OK travel question. I am determined to go to Georgia/Armenia in about 3 weeks, to finish my tour (and assignments) but I need to kill time in some adorable part of Greece (or neighbouring countries - Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey - but preferably Greece)
Ideally it will be a coastal part of the mainland or an island. I’m looking for that perfect island, basically, just enough development - good tavernas, hotels, bars, Wi-Fi - to make it highly habitable, but not overrun with tourists and discos. I don’t mind a few hours on a ferry if it gets me to the right place
Does such a thing still exist?!
Try Folegandros.
Very near Santorini, with some of the landscape of Santorini but without the people, which I agree makes it a good choice. It's become pretty upmarket and expensive too nowadays, though, which should probably be borne in mind by the visitor as well.
In May and Early July and the second half of September it is beautifully sedate. I'd say it was moderately upmarket without being glitzy. It has the most beautiful Chora in the Cyclades in my opinion. And a real farming village as the only other significant settlement. And there is some really good authentic food.
But I'm biased as I have been nearly every year for 20 years.
No indeed, I don't think you're being biased, it is a beautiful island.
Just dreaming about eating at Irene's in Ano Meria - the only restaurant in a grocery I know.
Technically true but not realistically true. It would require the Liberal Democrats to gain 50 to 60 seats from the Tories in constituencies like Mid Sussex, Epsom and Ewell, Chelmsford and Surrey Heath and a huge Tory to LD swing of 14 to 15%.
More realistically Starmer could become PM gaining about 50 seats from the Tories with another 10 to 20 gains from the Tories coming from the Liberal Democrats. Then Starmer could become PM in a hung parliament even if Labour was still well short of an overall majority
"Boris Johnson will scrap a ban on 'buy one get one free' junk food deals and a 9pm watershed for sugary snacks to help poorer families.
The policies are being pushed back for at least a year in an attempt to soften the blow of soaring living costs but they could be ditched entirely."
Mail
This government is all over the place. They spend most of their time undoing what they wanted to introduce a year or two before. A border in the Irish Sea being the obvious main example.
The policies were stupid when they were announced, but I don't think anybody thinks they make a huge difference over cost of living, unless you literally live off chocolate bars and pizzas.
The DUP will keep saying no . The handmaidens of a hard Brexit won’t be happy until the border goes between NI and Ireland. They really are a loathsome bunch of bigots .
Do you think? I suspect they'll never serve as a second to Sinn Fein. The protocol is a figleaf for the real issue.
The DUP have done a "TMay", haven't they?
They triggered an unnecessary election in which they lost their pole position!
Most likely scenario for Labour is 260-280 seats in a hung parliament but they do now have a plausible route to get up to about 310 seats if they gain nearly 100 seats from the Tories in England and Wales and about 10 from the SNP (they were ahead of the SNP in the locals in a few seats like East Lothian, Lanark and Hamilton E, Glasgow E, Glasgow SW etc and not far behind in some others).
The West Midlands is the only region where Labour will struggle to make hardly any gains from the Tories I think.
I'd still be more cautious about the LDs than Labour given recent precedents although it would be very surprising if they did not gain at least 10 seats now even if I can see a few Tory MPs like William Wragg just about defying gravity.
Seats like Guildford, Wimbledon and S Cambs are surely complete shoe ins for he LDs and their chances of gaining seats like Esher and Walton, Hitchin and Harpenden and even Woking have increased further.
Broadly agree, but with a qualification, because there is no point in using the current situation as a guide to an outcome.
In general terms only two outcomes look likely: Lab minority or Tory majority government. The window for any other outcome is tiny. None is above 5-10%. That's plain maths + the actual situation we are now in + realism. The odds generally are just wrong.
There is far too much still to happen to be able to assess the relative likelihoods of the two major options. Both outcomes are highly fallible - far too many on the left actually prefer to lose elections and do their best to make it happen. The Tories woes need no explanation from me. Neither remotely deserves to form the next government but one of them will.
