaties signed by Russia. There is no justification for reneging on those promises now.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
I liked to think the Falklands dispute was with the Argentine.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
My own suspicion is that Boris wanted to be first out of the blocks, but can’t do much more than what he’s announced without US co-operation.
Also, he can’t really open up the can of worms that is the Russo-Tory-Brexit nexus without reputational risk to his own party and project, so that’s best left alone.
This is true. Matthew Eliot, for instance, is not only still the government's key money man, but was instrumental both in the setting-up of the Conservative Friends of Russia, and in co-ordinating the various funding strands for Vote Leave.
Sanctions on five Russian banks and three "high net worth individuals" Gennady Timchenko, a billionaire who controls the Volga Group, Boris Rotenberg, co-owners of SMP Bank, and his nephew Igor Rotenberg, all already sanctioned by US
Five Russian banks to be sanctioned by UK - Rossiya (which has been important investor in Crimea), IS Bank, General Bank, Promsvyazbank, and the Black Sea Bank
Fortunately, at the moment, both the military action and the sanctions remain at a relatively 'pathetic' level. We know, they know, and we know they know (etc. etc.) that both could be ratcheted up if things progress from bad to worse. The immediate imposition of sanctions that could bring Russia to its knees may not be as easy or as straightforward as some might think. And it may not work in the manner intended.
Very true but perhaps they should not bluster and waffle about the hideous impact they will apply to Russia and then throw in a damp squib. Only encouraging him to go further. Easy to see now that they don't want to really do anything other than bluster.
PM now detecting the mood of the Commons after almost 90 mins “I know the house wants to hit putin with everything today…but we are working in lockstep with the alliance.. there will be more to come.”
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
Presumably Johnson will now stop Russia laundering its dirty money through London, as he threatened to do just two days ago. Johnson does now say sanctions didn't go far enough in 2014 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which Johnson blamed Ukraine for provoking.
“ which Johnson blamed Ukraine for provoking. “. is that not an outrageous bit of slander without pointing to the evidence 😦
From a speech Johnson made in 2016:
'The European Union, as you will remember, exacerbated the problems by the premature decision to recognise Croatia.
'And if you want an example of EU foreign policy making on the hoof, and the EU’s pretensions to running a defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine.'
Thank you for digging that out. I have read through it, and inclined to say no, the vote leave ‘Putin apologist’ response as picked up in headline doesn’t convince me it matches how Boris is explaining how EU wanting foreign policy and army does undermine NATO and is the thinking that leads to situations of Ukraine being shafted by Putin. In fact with the benefit of time, the point Boris made then seems even more true today?
The fact that EU and vote leaves wailing and grinding of teeth is in any proportion to Boris’ argument and doesn’t convince us is probably the reason why they lost?
Mr. Al, vielleicht. Canada and the UK have also not gone to war during the time the EU has existed. Nor have Rwanda and Argentina. Nor the USA and New Zealand.
People arguing NS2 suspension is only temporary don’t understand German politics. Inertial forces are gigantic. Once you move to a new position it would take a dramatic improvement to create conditions for a reversal. Do you see Putin reverting yesterday’s declaration?
Sounds like a pause for today an unpause on a different tomorrow not cancellation to me, however Germany wish to spin it. Last week the German leadership were in Ukraine urging the Ukraine government to surrender that territory to Putin - hence we arn’t shocked they merely paused Nord2 until a day they can unpause.
Surely it makes sense to pause, rather than cancel, the project? That way the Germans still have the carrot of reopening to wave at Putin. Cancelling would simply remove that option from their arsenal without giving them any advantages.
And I don't believe for a moment that "the German leadership were in Ukraine urging the Ukraine government to surrender that territory to Putin". Where did you read that?
More likely the German government were speaking softly knowing they had a big stick. We also have a big stick, but it seems we've chosen to speak bombastically then not use it. We wait to see what the US does. They've an Amazon worth. Meanwhile the stickless Macron did the serious investigative diplomacy. Fruitlessly, but someone had to. All looks a bit co-ordinated.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
Just catching up as waiting for a jury to come back. Really powerful header. Many thanks to @Cicero for posting it.
