The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Putin has also just accused "neo-nazis" of shooting Chinese students in Kharkiv, which suggests he's struggling to keep China on side.
He tried that with India as well, and unfortunately Indian nationalists are as plentiful as they are mind-numbingly stupid, so it did have an effect there.
Wiki reckons one Indian died citizen during the fighting, but not clear how. No Chinese mentioned.
I am anxious that the UK preserve the rule of law, including property rights.
But at the same time, Boris is lying about getting tough with the oligarchs and can’t/won’t front-foot the issue.
It’s his typical mixture of lies, incompetence, greed and bluster.
I think the sanctions are coming but the government's position of having them legally watertight before pushing ahead makes sense. Being ordered by the courts to unwind them and pay damages for seized property would be a disaster. Locking Russians and Russian companies out of our markets is a simply process, seizing assets either with an unexplained wealth order or with other sanctions can be very tricky. Proving ownership, proving that the individuals are a risk to society or associated to the Putin regime will be very difficult indeed.
I'd much rather take a slower and considered approach than go in guns blazing and then keeping our fingers crossed that the courts don't unwind it all. In the EU the ECJ can be relied on to rule however they are asked to. Imagine these oligarchs getting a supreme court seal of approval that they shouldn't have been sanctioned or have their assets seized on some legal technicality because the government didn't adhere to legal protocols properly.
Precisely.
Plus there's a reason we're following the timescale as the USA on this, and we've been moving pretty much in lockstep with the USA since before this began on this for very, very good reason. Only someone completely driven mad by Brexit would think Joe Biden has put a timescale on certain sanctions because the Tories received donations years ago from some people born in Russia. 🙄
Indeed and as for the suggestion that the government use the parliamentary majority to target individuals to seize assets, it's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Stripping people of their property needs to be done within the framework that exists and properly tested by the courts not by executive power. Imagine how that could be abused.
What? Legislating for something is the exercise of legislative power, not executive power, and it changes "the framework that exists." That is the whole point of it. And that's not a quibble, you really have no idea how the system works.
No, it's the executive using the government majority to target individuals. It's wrong and I'm not shocked you would suggest this idea tbh.
Most of what you come out with is an insane rambling of terrible ideas, this is no different.
No, you just don't have so much as a fail at O Level understanding of the constitution. The legislature is the legislature. It legislates. The courts "properly test" things by reference to the legislation, not to some ethereal body of rule-of-lawiness floating around over their heads.
Why do you condemn this as "targeting individuals"? I mean, drunk driving legislation targets the individuals who drink drive. Is that a problem?
If you have access to any reputable sources, look what we legislated to do to individuals' property at short notice and on the most tenuous grounds during WW2.
and btw if you have been misled by my proposed Take Roman's Assets away Act in previous thread, that was a JOKE.
Actually as I understood it the courts test things by reference to legislation AND precedent - the accumulated decisions of previous cases - which could indeed be regarded as an 'ethereal body of rule-of-lawiness'.
Not so. Precedent is at least in theory every bit as strictly defined, in the case law, as legislation is, and legislation overrules it in the same way as it overrules preexisting incompatible legislation.
Okay I get that. But unless and until we do pass that specific legislation surely the Government is not in a position to simply grab stuff from people. I would expect that, no matter how good the reason, the courts would look dimly on that.
Just to be clear, I think the Government SHOULD pass such a law but as I understand it it has not done so.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
How could they go to court after being named in primary legislation? The law literally names them as corrupt at that point.
“I don’t want Ukraine’s history to be a legend about 300 Spartans. I want peace.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses his country in the face of the Russian invasion. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1499415226390913025
It's worth keeping in mind that Zelensky has domestic opponents too, nearly all of whom are much more nationalist (and often more corrupt) than he is. At the moment he clearly has overwhelming support as the war leader, and he could probably sell a deal guaranteeing neutrality and not stationing foreign missiles on Ukraine's soil. Signing away Crimea and the eastern provinces (especially if expanded to form a coherent land mass) would come under massive attack from extremist rivals. The Minsk deal, recognising them as a partly self-governing region like Scotland within a unified Ukraine looks much easier to achieve....
Given Macron's report of Putin's conversation this afternoon, I think such talk is fanciful at the moment. You have a rational leader on one side, and... something else on the other.
Makes negotiations hard too. Do you believe the Russian rep is empowered or not?
That's easy to tell. You draw up an agreement with them, and if they get shot or sent to the gulag on their return to Russia, you know they weren't empowered.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
There are actual real neo Nazis, the Azov brigade, who are fighting for the Ukrainians.
But what Russia are doing is conflating that fact with all Ukrainians fighting as having this idealogy, which is clearly false. And obviously not mentioning their own Wager group are rather Nazi supporting too.
Not to mention people on RT explaining how Blood and Soil nationalism is the sensible option. Literally.
Two Russian MPs have submitted a draft law to parliament that would call up for military service in Ukraine any Russians detained for participating in antiwar protests
Well, that's one way of getting yourself a well-motivated, highly trained army prepared to carry out orders to commit war crimes.
Are they today's contestants on that well known Russian quiz show, "C*nt of the Day"?
(Spoiler@ they don't win. It's Vladimir Putin. Each and every day.)
Astonishing. I reckon we're all in with a good chance then, if he can get one.
Although I can see there's an inspiration and opportunity for us all, it's also a bit discouraging to see that whilst other governments are busy freezing or confiscating things that wealthy Russians have spent money on, we're giving knighthoods to politicians that wealthy Russians have spent money on*.
"Russia's second-largest oil producer Lukoil is calling for an end to the conflict in Ukraine. In a statement on its website, the company said it was concerned by the "tragic events in Ukraine" and supported the negotiations to end the conflict. Its board called for "the immediate cessation of the armed conflict and fully supports its resolution through the negotiation process and through diplomatic means". The company is thought to be one of the first major Russian firms to speak out against the invasion."