Therefore the real chances are roughly Labour led minority (324 seats or less) 45%. Tory majority (326+) 45%. 10% bar those.
A Lab-LD(-PC or Green) Coalition is surely plausible, even if you can mathematically bracket it with the minority.
Yes. My 45% probability is that Labour will lead a government in some form with less than a majority of the seats.
OK travel question. I am determined to go to Georgia/Armenia in about 3 weeks, to finish my tour (and assignments) but I need to kill time in some adorable part of Greece (or neighbouring countries - Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey - but preferably Greece)
Ideally it will be a coastal part of the mainland or an island. I’m looking for that perfect island, basically, just enough development - good tavernas, hotels, bars, Wi-Fi - to make it highly habitable, but not overrun with tourists and discos. I don’t mind a few hours on a ferry if it gets me to the right place
Does such a thing still exist?!
If it was me I'd go for Kalamata. Don't know it but always wanted to check out S Peloponnese, and on a 20 second google it seems to tick them boxes
We went on holiday there about five years ago. It was extremely quite and - frankly - a bit boring.
L Dems squandered the best opportunity they have had to push to become one of the two main parties, or a third party on rough parity with Lab and Con during 2010 parliament. Stupid myopic short termist unprepared and unimaginative.
You'll not be surprised to hear I completely disagree.
In my political life, there have arguably been three occasions when the duopoly was under real pressure - 1981, with the birth of the SDP, 2003, when the Conservatives got rid of IDS under whose leadership they could easily have finished third in the 2005 election in terms of votes (if not seats) and 2019 when the Brexit Party was an existential threat to the Conservatives.
As for 2010, I can assure you the Party war-gamed coalition scenarios. It's no secret many in the Party hoped the arithmetic would allow for both supporting the Conservatives and Labour to be options with the option to play the two main parties off against each other but that didn't happen.
The second unexpected development was Cameron's bravura speech on the Friday afternoon offering Clegg a full and open discussion to which Clegg could not and would not decline. There had been an expectation in the Party the Conservatives would shun all deals and coalitions and would prefer to govern as a minority.
Third, the unfolding crisis in Greece and the threat to the Eurozone (which was resolved by the Sunday evening after the election) piled enormous pressure on the coalition negotiators to conclude a deal - that pressure came from civil servants and the media.
I'll add a fourth - Hague was brilliant in the negotiations and completely out-manoeuvred Huhne and the LDs who were unable to get anything of substance and were forced to accept junior ministerial roles and were compelled to vote for policies directly opposed by the party.
Point 4 is really just that the maths didn't give the LDs many options - there was no possible stable Labour-led coalition so the choice was the coalition we had or a short-term minority Cameron government followed by another election where the LDs would most likely get punished for not going into government.
No conceivable punishment would have left them with eight seats, about half of which were bizarre, transient local deviations from national Labour Party strength. So they would probably end 2020 on a few dozen seats facing a Tory austerity majority. Which would have been an electorally better position, if not quite morally better, by 2015.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
If everyone stays in their polarised position then this saga will continue for years
Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched
Well, quite. It's about time the Unionists got their teddies back in the pram. And HMG did what it signed up to.
You show just why this is stalemate
Does he? Each side contributes to a situation, but the DUP appear to be the most obstructive, the most intractable, the most engaged in grandstanding to protect their position. If one side is more unreasonable a stalemate is not ended by giving in to them - they will simply move on to some other unreasonable position, since their only concern appears to be protecting their dominant position from other, more fiery, unionists.
I can't be the only person sick of the DUP acting like children then protecting that they are not taken seriously.
If everyone stays in their polarised position then this saga will continue for years
Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched
Well, quite. It's about time the Unionists got their teddies back in the pram. And HMG did what it signed up to.
You show just why this is stalemate
No, I don't. I didn't sign a treaty, win an election saying it was great, best thing since self-basting turkeys and all oven ready, then admit it was a heap of rotting poultry faeces. YOur party (at the time, and evidently now) did.
Completely OT I am more than a little chuffed tonight.