What we may need here are troops on the ground from Poland, the Baltic states and all the other former Soviet puppets that feel threatened by this loon. And just maybe some from us too. It needs to be made clear that he is not going to be allowed a conventional victory against the Ukraine
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has issued an order to halt the process of certifying the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Well. Welcome to the brave new world where Europeans are very soon going to pay €2.000 for 1.000 cubic meters of natural gas!
Just catching up as waiting for a jury to come back. Really powerful header. Many thanks to @Cicero for posting it.
What we may need here are troops on the ground from Poland, the Baltic states and all the other former Soviet puppets that feel threatened by this loon. And just maybe some from us too. It needs to be made clear that he is not going to be allowed a conventional victory against the Ukraine
The West isn't going to send troops into Ukraine, and I think that's the right decision, speaking personally.
PM now detecting the mood of the Commons after almost 90 mins “I know the house wants to hit putin with everything today…but we are working in lockstep with the alliance.. there will be more to come.”
Mr. Al, vielleicht. Canada and the UK have also not gone to war during the time the EU has existed. Nor have Rwanda and Argentina. Nor the USA and New Zealand.
The examples you give have never, to my knowledge, gone to war. Whereas states in the EU, prior to its existence, did.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
The Lebanon used to be common. We still use it for countries named after geographical features (the Congo, the Sudan). Kyiv is indeed Ukrainian and many of the locals have Ukrainian as a first language, although the working language is Russian. I am told because there used to be lots of people living there from other parts of the Soviet Union, who of course had the Russian language in common.
I try to avoid French names where they can be avoided, for example preferring Brugge and Ieper.
Boris has misjudged this. The whole house wants more done.
Too early to say this. This might prove correct, but an extra few hours aligning multiple countries isn't the end of the world. Multilateral action is a good instinct to have here, let's wait and see.
Sorry I badly worded that. He has misjudged the house (maybe not in what he has done). MPs from all sides wanting more and in particular worried there won't be more sanctions if Putin doesn't move further but doesn't withdraw. Multiple MPs from all sides asking for clarification on that and getting a woolly answer each time.
There were a few MPs on both sides asking very good questions. Nice to see bipartisan politics. All too rare.
PS That question just asked again (umpteenth time)
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
The Gambia? The Bahamas? The Ivory Coast? The Philippines? Falling out of fashion yes. The Hague is Den Haag in Dutch. Amsterdam and Rotterdam don't have an article. Why? Dunno.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
It happens to be my preferred term also.
What's up, The Topping, aren't you getting the answers you'd hoped for?
I got an excellent answer from @Richard_Tyndall and smartarse ones from everyone else. .
You asked for short and to the point! I would have happily written more (although I think Richard's answer is better than what I would have written), so I kept it to just the key point about Russia's explicit treaty acknowledgement of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. One line, case closed, what more do you want?
The extra point about the "The" wasn't meant to trigger you, it was additional information that I thought you might find useful. Take it or leave it, I don't care, but you got what you asked for.
Not from you I didn't. You didn't answer at all you gave me a wiki link. Hence the only substance of your post was to make an idiot of yourself in telling someone how they should refer to a country name which, as @JohnLilburne pointed out, is non-sensical in English. .
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
The Gambia? The Bahamas? The Ivory Coast? The Philippines? Falling out of fashion yes. The Hague is Den Haag in Dutch. Amsterdam and Rotterdam don't have an article. Why? Dunno.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
"The" roads seems to be a London thing in my experience. Rarely come across it outside of London. I quite like it, as a bit of local colour.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
The Lebanon used to be common. We still use it for countries named after geographical features (the Congo, the Sudan). Kyiv is indeed Ukrainian and many of the locals have Ukrainian as a first language, although the working language is Russian. I am told because there used to be lots of people living there from other parts of the Soviet Union, who of course had the Russian language in common.
I try to avoid French names where they can be avoided, for example preferring Brugge and Ieper.