However, when I go to the lukoil.com site I get this:
Web Page Blocked!
The page cannot be displayed. Please contact the administrator for additional information.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
Seriously weird now, Russians are driving 250km into Ukraine with weaponry needed for the fight (AA stuff in this case), then just abandoning it (or are they defecting to the west)? Also at $16m a pop when new, that's not a cheap fire.
There've been a few reports recently on some of them being present in Mariupol, with in some suburbs locals being hemmed in both by indiscriminate Russian bombardment and various far-right elements also trying to control people's movement in that particular part of the county. A truly hideous situation there, if true.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Even when it isn't there? Would a Labour Government in the UK be Nazi because the BNP existed? Is the Scholz Government in Germany Nazi because there are neo Nazis there? That is effectively the argument being made by Russia towards Ukraine. Some Nazis exist in your country (in a war zone caused by Russia in the first place where Ukrainian rule is difficult if not impossible to impose) and so the whole Government is Nazi.
Britain will not be able to sanction Roman Abramovich and other oligarchs for “weeks and months” because the government has been unable to build a case against them
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Is it more that Russia have seen themselves as the good guys since WWII, since they defeated Hitler ? The Great Patriotic War defines national character, and has been a moral justification for state actions ever since.
Britain has a version of it, but I don't think it's anywhere near as potent ?
(Russian experts be free to mock, as I am not one.)
The way to avoid getting nuked is surely to convey the impression to the enemy that, under the right circumstances and with the right provocation, you just might.
An impression the great Ronald Reagan and blessed Lady Thatcher (PBUH) passed off with aplomb.
By contrast, no government that with a policy of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is ever going to fire a nuclear weapon. Ever. Under any circumstances. Putin knows that.
So why are we kidding ourselves? We would never, ever use nuclear weapons, why not bin them and concentrate on conventionals?
Oh shut the fuck up about environmentalism already
Do you think there are any circumstances under which the UK ever could or should launch a nuclear weapon? any circumstances at all?
Yes. Whenever you pop up I yearn for an all-consuming fireball,
Seriously though, its important, should there not be a debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent? Its obvious we would never, ever use it. Why have it?
Even if that were a question for debate, right now is about the most stupid time possible to raise it.
What's your reason ?
I raise it now because I think Putin believes that the west as it is currently constituted would never use a nuclear weapon.
All Putin's actions and all the comments from our leaders about 'not escalating' are doing nothing to dispel his convictions.
Somebody powerful needs to get in front of Putin and those around him and make it clear that if we're going down, they are going down with us. We guarantee mutually assured destruction will be mutual.
Nobody in the west is doing that. Nobody. There is a massive void there.
And so it is quite likely a nuke will be used against us. And I think its even more likely we will do nothing.
It's linking it to carbon neutral targets that makes you look too mad to have a conversation with.
Sorry, it wasn't me that told the electorate that climate change was by far the greatest threat humanity faced.
That was, however, the British government's position two weeks ago.
Are you saying they have abandoned that position? because I haven't heard they have.
And if they still believe that climate change is the greatest threat we face, then the chance of them firing a nuclear weapon ever are zero.
Are you retarded?
I ask that in all seriousness
I'm genuinely intrigued that you asked that question.
Why would you feel the need to when the answer is more obvious than Putin's insanity?
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
I just tried to read up on the state of their Parliament and politics. I failed! That’s going to take some deeper reading. No lazy U.K. political parallels to be made it seems.
It’s really not that hard. Strict PR system, with 4% threshold to get into parliament. The main thing to get your head around is that all 8 of the parliamentary parties are “left” in a global context, even the supposed “conservatives”.
Currently 8 parliamentary parties:
Red-Green bloc:
S Social Democrats, think centrist/sensible Labour (currently the sole governing party)
V Left Party, formerly called the Communists, far-left
MP Greens, what it says on the tin, pretty leftist
Conservative bloc:
M Moderates, think Tory wets
KD Christian Democrats, ultra-liberal Jesus fans when compared to every other Christian political movement
SD Sweden Democrats, think BNP-lite/UKIP/Farage, but never talk about Europe; bang on about immigration literally non-stop; other policies pretty left wing
Stuck in the middle:
C Centre Party, formerly Agrarians, pro small business liberals with a greenish tinge
L Liberals, classic urban liberal party, soon to be waving Hej då to parliamentary life
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Is it more that Russia have seen themselves as the good guys since WWII, since they defeated Hitler ? The Great Patriotic War defines national character, and has been a moral justification for state actions ever since.
Britain has a version of it, but I don't think it's anywhere near as potent ?
(Russian experts be free to mock, as I am not one.)
It’s a while back but when I was in the USSR in 1982 The Revolution was last month and The Great Patriotic War last week.
Seriously weird now, Russians are driving 250km into Ukraine with weaponry needed for the fight (AA stuff in this case), then just abandoning it (or are they defecting to the west)? Also at $16m a pop when new, that's not a cheap fire.
In contrast to MISTY I think we should square up to Putin, declare a no fly zone, bomb the Russian convoys and give our undying support to Ukraine.
If that risks nuclear war it's too bad.
If we let Putin get away with this, which he currently is, then we should hang our heads in shame.
I reckon Maggie would've put the little shit back in his box.
That would be crazy, and not rational.
If Putin attacks a NATO country, as he probably will, we will have to fight back.
I take it you would support that.
Trouble is, us fighting back and shooting down Russian aircraft over, say, the baltics would risk nuclear war.
The logic of your position, therefore, is that Estonia is worth risking nuclear war for, but Ukraine isn't.
Just so as we are clear.
Yes because that is what we have agreed. IF Putin attacks a NATO country then we have no choice but to get involved and fight. But that will probably be the end of all of us one way or another. We do have a choice about Ukraine because we have no commitment to support them.
Both cases end up with us in a nuclear war with Russia. In the case of Ukraine we can choose not to take that step. And that is absolutely what we are right to do.