When we bought our place a decade or more ago it had two paddocks amounting to about 2 acres attached. We decided to extend some adjacent woodland, planting around 150 trees (birch, ash, hazel, poplar and oak), replant an ancient orchard that had existed until it was grubbed out in the 1980s and turn the rest of the land back to hay meadow. We have seen the return of many different birds and insects including a big increase in moth population which - thanks to he advice of our resident PB expert Marquee Mark - I have been recording the last few years.
Finally, this evening when out by the hedge between the two meadows I noticed that for the first time we now have hares in the meadow and at least one Form. It has taken a long time to get the land back into a proper state from the barren horse paddock it was but we are finally seeing the benefits. My only slight concern is whether the Red Kites nesting in the adjacent woodland might take a fancy to the leverets but that is just a chance we will have to take.
Please may I make a couple of points on the topic. 1. DUP and any other Unionists will not support a government that has made promises to the SNP that enable another referendum - an independent Scotland will surely lead to NI leaving the Union, either as a United Federal Republic, or an independent entity. 2. A Labour government that relies on both LibDem and SNP support won't last as long as you can say Jack Robinson, they don't like each other. One or the other could last a long time, but not both.
If everyone stays in their polarised position then this saga will continue for years
Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched
Well, quite. It's about time the Unionists got their teddies back in the pram. And HMG did what it signed up to.
You show just why this is stalemate
No, I don't. I didn't sign a treaty, win an election saying it was great, best thing since self-basting turkeys and all oven ready, then admit it was a heap of rotting poultry faeces. YOur party (at the time, and evidently now) did.
If everyone stays in their polarised position then this saga will continue for years
Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched
Well, quite. It's about time the Unionists got their teddies back in the pram. And HMG did what it signed up to.
You show just why this is stalemate
No, I don't. I didn't sign a treaty, win an election saying it was great, best thing since self-basting turkeys and all oven ready, then admit it was a heap of rotting poultry faeces. YOur party (at the time, and evidently now) did.
I am not excusing Boris or the DUP, but this can only be resolved in negotiation with the EU, Irish and UK governments - Liz Truss is correct in seeking further talks and I believe Boris is meeting Michele O'Neill on Monday
OK travel question. I am determined to go to Georgia/Armenia in about 3 weeks, to finish my tour (and assignments) but I need to kill time in some adorable part of Greece (or neighbouring countries - Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey - but preferably Greece)
Ideally it will be a coastal part of the mainland or an island. I’m looking for that perfect island, basically, just enough development - good tavernas, hotels, bars, Wi-Fi - to make it highly habitable, but not overrun with tourists and discos. I don’t mind a few hours on a ferry if it gets me to the right place
Does such a thing still exist?!
If it was me I'd go for Kalamata. Don't know it but always wanted to check out S Peloponnese, and on a 20 second google it seems to tick them boxes
We went on holiday there about five years ago. It was extremely quite and - frankly - a bit boring.
Mani is an interesting place, for me, in the Peloponnese, after the area I mentioned before. Darkly mysterious, locals still renowned by other Greeks for their conservatism, descended from a combination of Spartans and various Latins who occupied the coast, and some shockingly beautiful landscapes and bits of coastline once occupied by pirates. Somehow not for the faint hearted, but opening up to tourism a bit more, nowadays.
"Boris Johnson will scrap a ban on 'buy one get one free' junk food deals and a 9pm watershed for sugary snacks to help poorer families.
The policies are being pushed back for at least a year in an attempt to soften the blow of soaring living costs but they could be ditched entirely."
Mail
This government is all over the place. They spend most of their time undoing what they wanted to introduce a year or two before. A border in the Irish Sea being the obvious main example.
The policies were stupid when they were announced, but I don't think anybody thinks they make a huge difference over cost of living, unless you literally live off chocolate bars and pizzas.
If Labour stood down in their weakest 200 constituencies for just one election the ensuing chaos could be quite refreshing.
And I'd bet we get a Labour Government.