More relevant examples would be Derry-Londonderry, Elsaß–Lothringen, or Südtiro in terms of the naming coming with a particular unwelcome flavour.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
The Lebanon used to be common. We still use it for countries named after geographical features (the Congo, the Sudan). Kyiv is indeed Ukrainian and many of the locals have Ukrainian as a first language, although the working language is Russian. I am told because there used to be lots of people living there from other parts of the Soviet Union, who of course had the Russian language in common.
I try to avoid French names where they can be avoided, for example preferring Brugge and Ieper.
There are only two countries that "The" should be used, apparently(*): The Bahamas and The Gambia. And I'd expect them to fall away in time - certainly if I were going to The Bahamas I'd write "I'm going to the Bahamas".
Presumably Johnson will now stop Russia laundering its dirty money through London, as he threatened to do just two days ago. Johnson does now say sanctions didn't go far enough in 2014 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which Johnson blamed Ukraine for provoking.
“ which Johnson blamed Ukraine for provoking. “. is that not an outrageous bit of slander without pointing to the evidence 😦
From a speech Johnson made in 2016:
'The European Union, as you will remember, exacerbated the problems by the premature decision to recognise Croatia.
'And if you want an example of EU foreign policy making on the hoof, and the EU’s pretensions to running a defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine.'
Thank you for digging that out. I have read through it, and inclined to say no, the vote leave ‘Putin apologist’ response as picked up in headline doesn’t convince me it matches how Boris is explaining how EU wanting foreign policy and army does undermine NATO and is the thinking that leads to situations of Ukraine being shafted by Putin. In fact with the benefit of time, the point Boris made then seems even more true today?
The fact that EU and vote leaves wailing and grinding of teeth is in any proportion to Boris’ argument and doesn’t convince us is probably the reason why they lost?
Ukraine made a choice to form an alliance with the EU. According to Johnson's remarks the Ukraine was foolish to provoke Russia in that way. Or you blame the EU for foolishly allowing such an alliance as Johnson did, with the implication that Ukraine has no right to any agency over its own foreign policy. In either case (Ukraine provoked Russia or the EU provoked Russia) , the Russian invasion of Ukraine is only to be expected.
I cannot disagree with you more, that with the benefit of time the point Boris made then seems even more true today.
PM now detecting the mood of the Commons after almost 90 mins “I know the house wants to hit putin with everything today…but we are working in lockstep with the alliance.. there will be more to come.”
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
"The" roads seems to be a London thing in my experience. Rarely come across it outside of London. I quite like it, as a bit of local colour.
Usually just for the biggest roads in the locality, I think, like the Cromwell Road.
Ultimately the German decision to cancel, or at least pause NS2 is a far bigger blow to Russia than any suite of actions the UK government can take.
Also notable as the German SPD has historically been far more enmeshed in Russian interests (or has at least been accused of being so) than, for instance, the British Tories.
A big sacrifice on Germany's part too - Scholtz looked like he was promising not to go to the loo for three months. He has decided that, when forced to pick a side in the new Cold War, the USA is the answer.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the the single worst decision Merkel made was to cancel nuclear in Germany, and that the single best decision Obama made was not to stand in the way of fracking in the USA.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
Trouble for Boris and everyone in the West apart from THE US is that given that military action is off the table any sanctions need to be constructed so that they only harm Russia rather than inflict mutual harm on the sanctioner and the sanctionee. Plus they have to have Russia's (economic) retaliation in mind.
It is not an easy task.
There is also the armchair general "hold me back" element going on with people calling for all kinds of action knowing it won't happen.
THOSE WHO ARE FRIENDS AND APOLOGISTS OF THE AGGRESSOR ARE ALSO THE AGGRESSOR.
All sort of tough painful Decisions to be made today, for a range of governments and other organisations to prove, rather than say, they oppose Mad Vlad’s aggression (not just the tanks on someone else’s sovereign land, but his disgraceful remarks threatening everybody in his crazed address)
Gazprom feature heavily, as it’s four of their pipelines which now should not be used, but also they should be cut off from UEFA completely and champions league final moved. Ditto F1 have to take action pronto, strip Putin of his race and look at the funding from his regime.