We *do* have a choice if Putin attacks a NATO country (eg a Baltic state) and the (unlikely but possible) choice might be to not defend it, NATO or no NATO, for the same reason we aren't defending Ukraine - the risk of nuclear war. But it doesn't matter. It's not the point. The point is that Vladimir Putin BELIEVES we would fight if he did this - that his calculations include an assumption that to attack a NATO state is a genuine blood red line which if crossed will trigger direct NATO engagement and retaliation. This is all that's important on this "MAD" aspect right now and all we (ie the US) can really do. And Biden is doing it. The messaging of 'Ukraine and no further' is clear as a bell.
Well given we already have troops in those countries then unless you are suggesting we withdraw them now in advance of any possible attack then we don't have a choice. Deciding to withdraw them once they are already fighting would probably be impractical.
There is a choice when being blackmailed to give into it. It does happen. You and I don't think we would in this case but my point is it's what Putin believes which matters - and I can't fault our messaging to him.
(i) Putin successfully uses nuclear blackmail to recreate the USSR in Eastern Europe.
(ii) Nuclear war between NATO and Russia.
I rate these 2 prospects as remote and (ii) more likely than (i).
On the Nazi/antisemite thing in Ukraine, this thread is interesting. Apart from the bleeding obvious factor of electing a Jewish president, it seems the change in attitude to Jews in Ukraine has been nothing short of drastic.
Swedish defence minister on main news telling viewers to ignore American “propaganda” (his word) claiming Russia about to attack Finland and Sweden.
Swedes don’t “do” angry, but if they did, he was there.
US would be wise to do teamwork a bit better.
Although...
"Two SU27 fighters and two SU24 fighter-bombers from 🇷🇺 air force briefly violated 🇸🇪 airspace East of the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea today. They were intercepted by 🇸🇪 Gripen fighters."
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
There are actual real neo Nazis, the Azov brigade, who are fighting for the Ukrainians.
But what Russia are doing is conflating that fact with all Ukrainians fighting as having this idealogy, which is clearly false. And obviously not mentioning their own Wager group are rather Nazi supporting too.
That's right. There has been a legitimate criticism that no Ukrainian government has felt able to disband the Azov gang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion) and ban neo-Nazism. The prominent role played by Ukrainian Nazis in WW2 is a very long-standing issue, and having a Nazi group accepted as part of the official military is obviously offensive to Russians (and to many Ukrainians). But for all their pretensions and international links they aren't a large force or representative of Ukraine generally and Putin is cynically blurring the two.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
They certainly have a more let's say nuanced relationship with anti semitism than we do. It is no accident that pogrom originally means the massacre by Russians of Jews in eastern Europe. So I suspect the jewish stuff is not so important, it basically means the opposition in the GPW.
I have two grandparents that came to the UK after pogroms in the former Russian Empire. One from Ukraine.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
What precisely is mean by the 'rule of law' is an interesting question. Lord Bingham's book of that name is a short, good read. As a starter for discussion he sets out a number of principles contributing to it. I find 4 particualrly important.
The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable;
Quetions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion;
The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation;
Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purposes for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably;
The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights;
Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve;
Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair;
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law
I wonder when any society will get close to managing all 8 concurrently.....
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
How could they go to court after being named in primary legislation? The law literally names them as corrupt at that point.
Where the fuck are you getting "named in primary legislation"?
What precisely is mean by the 'rule of law' is an interesting question. Lord Bingham's book of that name is a short, good read. As a starter for discussion he sets out a number of principles contributing to it. I find 4 particualrly important.
The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable;
Quetions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion;
The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation;
Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purposes for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably;
The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights;
Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve;
Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair;
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law
I wonder when any society will get close to managing all 8 concurrently.....
I don't wonder - the answer is never.
But not managing to be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to attain it at least of course.
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
A thread worth reading, even if you despise the thesis
I think it is probably right, unfortunately. It is indisputably the case that, from a personal point of view, Putin absolutely has to win this war, or at least have something he can portray as a win. He can survive almost anything except being seen to be a loser. It's also true that he doesn't care a toss about how many civilians are killed in the process. He probably cares a little bit about Ukrainian cities, because it will be mildly embarrassing for him to have 'won' a land of rubble and destruction, a land which he claims is Russian and full of people he's claiming to want to protect, but he'd no doubt be able to gloss over that mild embarrassment. He also doesn't care too much about losses on the Russian side, although again he can't ignore them completely.
Cumulatively, though, the cost of this 'victory' is going to be immense, and the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly even if he does flatten the place and install his puppet regime. He claims to be a student of Russian, and Soviet, history, but can't be a very good one if he doesn't understand that the Ukrainians will fight on doggedly against a vicious, well-armed totalitarian aggressor.
The guy who wrote the thread is no fool. I reckon he’s right, as well. Tragically
The more the Ukes fight the more desperately brutal Putin will become, he is already using cluster munitions and thermobaric bombs on civilian targets. He could turn Kyiv into grozny, he won’t care as long as he wins big
It is a terrible thing: to advise a nation to surrender. But it might be the best option for Ukraine right this minute. Agree terms. Try and maintain some autonomy. Regroup, save Ukrainian cities from total devastation
It’s an option. It’s an awful option. But there are no good options
His analysis pretty much ignores the impact of Western sanctions and how long they would be in place for. Without them he could be correct. With Western sanctions it makes no sense as Russia itself will be destroyed economically and militarily if it pushes ahead.
The likely path from here is some sort of negotiated settlement where Putin's ambitions are reduced to Crimea, Donbass and Luhansk, and he gets enough from that to be able to sell it as a win back home, and in return the worst of the sanctions get lifted.
That won't be enough to sell as a win back home after the collapse of the Russian economy to do it. Especially with the "neo-Nazi" Ukrainian government still in place.