I bet that the voters would rumble their attempt to rig the system and punish the "progressive alliance".
I have some experience of this. I'm currently a district cllr and I stood as a progressive alliance candidate for county last year. Knocked on hundreds of doors. The reception was generally accepting. Nobody shouted at me. I was congratulated for taking the initiative quite frequently.
I did okay. Better than I expected. 40% in a solid conservative area. An area where 60% is the standard conservative vote. I didn't feel punished.
In my opinion Labour are not in power because they are a not prepared to compromise. Which is just dumb considering that successful government is about finding compromises that suit your goals.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
Swedish volunteers did support Finland in the Winter War.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
So, you want Nicola to just declare UDI tomorrow?
She isn't actually the leader of her country, Scotland not being a country (as you never tire of reminding us). So it would have to be Johnson who made the UDI with Parliament's support.
But if he did, under our system, none of us would have any say or grounds for complaint even if we disagreed.
Just as if he decided to take us back into the EU (and who would put it past him if he thought it was in his interests?) he could do so if Parliament backed him.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
Swedish volunteers did support Finland in the Winter War.
Sunil, that’s like everyone having a debate about shallots vs onions, and you hopping in and telling everyone how much you love bananas.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
So, you want Nicola to just declare UDI tomorrow?
She isn't actually the leader of her country, Scotland not being a country (as you never tire of reminding us). So it would have to be Johnson who made the UDI with Parliament's support.
But if he did, under our system, none of us would have any say or grounds for complaint even if we disagreed.
Just as if he decided to take us back into the EU (and who would put it past him if he thought it was in his interests?) he could do so if Parliament backed him.
Dearie me. Straw man time is it? I detect an uncharacteristic sloppiness in your style. Friday night. Ho hum.
OK travel question. I am determined to go to Georgia/Armenia in about 3 weeks, to finish my tour (and assignments) but I need to kill time in some adorable part of Greece (or neighbouring countries - Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey - but preferably Greece)
Ideally it will be a coastal part of the mainland or an island. I’m looking for that perfect island, basically, just enough development - good tavernas, hotels, bars, Wi-Fi - to make it highly habitable, but not overrun with tourists and discos. I don’t mind a few hours on a ferry if it gets me to the right place
Does such a thing still exist?!
On my wish list:
Hydra - no cars, one town, no real roads, less than two hours from Piraeus
Serifos - fine architecture, pebbly beaches and captivating character
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
So, you want Nicola to just declare UDI tomorrow?
She isn't actually the leader of her country, Scotland not being a country (as you never tire of reminding us). So it would have to be Johnson who made the UDI with Parliament's support.
But if he did, under our system, none of us would have any say or grounds for complaint even if we disagreed.
Just as if he decided to take us back into the EU (and who would put it past him if he thought it was in his interests?) he could do so if Parliament backed him.
Dearie me. Straw man time is it? I detect an uncharacteristic sloppiness in your style. Friday night. Ho hum.
I note, however, that you do not identify the straw man, the points of sloppiness you observe or indeed rebut the argument.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Not for the first time I think you might be slightly deranged.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
Your last sentence is purely an anti English diatribe and certainly you are not speaking for public opinion in either country
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
Swedish volunteers did support Finland in the Winter War.
Sunil, that’s like everyone having a debate about shallots vs onions, and you hopping in and telling everyone how much you love bananas.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
So, you want Nicola to just declare UDI tomorrow?
She isn't actually the leader of her country, Scotland not being a country (as you never tire of reminding us). So it would have to be Johnson who made the UDI with Parliament's support.
But if he did, under our system, none of us would have any say or grounds for complaint even if we disagreed.
Just as if he decided to take us back into the EU (and who would put it past him if he thought it was in his interests?) he could do so if Parliament backed him.
Dearie me. Straw man time is it? I detect an uncharacteristic sloppiness in your style. Friday night. Ho hum.
I note, however, that you do not identify the straw man, the points of sloppiness you observe or indeed rebut the argument.