Boris needs to do 2 things to prove he is serious, he needs to be vocal that Nord cannot be used by Europe, not just announce our sanctions today but speak up and say Gazprom/Putin pipelines cannot be used, but also be more straight with us that what he is calling for does impact us, as where UK gets it’s Gas must now have heavy competition for it, Boris already got off to a bad start today talking spin and bollocks about this part to the British People. He can’t try to make out the sanctions and counter sanctions won’t hurt us, he needs to be straight with us about this.
Boris needs to tell Europe what it can and cannot do? Erm.
Erm what? He’s been saying this for the last three weeks already. Havn’t you noticed?
He has to say it again today, now it’s not if, but for real.
Why? Leadership. What he has been asking Europe to do does impact us, and it needs that honesty to us from our leader. This lunchtimes salvo from Boris is on behalf of all of us, the British, and it needs that honesty from leadership, “this action we never wanted to take, and yes, it will hurt every household and business in the UK.”
Leadership is building we are all in it together, and being honest where there will be pain, we bear it together.
What part of this don’t you understand?
Boris can't level with anybody. As he's incapable of knowing, let alone telling the truth. I don't understand why Boris has the gall to pose as some kind of leader of European policy when he pissed off out of it. Yes I do. It's cakeism. For a supposed LD you're a mighty fan of the PM and the Tory Party.
“ For a supposed LD you're a mighty fan of the PM and the Tory Party.”
Really? I merely set out the measure of good leadership we should expect from a Primeminister Boris needs to make today. He has to be straight with the British people, the action not he but “we” are taking will hurt every household and business in the UK. If he avoids/spins this I will flag it up.
Well. It won't much. Because it isn't much. Words not action is the PM's default setting.
I, MoonRabbit, clearly taking charge of this crisis situation today, demonstrating how much better it will be once I am Primeminister.
Heavens (where you are located after all) help us.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
I grew up on Liverpool Road. It went to there but never heard it with a the.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
Only in London though. The Edgware Road, the Gloucester Road. You don't get that anywhere else. The Stockport Road, The Oldham Road? No.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
I was going to say that but I'm not sure it holds water - the Cromwell Road doesn't go to Cromwell, and the Strand doesn't fit the pattern either (have a banana).
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
I grew up on Liverpool Road. It went to there but never heard it with a the.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
Only in London though. The Edgware Road, the Gloucester Road. You don't get that anywhere else. The Stockport Road, The Oldham Road? No.
That would explain my Liverpool Road. The East Lancs, mind.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.
Poland probably has a better claim than Russia. Eastern Ukraine was controlled by Russia for a century before the Russian revolution but they never had any legitimate claim to the West which passed from Polish control to the Hapsburg Empire.
It would be possible to say they had a tenuous claim to Crimea. That belonged to Russia (as opposed to just the USSR) from 1783 until it was given by Stalin to the Ukraine in 1954. Before it was Russian it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Hence the reason ethnic Ukrainians make up only 15% of the population.
None of this justifies what Putin did in 2014 nor what he is doing now. Ukraine was established as an independent state within defined borders under treaties signed by Russia. There is no justification for reneging on those promises now.
Quite. Its surprising that people go irredentist and short term history on such matters quite significantly.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
I grew up on Liverpool Road. It went to there but never heard it with a the.
Only time I've ever normally heard 'the' used with roads is numbered roads. You might refer to the M6 or the A580 etc
Boris has misjudged this. The whole house wants more done.
Too early to say this. This might prove correct, but an extra few hours aligning multiple countries isn't the end of the world. Multilateral action is a good instinct to have here, let's wait and see.
Sorry I badly worded that. He has misjudged the house (maybe not in what he done). MPs from all sides wanting more and in particular worried there won't be more sanctions if Putin doesn't move further but doesn't withdraw. Multiple MPs from all sides asking for clarification on that and getting a woolly answer each time.