Of course it is far from ideal for Putin but as Russia will find out that is what happens you massively underperform in a war. You have to create something simply tenable rather than something you wanted.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
The problem is that 99.7% of the time when someone says X is Nazi, it is bullshit.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Even when it isn't there? Would a Labour Government in the UK be Nazi because the BNP existed? Is the Scholz Government in Germany Nazi because there are neo Nazis there? That is effectively the argument being made by Russia towards Ukraine. Some Nazis exist in your country (in a war zone caused by Russia in the first place where Ukrainian rule is difficult if not impossible to impose) and so the whole Government is Nazi.
You are misunderstanding me. Hopefully not wilfully.
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
I just tried to read up on the state of their Parliament and politics. I failed! That’s going to take some deeper reading. No lazy U.K. political parallels to be made it seems.
It’s really not that hard. Strict PR system, with 4% threshold to get into parliament. The main thing to get your head around is that all 8 of the parliamentary parties are “left” in a global context, even the supposed “conservatives”.
Currently 8 parliamentary parties:
Red-Green bloc:
S Social Democrats, think centrist/sensible Labour (currently the sole governing party)
V Left Party, formerly called the Communists, far-left
MP Greens, what it says on the tin, pretty leftist
Conservative bloc:
M Moderates, think Tory wets
KD Christian Democrats, ultra-liberal Jesus fans when compared to every other Christian political movement
SD Sweden Democrats, think BNP-lite/UKIP/Farage, but never talk about Europe; bang on about immigration literally non-stop; other policies pretty left wing
Stuck in the middle:
C Centre Party, formerly Agrarians, pro small business liberals with a greenish tinge
L Liberals, classic urban liberal party, soon to be waving Hej då to parliamentary life
Thank you. I didn’t want to be annoying and ask. That’s really interesting.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
SCOOP: Biden is poised to impose sanctions on a number of Russian oligarchs and their families TODAY, sources tell @nwadhams and me. The sanctions will be in keeping with EU measures but broader, prohibiting the oligarchs’ travel to US and also targeting their families. https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1499409767479091209
Just the 'world-leading' UK lagging behind then.
No shortage of 'useful idiots' here fanning the disunited allies meme so beloved of Putin.
Silence the traitors!
You don’t have a very good understanding of what is best about free and democratic countries have you?
One good one is to accept and respect a democratic vote - even when it goes against you.
The vast majority of people have accepted the result. What I suspect you really want is for people to stop pointing out any of the negative consequences of Brexit by claiming that anyone that does can't accept the result.
Calling people Putin's useful idiots because they believe the EU is acting faster than Johnson in certain respects sounds if you just want to cut off opinions you don't like.
We shall find out eventually but my bet is that a year from now Boris's actions on Russian money in the UK will amount to nothing but puff and wind.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
@JimmySecUK The "elite", professional formations of the Russian army continue to severely underperform.
In Irpin, a VDV (airborne) unit was smashed by the Ukrainian Army.🇺🇦
Multiple BMD armoured vehicles destroyed.
And this is a key indicator of the lack of Russian military effectiveness - the VDV should be the highest trained, the best equipped, the most able to function in an environment with degraded command and control - but they're still getting absolutely pasted by the Ukrainian Army.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
The problem is that 99.7% of the time when someone says X is Nazi, it is bullshit.
But it’s the 0.3% that worries me. Godwin is protecting those people.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
It would be helpful if he'd publish an appendix on the Russian state.
Risk of nuclear war and Johnson sees it as a priority to knight Gavin Williamson? Really...
I thought Johnson's response to Bill Esterson at PMQs yesterday was telling. A reasonable question about sanctions, met by a tirade of angry incoherent bloviation.
Johnson is scared of his Russian connections. Forget partygate, it is that which will bring him down. There will be a reckoning after all this.
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
Looks like a good betting opportunity!
A Lesser-Spotted Betting Post! Hurrah! (This blog is tragically misnamed.)
Forget partygate, Boris Johnson needs sacking for this knighthood.
That it was predicted makes it no less irritating.
It's like Johnson just trolls us decent minded people. Gaslights us. Sits around in his underpants late at night thinking up ever more hilarious ways to drive us crazy. Wish he'd get his political chips, war or no war. I'm sure the Ukrainian resistance can carry on their struggle without him.
Yes, sounds more hopeful news. There must be millions of people going through absolute hell at the moment.
Sounds hopeful but it could mean no-one left to conduct the insurgency people keep forecasting and no civilian "human shields" against Russian artillery simply flattening evacuated cities.
SCOOP: Biden is poised to impose sanctions on a number of Russian oligarchs and their families TODAY, sources tell @nwadhams and me. The sanctions will be in keeping with EU measures but broader, prohibiting the oligarchs’ travel to US and also targeting their families. https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1499409767479091209
Just the 'world-leading' UK lagging behind then.
No shortage of 'useful idiots' here fanning the disunited allies meme so beloved of Putin.
Silence the traitors!
You don’t have a very good understanding of what is best about free and democratic countries have you?
One good one is to accept and respect a democratic vote - even when it goes against you.
Another is the right to voice our opinion and questions peacefully without being bullied or disappearing in the night.
Can we at least ask if Dominic Raab has given back the £25K of dirrrrty Putin money yet, without shattering the Western Alliance and blacklisted as Putin’s idiotic helper and traitor?
Lol - that 'useful idiot' jibe has clearly hit a nerve.
Well, yes it did. ‘Putin’s useful idiot’ is hardly fair when there’s legitimate question for Libdem and other opposition parties to ask, I’m not saying there isn’t a good and legitimate reason Tories moving slowly allowing the money to escape before locking the door, only in a democracy we should be able to ask without, well, most insulting term of abuse which can be used this week.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
What precisely is mean by the 'rule of law' is an interesting question. Lord Bingham's book of that name is a short, good read. As a starter for discussion he sets out a number of principles contributing to it. I find 4 particualrly important.
The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable;
Quetions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion;
The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation;
Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purposes for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably;
The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights;
Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve;
Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair;
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law
I wonder when any society will get close to managing all 8 concurrently.....