I could do all three of those things, if you really are that thick. But I don’t think you are. Your just a bit tipsy. Just accept the fact that we disagree and move on. You are never going to convince me to love nuclear weapons.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Rest assured all the peoples of Britain can decide, so keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Completely OT I am more than a little chuffed tonight.
When we bought our place a decade or more ago it had two paddocks amounting to about 2 acres attached. We decided to extend some adjacent woodland, planting around 150 trees (birch, ash, hazel, poplar and oak), replant an ancient orchard that had existed until it was grubbed out in the 1980s and turn the rest of the land back to hay meadow. We have seen the return of many different birds and insects including a big increase in moth population which - thanks to he advice of our resident PB expert Marquee Mark - I have been recording the last few years.
Finally, this evening when out by the hedge between the two meadows I noticed that for the first time we now have hares in the meadow and at least one Form. It has taken a long time to get the land back into a proper state from the barren horse paddock it was but we are finally seeing the benefits. My only slight concern is whether the Red Kites nesting in the adjacent woodland might take a fancy to the leverets but that is just a chance we will have to take.
Well done I am pleased for you. We have bought a moth light we have not had time to use yet but I hope to do so soon.
L Dems squandered the best opportunity they have had to push to become one of the two main parties, or a third party on rough parity with Lab and Con during 2010 parliament. Stupid myopic short termist unprepared and unimaginative.
You'll not be surprised to hear I completely disagree.
In my political life, there have arguably been three occasions when the duopoly was under real pressure - 1981, with the birth of the SDP, 2003, when the Conservatives got rid of IDS under whose leadership they could easily have finished third in the 2005 election in terms of votes (if not seats) and 2019 when the Brexit Party was an existential threat to the Conservatives.
As for 2010, I can assure you the Party war-gamed coalition scenarios. It's no secret many in the Party hoped the arithmetic would allow for both supporting the Conservatives and Labour to be options with the option to play the two main parties off against each other but that didn't happen.
The second unexpected development was Cameron's bravura speech on the Friday afternoon offering Clegg a full and open discussion to which Clegg could not and would not decline. There had been an expectation in the Party the Conservatives would shun all deals and coalitions and would prefer to govern as a minority.
Third, the unfolding crisis in Greece and the threat to the Eurozone (which was resolved by the Sunday evening after the election) piled enormous pressure on the coalition negotiators to conclude a deal - that pressure came from civil servants and the media.
I'll add a fourth - Hague was brilliant in the negotiations and completely out-manoeuvred Huhne and the LDs who were unable to get anything of substance and were forced to accept junior ministerial roles and were compelled to vote for policies directly opposed by the party.
Point 4 is really just that the maths didn't give the LDs many options - there was no possible stable Labour-led coalition so the choice was the coalition we had or a short-term minority Cameron government followed by another election where the LDs would most likely get punished for not going into government.
No conceivable punishment would have left them with eight seats, about half of which were bizarre, transient local deviations from national Labour Party strength. So they would probably end 2020 on a few dozen seats facing a Tory austerity majority. Which would have been an electorally better position, if not quite morally better, by 2015.
Oh, indeed. But that would have required long term thinking.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
Your last sentence is purely an anti English diatribe and certainly you are not speaking for public opinion in either country
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Rest assured all the peoples of Britain can decide, so keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Hmmm. Doesn't seem to work somehow?
Incoherent. I think you ought to tackle this topic in a more considered fashion in the cold light of day.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
So, you want Nicola to just declare UDI tomorrow?
She isn't actually the leader of her country, Scotland not being a country (as you never tire of reminding us). So it would have to be Johnson who made the UDI with Parliament's support.
But if he did, under our system, none of us would have any say or grounds for complaint even if we disagreed.
Just as if he decided to take us back into the EU (and who would put it past him if he thought it was in his interests?) he could do so if Parliament backed him.
Dearie me. Straw man time is it? I detect an uncharacteristic sloppiness in your style. Friday night. Ho hum.