There were a few MPs on both sides asking very good questions. Nice to see bipartisan politics. All too rare.
PS That question just asked again (umpteenth time)
Unfortunately, woolly answers are probably appropriate here. You don't want to be doing international diplomacy on the hoof in parliament. MPs asking the right questions, PM right to not want to tie his own hands in this arena. It probably only looks frustrating because politicians, especially Boris, tend to do this when they don't need to. So it sounds like business as usual waffle. But put yourself in the PM's shoes. The private conversations will be happening behind the scenes, and the PM is saying what he can right now in the house. Everything here appears to be working as it should, as a dialogue, promptly but not in a headlong rush.
I would love to agree. But knowing Boris's record isn't it equally likely he's not coordinating with anyone and just blustering?
I was hoping the UK might having something surprisingly harsh to pull out of the hat, like Germany's brave NS2 decision. Speaking loudly and carrying a small stick is not ideal.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
The Lebanon used to be common. We still use it for countries named after geographical features (the Congo, the Sudan). Kyiv is indeed Ukrainian and many of the locals have Ukrainian as a first language, although the working language is Russian. I am told because there used to be lots of people living there from other parts of the Soviet Union, who of course had the Russian language in common.
I try to avoid French names where they can be avoided, for example preferring Brugge and Ieper.
More relevant examples would be Derry-Londonderry, Elsaß–Lothringen, or Südtiro in terms of the naming coming with a particular unwelcome flavour.
Bruges and Ypres are indeed unwelcome. They are French names for Dutch-speaking towns in Flanders. (And I'd probably say Südtirol, I don't know what the Italian is.)
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
I grew up on Liverpool Road. It went to there but never heard it with a the.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
I grew up on Liverpool Road. It went to there but never heard it with a the.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Although of course when speaking Russian he can say no such thing.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
Generally being the operative word there. There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
And also why you're on about it what's up with street and road.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
My theory is that roads which are named after their destination take the article, effectively "the road to Balls Pond". Streets don't normally go anywhere and are more purely intra-urban in nature.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
I grew up on Liverpool Road. It went to there but never heard it with a the.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.
Poland probably has a better claim than Russia. Eastern Ukraine was controlled by Russia for a century before the Russian revolution but they never had any legitimate claim to the West which passed from Polish control to the Hapsburg Empire.
It would be possible to say they had a tenuous claim to Crimea. That belonged to Russia (as opposed to just the USSR) from 1783 until it was given by Stalin to the Ukraine in 1954. Before it was Russian it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Hence the reason ethnic Ukrainians make up only 15% of the population.
None of this justifies what Putin did in 2014 nor what he is doing now. Ukraine was established as an independent state within defined borders under treaties signed by Russia. There is no justification for reneging on those promises now.
Quite. Its surprising that people go irredentist and short term history on such matters quite significantly.
In Northern Ireland, it is common for people to remember a wrong against *their* side from two hundred years ago.
They won't know the name of the postman who was shot and bled out on the pavement across the road a couple of years back.... If he was on the other side.
Who is a Russia watcher on here. Is there any world in which Russia has legitimate claims to The Ukraine.
Keep it short and to the point here pls.
tia
No.* And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
It happens to be my preferred term also.
What's up, The Topping, aren't you getting the answers you'd hoped for?
I got an excellent answer from @Richard_Tyndall and smartarse ones from everyone else. .
You asked for short and to the point! I would have happily written more (although I think Richard's answer is better than what I would have written), so I kept it to just the key point about Russia's explicit treaty acknowledgement of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. One line, case closed, what more do you want?
The extra point about the "The" wasn't meant to trigger you, it was additional information that I thought you might find useful. Take it or leave it, I don't care, but you got what you asked for.
Not from you I didn't. You didn't answer at all you gave me a wiki link. Hence the only substance of your post was to make an idiot of yourself in telling someone how they should refer to a country name which, as @JohnLilburne pointed out, is non-sensical in English. .