I don't wonder - the answer is never.
But not managing to be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to attain it at least of course.
But what I don't see in that list is anything distinctively UK, and in fact I think we fall down badly on 5 for want of a written constitution. As is clear from today's discussion there is a lot of misunderstanding of the legislature/judiciary relationship. It is simply not a comic exaggeration that a law passed by parliament providing for the decapitation of all Welshmen is a perfectly valid law in these parts.
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
I just tried to read up on the state of their Parliament and politics. I failed! That’s going to take some deeper reading. No lazy U.K. political parallels to be made it seems.
It’s really not that hard. Strict PR system, with 4% threshold to get into parliament. The main thing to get your head around is that all 8 of the parliamentary parties are “left” in a global context, even the supposed “conservatives”.
Currently 8 parliamentary parties:
Red-Green bloc:
S Social Democrats, think centrist/sensible Labour (currently the sole governing party)
V Left Party, formerly called the Communists, far-left
MP Greens, what it says on the tin, pretty leftist
Conservative bloc:
M Moderates, think Tory wets
KD Christian Democrats, ultra-liberal Jesus fans when compared to every other Christian political movement
SD Sweden Democrats, think BNP-lite/UKIP/Farage, but never talk about Europe; bang on about immigration literally non-stop; other policies pretty left wing
Stuck in the middle:
C Centre Party, formerly Agrarians, pro small business liberals with a greenish tinge
L Liberals, classic urban liberal party, soon to be waving Hej då to parliamentary life
Thank you. I didn’t want to be annoying and ask. That’s really interesting.
Why do you reckon the liberals (on 2-3%) are certain to fall short of the 4% threshold but the greens (also 2-3) have a chance? Is vote-lending from allies a thing in Sweden these days (I'm out of touch!)?
Are Scottish football clubs really stupid or just tone deaf?
The football career of former Scotland striker David Goodwillie appears to be over after he was banned from entering Clyde FC’s Broadwood Stadium, home of Clyde FC, by the ground’s owners North Lanarkshire Council.
Clyde, whose women’s team have quit in protest at his return on loan from Raith Rovers, have also been informed by the council that their use of Broadwood will come to an end when the current lease expires next year.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
If @NickPalmer is about, great poll for the Swedish Social Democrats tonight. In addition to the headline numbers, apparently the party are doing even better among first-time voters.
S 32 +3 V 9 -1 MP 3 nc
Red-Green total 44 +2 (Although note Greens under 4% threshold)
M 21 +1 SD 19 nc KD 5 nc
Conservative total 45 +1
C 7 -1 L 2 -1
Liberals (uncommitted to either bloc) 9 -2 (Although Liberals look a dead cert to leave parliament)
The GE is in September.
For what it’s worth, IMHO more likely the Centre Party will support the Reds than the Blues.
I just tried to read up on the state of their Parliament and politics. I failed! That’s going to take some deeper reading. No lazy U.K. political parallels to be made it seems.
It’s really not that hard. Strict PR system, with 4% threshold to get into parliament. The main thing to get your head around is that all 8 of the parliamentary parties are “left” in a global context, even the supposed “conservatives”.
Currently 8 parliamentary parties:
Red-Green bloc:
S Social Democrats, think centrist/sensible Labour (currently the sole governing party)
V Left Party, formerly called the Communists, far-left
MP Greens, what it says on the tin, pretty leftist
Conservative bloc:
M Moderates, think Tory wets
KD Christian Democrats, ultra-liberal Jesus fans when compared to every other Christian political movement
SD Sweden Democrats, think BNP-lite/UKIP/Farage, but never talk about Europe; bang on about immigration literally non-stop; other policies pretty left wing
Stuck in the middle:
C Centre Party, formerly Agrarians, pro small business liberals with a greenish tinge
L Liberals, classic urban liberal party, soon to be waving Hej då to parliamentary life
Thank you. I didn’t want to be annoying and ask. That’s really interesting.
Why do you reckon the liberals (on 2-3%) are certain to fall short of the 4% threshold but the greens (also 2-3) have a chance? Is vote-lending from allies a thing in Sweden these days (I'm out of touch!)?
Nope Nick: you’re spot on! 😉
“Stödröster” heter det.
The Greens (might) still have em.
The Liberals definitely don’t. A case study in how to make enemies and not influence people.
We may as well accept it, there are no good outcomes to this that don't involve the overthorw of Putin. It may take months or years but the West should keep up the economic pressure on Russia until it happens.
No 'deal' that sees Ukrain giving up part of its territory should be brooked whist Putin is still in charge imo - and 'guarantee' he offers about Ukraine's future will be worthless.
And what if Putin says ‘if I don’t get my way in Ukraine I will nuke Lviv, killing 1m people’
What can we do then? We are not going to all-out nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. It’s that simple. And Putin knows it, hence his barely veiled threats of nuke war. The menace is present
In the end he will get what he wants in Ukraine
The big problem with nuclear weapons and the theory of deterrence was the reliance on everyone acting rationally. The unspoken fear was always: what happens if someone mad gets hold of them. We always presumed that meant terrorists, willing to die for religion or whatever
Turns out it’s worse than that. It’s the president of Russia and he has 6,000 warheads, not just 1 in a briefcase
Oh, I quite accept he may for a time get the whole of Ukraine, but there should be no let up on the economic sanctions. From all I have heard the Russian economy cannot last long in the current climate.
Agreeing a settlement with Putin will be a sham, and he will soon be on to the next target.
The Chinese have a role to play here too. Whilst they would have been happy to see the West divided and the US 'knocked off its perch', economic meltdown and, even more, nuclear war does them no good at all. If the west plus China cannot constrain Russia now then we may as well give up, because nothing will.