Apology accepted
I bet you're the sort of person who tells people they should pronounce Paris Paris instead of Paris aren't you.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
That's way below your usual standard of invective.
C--
Try harder.
Seems pretty par for the course. Malcolm is a perfect example of a Nationalist thug, except that instead of throwing rocks through fellow Scots' windows he frequently haunts a political site where he has no hope of engaging in articulate debate because he has zero capability in debating, which makes him amusing, though not in a way that he would like. I suppose the one thing you can say for Salmond is that though he is reputed (by his own QC) to be a sex pest and a bully he is/was pretty articulate unlike his thuggish followers. We can also add No1 Useful idiot to Putin to his dubious CV.
Comments
A chocolate teapot springs to mind.
C--
Try harder.
China probably feels more strongly towards Taiwan than Russia does towards the Ukraine but is in no hurry. As to it would have done so long ago that is not so as we are seeing year by year it grow stronger. If you think China has reached the end of (its) history it is only just warming up.
As for IDS's point via @HYUFD such is the strength of feeling towards Taiwan and as their self-regarded Middle Kingdom, China likely doesn't care what anyone else thinks about Ukraine wrt Taiwan. Their calculations will be coldly pragmatic.
The slightly longer answer is that Ukraine’s borders were designed in the Soviet Union era and reflected imperial priorities at the time, rather than notions of national identity. But see Kenya’s response at the UNSC to that.
It's not obvious beforehand who will do well.
Generally, though, the successful ones seem to be those which offer some level of humour and/or some level of insight greater than there is space for in the MSM. I'm not sure Maitlis/Sopel fall into that category. Though I may be being unduly harsh.
Maitlis and Sopel are both soft left, anti-Tory, anti-Brexit, anti-Trump. Two people talking to one another that will agree on basically everything.
And as has been pointed out, there is clearly cross party support for stronger measures.
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1496115630931599367
War between Europe and Russia/USSR was always much more down to NATO.
Growing criticism from MPs over scale of UK sanctions, including Tories
Iain Duncan Smith says Russia should be hit “hard” + “now”. “They need to feel the pain”
Crispin Blunt: Putin “has already committed the crimes that deserve the most severest punishment from the free world”
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1496116101046054913
And "The Ukraine" is Putin's preferred term, not Ukraine's.
*well there is the world in which you get what you demand by overwhelming force.
Poland probably has a better claim than Russia. Eastern Ukraine was controlled by Russia for a century before the Russian revolution but they never had any legitimate claim to the West which passed from Polish control to the Hapsburg Empire.
It would be possible to say they had a tenuous claim to Crimea. That belonged to Russia (as opposed to just the USSR) from 1783 until it was given by Stalin to the Ukraine in 1954. Before it was Russian it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Hence the reason ethnic Ukrainians make up only 15% of the population.
None of this justifies what Putin did in 2014 nor what he is doing now. Ukraine was established as an independent state within defined borders under treaties signed by Russia. There is no justification for reneging on those promises now.
The PRC is getting stronger, yes. But it isn't there yet.
But every year Taiwan is drifting away from regarding itself as Chinese at all. Making the task more difficult.
Also, he can’t really open up the can of worms that is the Russo-Tory-Brexit nexus without reputational risk to his own party and project, so that’s best left alone.
Unless something goes wrong. But nothing has gone wrong with that plan so far.
A lot of these people from mainstream aren't experts, don't do the volume and by their nature are quite predictable in their response to everything. So they think an hour or two a week is plenty, because well everybody knows me off the BBC.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1496117748648361986
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1496117750112137224
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1496117068264972293
Get those letters in, and maybe the time is opportune for Tugendhat or Mordaunt. Truss counted herself out with the humiliation in Moscow, and Rishi feels like someone more suited to peacetime.
The Ukrainian argument is based on English usage, not Russian or Ukrainian, neither of which languages have articles.
The argument is that as you do not generally use the word "the" to refer to countries in English, if you do so it makes it sound like a geographical area rather than a country.
And I don't believe for a moment that "the German leadership were in Ukraine urging the Ukraine government to surrender that territory to Putin". Where did you read that?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/defending-ukraine/622063/
Ha ha, Hats what has been said and SKS said he supported that approach.
Can you imagine the howls of outrage from the Tory haters if he "trampled on Ofcom's independence"?
It's done pretty well on that score, hasn't it?
.
There have always been a smattering, though over time they have fallen out of fashion. 'The Argentine' is the only other one which springs to mind in the vaguely modern era.
Not many articles attached to geographical areas either - the one which springs to mind is 'The Wirral'.
On a similar note, am I right that we have now started calling the capital city Kyiv rather than Kiev because the former is Ukrainian and the latter is Russian? If so, it isn't the only place where we call a city by the language its inhabitants don't use. In particular, we often seem to use French where the locals do not (e.g. we call it Bruges, as the French do, whereas the locals call it Brugge; we call it Basle, as the French do, while locals call it Basel.)
Interestingly, I think both German and French speakers refer to Switzerland with a definite article: Der Schweiz and La Suisse. In German, at least, it is not standard to do this to a country.
Also while I'm on about it: why does the Hague have a definite article?
MPs from across Commons united in calling for Boris Johnson to go further now
Labour:
Keir Starmer
Chris Bryant
Ben Bradshaw
Liam Byrne
Conservative:
Iain Duncan Smith
John Baron
Peter Bone
Lib Dem:
Ed Davey
Layla Moran...
(sorry.)
If that’s the case he could have explained that at the beginning much better.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1496120893856178177
The fact that EU and vote leaves wailing and grinding of teeth is in any proportion to Boris’ argument and doesn’t convince us is probably the reason why they lost?
We also have a big stick, but it seems we've chosen to speak bombastically then not use it.
We wait to see what the US does. They've an Amazon worth.
Meanwhile the stickless Macron did the serious investigative diplomacy. Fruitlessly, but someone had to.
All looks a bit co-ordinated.
The Balls Pond Road and Carnaby Street as examples. Why is one "the" and the other not.
What we may need here are troops on the ground from Poland, the Baltic states and all the other former Soviet puppets that feel threatened by this loon. And just maybe some from us too. It needs to be made clear that he is not going to be allowed a conventional victory against the Ukraine
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has issued an order to halt the process of certifying the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Well. Welcome to the brave new world where Europeans are very soon going to pay €2.000 for 1.000 cubic meters of natural gas!
https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1496112456858574849
I try to avoid French names where they can be avoided, for example preferring Brugge and Ieper.
There were a few MPs on both sides asking very good questions. Nice to see bipartisan politics. All too rare.
PS That question just asked again (umpteenth time)
Falling out of fashion yes.
The Hague is Den Haag in Dutch. Amsterdam and Rotterdam don't have an article. Why? Dunno.
.
(*) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233844
I cannot disagree with you more, that with the benefit of time the point Boris made then seems even more true today.
Johnson restating “we must work in concert with our allies” as reason for not doing more at the moment.
Also notable as the German SPD has historically been far more enmeshed in Russian interests (or has at least been accused of being so) than, for instance, the British Tories.
A big sacrifice on Germany's part too - Scholtz looked like he was promising not to go to the loo for three months. He has decided that, when forced to pick a side in the new Cold War, the USA is the answer.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the the single worst decision Merkel made was to cancel nuclear in Germany, and that the single best decision Obama made was not to stand in the way of fracking in the USA.
The Hague is a direct translation, Den Hague or 's-Gravenhage, The (Count's) Hedge although haag probably means something more like enclosure or fortification in this context.
It is not an easy task.
There is also the armchair general "hold me back" element going on with people calling for all kinds of action knowing it won't happen.
The East Lancs, mind.
But its name is without the 'the'
I was hoping the UK might having something surprisingly harsh to pull out of the hat, like Germany's brave NS2 decision. Speaking loudly and carrying a small stick is not ideal.
They won't know the name of the postman who was shot and bled out on the pavement across the road a couple of years back.... If he was on the other side.