I think China will be very satisfied with the situation. Its making them look like the adults in the room, it's giving them a desperate trading partner to sell them lots of cheap gas, and buy lots of manufactured goods, it's weakening a potential future geopolitical rival.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Russia can't suddenly replace the EU with China as a market for its gas because there's only one (pretty small) pipe in existence today. They're planning a second, but it would still only be half the capacity of the original Nord Stream, and is due to be ready in 2028 (so probably more like 2030).
So, the idea that Russia can turn on a dime, and switch gas exports to China is for the birds.
Yes.
Isn't the capacity of the existing China pipeline about 10% of the European ones?
Unless, I guess, Russia or China has a large fleet of LNG carriers to hand, and relevant terminal.
Russia has two LNG export terminals: Sakhalin-2, which can only export gas from Sakhalin, as that's an island. And Yamal LNG, which can export 16.5m tonnes of LNG (in theory) when trains two and three come on stream (and about 6m tonnes today).
But - in more weird timing fuckups - I don't believe the third train is operational yet. And without the help of their GC, I don't believe the Russians will be able to bring it on stream. So, Russia will be unable to export as much gas from there as they would have been if they had waited two or three months.
Are Scottish football clubs really stupid or just tone deaf?
The football career of former Scotland striker David Goodwillie appears to be over after he was banned from entering Clyde FC’s Broadwood Stadium, home of Clyde FC, by the ground’s owners North Lanarkshire Council.
Clyde, whose women’s team have quit in protest at his return on loan from Raith Rovers, have also been informed by the council that their use of Broadwood will come to an end when the current lease expires next year.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
Interesting - combined two British strengths - the Recovery Trials and Genomic sequencing:
The Recovery Trial has been a pandemic success story . With more than 47,000 participants across the UK, it is the biggest study of Covid treatments in the world.
The treatments it has discovered have saved countless lives.
But its latest drug, baricitinib, was uncovered with the help of some DNA detective work. The Genomicc study has been trying to understand why some people with Covid have no symptoms while others become extremely ill.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
Yeah. That’s the ones. There’s a good few around here.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
But what exactly would you be outlawing? Being Russian and a billionaire?
The UK has closed its ports to Russian shipping - has the EU?
More significantly we've closed our insurance and banking markets to Russian companies. That's much more significant than any individual sanctions.
Yes, we could have been faster going after oligarchs, but no we shouldn’t throw due process out the window to do so - and this fetishisation of oligarchs is ignoring the more substantive work that has been done. I suspect there is some embarrassment in the EU over their handbrake turn on Russia, but so be it. Unity is more important than nit picking.
I was the biggest critic of the EU a week ago but they have fully turned around and are now moving faster than the Brits. Boris needs to stop dragging his feet on dodgy foreign money.
The EU don't have our independent rule of law, or our financial sector.
Getting this right is more important than getting it rushed, and there's a reason the USA (also with independent rule of law and a key financial sector) is following the same timescale too.
Easy for the EU to rush ahead, then realise they've gone down a blind alley and retreat. No harm in that, but this isn't as key to them.
If we start going slower than the USA then that would be bizarre. But we're not, and the UK and USA have move pretty much in lockstep on this sharing intelligence and taking the lead.
I knew you'd come over in the end. Good old sclerosis, eh?
This "rule of law" thing that we have and Johnny foreigner doesn't, is a red herring. I can promise you that all UN recognised countries have well defined written legal codes, and adherence to them is not voluntary, at least in first world countries which are not France. So what are you on about? And how does whatever you are on about sit with your defence of this government breaking treaty obligations? does the rule of law not apply there?
The first test where Indy UK can nimbly beat EU to the draw because of the sovereignty of parliament, and it turns out the EU are displaying the WRONG SORT of nimbleness.
No the rule of law doesn't apply to international law, which is more as they say guidelines than actual rules. The rule of law applies to domestic law which trumps international law in domestic courts.
Ask any legal expert on this site, of which there are many, and they've said for years how special the UK's legal system is and how it is so highly regarded. There is a reason contracts all over the globe get signed under the UK's legal system and that's because of the true independence of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law.
Not every first world nation has the same respect for law, and Common Law, that England has.
We should not throw that baby out with the bathwater. Sanctions absolutely, but they must follow the rule of law.
And Parliament passing primary legislation or abusing its prerogative to target individuals rather than setting a framework through which individuals who fall afoul of the law are targeted, is utterly repugnant and unBritish.
If you are quoting POTC you are losing.
I spent ten years as a solicitor conducting litigation about two thirds in London and one third in random overseas jurisdictions. English courts are revered for their impartiality and thoroughness but not for speed of results, which is a factor here, wouldn't you say?
I don't otherwise understand what you are on about. How is legislation aimed at corrupt foreign citizens "targeting individuals?" Again, if you are talking about my Let's Bankrupt Abramovich Act I was JOKING.
Because the whole fucking point is that it's the executive telling us these people are corrupt, I don't trust Boris and Priti, why do you?
Really? It looks to me as if they are protecting them. But anyway the proposed law would define who was fdorrupt and not, and anyone who thought they weren't corrupt could go to court to prove it.
Legislation should not define who is corrupt. The law should define what is corrupt and the courts should determine if someone meets that standard or not.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
Jesus. Legislation IS the law. Like Judge Dredd. If legislation can define theft and (some forms of) rape and GBH what is the problem with it defining corruption?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
An unexplained wealth order asset seizure is tested in court though, that is the executive accusing someone of being a corrupt arsehole. What you're proposing is the government naming people in law as corrupt arseholes with essentially no right of appeal short of getting the primary legislation repealed.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
I DID NOT PROPOSE NAMING THEM
If not, how do you propose confiscating their assets?
bloody hell
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
Putin has also just accused "neo-nazis" of shooting Chinese students in Kharkiv, which suggests he's struggling to keep China on side.
He tried that with India as well, and unfortunately Indian nationalists are as plentiful as they are mind-numbingly stupid, so it did have an effect there.
Wiki reckons one Indian died citizen during the fighting, but not clear how. No Chinese mentioned.
Noticeable that India asking Russia not to kill Indians in Ukraine but does not need to ask Ukraine not to kill Indians in Ukraine. And yet India not voting at the UN in support of Ukraine and against Russia. Come on India. Stop being cowards. Vote against Russia and for Ukraine.
I see Nick Palmer is calling for appeasement as he so often doesn't. The Minsk agreement was signed by the Ukrainians whilst they had a gun to their heads. I'm fed up with this desperate attempt to always veer towards six of one half a dozen of another. As for this nationalism where do you see that? A suppose it's inevitable in the current situation but the Ukrainians know their only hope is Euro/westernification so that doesn't make a lot of sense.
If it gets a lot worse I think Zelensky should set up a government in exile and save the country from wreckage. Wait for the Russian economy to collapse and then head back get control of Donbass/Crimea. Demand Russia pay some reparations, strip them of their permanent seat on the security council and have a demilitarised zone inside Russia close to the Ukraine border to give the Ukrainians a feeling of safety. All this would be a condition of removing the crippling sanctions. How much of that is plausible? I don't know. But don't underestimate the weakness of Russia's position. Even the enireity of the post-Soviet states have abandoned them with the exception of Belarus, where Lukashenko looks incredibly vulnerable requiring the Russian forces in ukraine to protect him from his own population.
Anyone thinking this a Versailles settlement is talking nonsense. The demands of Russia would be quite modest. Unfreezing their central bank assets on the basis that half of it goes to Ukraine? I would be delighted to reach out to a post-Putin Russia so we can put all this behind us.
Weird how all these existing cheap drugs keep being discovered to help with Covid despite the massive pharmaceutical and government conspiracy to hide the effectiveness of cheap existing drugs.
Looking at the intensity of the bombing of Ukraine, you wonder if it is best to just let Russia have its 'victory'. Then begin an insurgency with western arms; whilst Russia remains completely cut off from the rest of the world. That would presumably skip over the destruction of its cities and the loss of a huge amount of lives.
I've been wondering about the Russian government's use of "Nazis" as a term of abuse, and the weird context in which it is being deployed.
I wonder if "Nazi" means something very different to the average Russian compared to someone in the West.
When we think of Nazis, the dominant features are the antisemitic underpinnings, Kristallnacht, the holocaust, the brownshirts, the Nuremberg rallies.
Maybe that stuff is just less in the foreground with Russia. Maybe to them Nazis means militaristic nationalists from the West who want to invade and subjugate us? More how Western Europe viewed the Prussians/Germans before WW1.
That would explain the rather odd context in which they are talking about neo-Nazis. Either that or they are just going classic Godwin.
Godwin needs thrown out the window. We must be free to point out nascent fascism.
Godwin is about stuff like "Greta is a Nazi because I hate her" Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
You say that, but in actual fact, some dickhead always brings it up, even when the comparison is spot-on.
I think, although it doesn't expressly say this, it is better construed as applying only to accusations against participants in the conversation: If you think that you are LITERALLY HITLER!
But again, that is not how Godwin is used, or rather misused.
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
How dare people call me a Nazi just because I believe in defending the white race and have ‘humorously’ popped off the odd Hitlergruß; liberals should condemn less and understand more.
hmmm, steward's enquiry for knowing what it's called and having the Eszett immediately to hand.
I use the Eszett out of habit when sending papers to German academics - when writing Strasse and so on. Didn't know this was ideologically unsound.
Comments
Just to be clear, I think the Government SHOULD pass such a law but as I understand it it has not done so.
Passing laws to define individual people as guilty in repressive.
(Spoiler@ they don't win. It's Vladimir Putin. Each and every day.)
*https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tories-accept-30000-vladimir-putins-1200956
According to the BBC live feed:
"Russia's second-largest oil producer Lukoil is calling for an end to the conflict in Ukraine.
In a statement on its website, the company said it was concerned by the "tragic events in Ukraine" and supported the negotiations to end the conflict.
Its board called for "the immediate cessation of the armed conflict and fully supports its resolution through the negotiation process and through diplomatic means".
The company is thought to be one of the first major Russian firms to speak out against the invasion."
However, when I go to the lukoil.com site I get this:
Web Page Blocked!
The page cannot be displayed. Please contact the administrator for additional information.
URL: lukoil.com/
Client IP: 109.156.252.184
Attack ID: 20000018
Message ID: 007944752072
Not things like "The head of the Wagner Group is a Nazi. Because he has actually Nazi tattoos. And espouses Nazi policies."
Seriously weird now, Russians are driving 250km into Ukraine with weaponry needed for the fight (AA stuff in this case), then just abandoning it (or are they defecting to the west)? Also at $16m a pop when new, that's not a cheap fire.
Similar with this thermobaric weapon reloader: https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1499349053620039681
At this rate I'm half expecting a Ukrainian farmer to end up with the Admiral Kuznetsov.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1499442897854283785
Of course it’s possible a case doesn’t exist…
Britain has a version of it, but I don't think it's anywhere near as potent ?
(Russian experts be free to mock, as I am not one.)
Why would you feel the need to when the answer is more obvious than Putin's insanity?
Currently 8 parliamentary parties:
Red-Green bloc:
S Social Democrats, think centrist/sensible Labour (currently the sole governing party)
V Left Party, formerly called the Communists, far-left
MP Greens, what it says on the tin, pretty leftist
Conservative bloc:
M Moderates, think Tory wets
KD Christian Democrats, ultra-liberal Jesus fans when compared to every other Christian political movement
SD Sweden Democrats, think BNP-lite/UKIP/Farage, but never talk about Europe; bang on about immigration literally non-stop; other policies pretty left wing
Stuck in the middle:
C Centre Party, formerly Agrarians, pro small business liberals with a greenish tinge
L Liberals, classic urban liberal party, soon to be waving Hej då to parliamentary life
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/t5spld/st_petersburg_russia_people_are_chanting_no_to/
I'm sure @Dura_Ace can fix it up and teach us what to do....
EDIT: Just watched the first video. The guys who owns TanksAlot will be screaming at his TV - "I could have sold those for a mint, you silly...."
Macron (LREM-RE): 25.5% (+1.5)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 16%
Zemmour (REC-NI): 16%
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 13.5%
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 12.5% (-0.5)
...
+/- vs. 20-23 February 2022
Fieldwork: 27 February-1 March 2022
Sample size: 2,195
If Putin had been trying to push Ukraine, Finland and Georgia into a more Western outlook, it's hard to think what more he could have done.
(i) Putin successfully uses nuclear blackmail to recreate the USSR in Eastern Europe.
(ii) Nuclear war between NATO and Russia.
I rate these 2 prospects as remote and (ii) more likely than (i).
https://twitter.com/b_mcgeever/status/1498240612549763076?s=21
Last week 12 NATO planes infiltrated Swedish airspace for several hours without permission. Is Norway about to invade?
Our problem is we are slow when we need to be fast. So we need to speed things up. So we pass a law saying Sorry, emergency, we can now confiscate stuff from people who seem to us to be relevantly corrupt on immediate notice. Anyone who disagrees about being corrupt can go to court about it, if they are right they get their stuff back but limited costs and no consequential damagews because, like we said, emergency. problem solved. Or, we can give Boris's tennis mate months to offshore his assets. Which is better?
This sort of stuff happens all the time. look what we did to people and their property in the World Wars, or look at unexplained wealth orders.
And an absence of the current nuclear threat.
But not managing to be perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to attain it at least of course.
Forget partygate, Boris Johnson needs sacking for this knighthood.
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine says it has agreed with Russia to create safe corridors backed by cease-fires to evacuate civilians, deliver aid.
Have to hope that holds.
https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1499445964259667979
KYC and AML haunt me right now.
What may be legally possible isn't morally correct. I'd rather the government didn't name individuals in primary legislation to strip of their property rights in the UK. You might for expediency but I'd prefer we not go down that route and the government prepare a compelling case within the existing framework to target individuals and not legislate them as corrupt.
Calling people Putin's useful idiots because they believe the EU is acting faster than Johnson in certain respects sounds if you just want to cut off opinions you don't like.
We shall find out eventually but my bet is that a year from now Boris's actions on Russian money in the UK will amount to nothing but puff and wind.
The "elite", professional formations of the Russian army continue to severely underperform.
In Irpin, a VDV (airborne) unit was smashed by the Ukrainian Army.🇺🇦
Multiple BMD armoured vehicles destroyed.
And this is a key indicator of the lack of Russian military effectiveness - the VDV should be the highest trained, the best equipped, the most able to function in an environment with degraded command and control - but they're still getting absolutely pasted by the Ukrainian Army.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1499446945353551878
IMHO Godwin’s Law is actually assisting the new generation of fascists, because people fear pointing out the flippin obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0B47alAkY
Some stuff we've covered, but some angles I hadn't heard before.
I thought Johnson's response to Bill Esterson at PMQs yesterday was telling. A reasonable question about sanctions, met by a tirade of angry incoherent bloviation.
Johnson is scared of his Russian connections. Forget partygate, it is that which will bring him down. There will be a reckoning after all this.
Assuming this government has competence.
On the financial services front, this government's response is so bad it feels like Sir Gavin Williamson is running the show.
However, you are wrong. 1/6 is rubbish.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-60601750
The recovery trials have been a massive success.
'And obviously not mentioning their own Wager group are rather Nazi supporting too. '
It's actually the Wagner Group - not to be confused with the Wager Group which is the hizbollah wing of PB.com.
I could kill for a sore throat right now. Better than nuclear angst.
The football career of former Scotland striker David Goodwillie appears to be over after he was banned from entering Clyde FC’s Broadwood Stadium, home of Clyde FC, by the ground’s owners North Lanarkshire Council.
Clyde, whose women’s team have quit in protest at his return on loan from Raith Rovers, have also been informed by the council that their use of Broadwood will come to an end when the current lease expires next year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/03/03/david-goodwillie-banned-clyde-stadium-local-council-womens-team/
I can pass a law outlawing rape by defining the act and then going looking for people perpetrating it, no? I don't have to name all the present or future suspects in a schedule, do I? What's different?
“Stödröster” heter det.
The Greens (might) still have em.
The Liberals definitely don’t. A case study in how to make enemies and not influence people.
But - in more weird timing fuckups - I don't believe the third train is operational yet. And without the help of their GC, I don't believe the Russians will be able to bring it on stream. So, Russia will be unable to export as much gas from there as they would have been if they had waited two or three months.
The Recovery Trial has been a pandemic success story
.
With more than 47,000 participants across the UK, it is the biggest study of Covid treatments in the world.
The treatments it has discovered have saved countless lives.
But its latest drug, baricitinib, was uncovered with the help of some DNA detective work.
The Genomicc study has been trying to understand why some people with Covid have no symptoms while others become extremely ill.
Meanwhile, Williamson, WTF?
If it gets a lot worse I think Zelensky should set up a government in exile and save the country from wreckage. Wait for the Russian economy to collapse and then head back get control of Donbass/Crimea. Demand Russia pay some reparations, strip them of their permanent seat on the security council and have a demilitarised zone inside Russia close to the Ukraine border to give the Ukrainians a feeling of safety. All this would be a condition of removing the crippling sanctions. How much of that is plausible? I don't know. But don't underestimate the weakness of Russia's position. Even the enireity of the post-Soviet states have abandoned them with the exception of Belarus, where Lukashenko looks incredibly vulnerable requiring the Russian forces in ukraine to protect him from his own population.
Anyone thinking this a Versailles settlement is talking nonsense. The demands of Russia would be quite modest. Unfreezing their central bank assets on the basis that half of it goes to Ukraine? I would be delighted to reach out to a post-Putin Russia so we can put all this behind us.
That would presumably skip over the destruction of its cities and the loss of a huge amount of lives.