I note, however, that you do not identify the straw man, the points of sloppiness you observe or indeed rebut the argument.
I could do all three of those things, if you really are that thick. But I don’t think you are. Your just a bit tipsy. Just accept the fact that we disagree and move on. You are never going to convince me to love nuclear weapons.
You could, you say - but you don't. And it's ironic that you accuse me of being 'tipsy' (I haven't drunk anything yet) while you resort to personal abuse and can't even spell 'your.'
Nobody is convincing you to 'love nuclear weapons.' All that I am doing is pointing out the situation Sweden is in. It's frankly not one I envy. But you seem to be in denial of the seriousness of it. Andersson's actions show she is anything but.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Rest assured all the peoples of Britain can decide, so keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Hmmm. Doesn't seem to work somehow?
Incoherent. I think you ought to tackle this topic in a more considered fashion in the cold light of day.
I am surprised you admit your words are incoherent. But equally, several people have been telling you that for the last hour so maybe it got through.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Rest assured all the peoples of Britain can decide, so keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.
No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
So, you want Nicola to just declare UDI tomorrow?
She isn't actually the leader of her country, Scotland not being a country (as you never tire of reminding us). So it would have to be Johnson who made the UDI with Parliament's support.
But if he did, under our system, none of us would have any say or grounds for complaint even if we disagreed.
Just as if he decided to take us back into the EU (and who would put it past him if he thought it was in his interests?) he could do so if Parliament backed him.
Dearie me. Straw man time is it? I detect an uncharacteristic sloppiness in your style. Friday night. Ho hum.
I note, however, that you do not identify the straw man, the points of sloppiness you observe or indeed rebut the argument.
I could do all three of those things, if you really are that thick. But I don’t think you are. Your just a bit tipsy. Just accept the fact that we disagree and move on. You are never going to convince me to love nuclear weapons.
You could, you say - but you don't. And it's ironic that you accuse me of being 'tipsy' (I haven't drunk anything yet) while you resort to personal abuse and can't even spell 'your.'
Nobody is convincing you to 'love nuclear weapons.' All that I am doing is pointing out the situation Sweden is in. It's frankly not one I envy. But you seem to be in denial of the seriousness of it. Andersson's actions show she is anything but.
Magdalena Andersson isn’t the first person to be duped by Boris Johnson. She won’t be the last either.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Are you not also British by citizenship?
No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Not for the first time I think you might be slightly deranged.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Thank you for staying your moral position. And for doing so with such precision and detail. No weasel words to fall back on, or hide behind.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
Rest assured all the peoples of Britain can decide, so keep your wise counsel to yourself.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Are you not also British by citizenship?
No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Quite. And European too. Jammy sod.
I love my European citizenship. It is so liberating to know that I can live and work wherever I like within the EU.
And as a Nordic citizen that even applies to the 2 non-EU Nordic countries: Iceland and Norway.
My home, both physical and psychological, is attractive. Many years ago SeanT wrote a memorable post about his warm feelings for his European home. He was going through a brief period of EU-enthusiasm. It was quite poetic. Shame the archives have been lost. I’d guess it was perhaps around 2012. Anyone else remember it?
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Are you not also British by citizenship?
No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.
Completely OT I am more than a little chuffed tonight.
When we bought our place a decade or more ago it had two paddocks amounting to about 2 acres attached. We decided to extend some adjacent woodland, planting around 150 trees (birch, ash, hazel, poplar and oak), replant an ancient orchard that had existed until it was grubbed out in the 1980s and turn the rest of the land back to hay meadow. We have seen the return of many different birds and insects including a big increase in moth population which - thanks to he advice of our resident PB expert Marquee Mark - I have been recording the last few years.
Finally, this evening when out by the hedge between the two meadows I noticed that for the first time we now have hares in the meadow and at least one Form. It has taken a long time to get the land back into a proper state from the barren horse paddock it was but we are finally seeing the benefits. My only slight concern is whether the Red Kites nesting in the adjacent woodland might take a fancy to the leverets but that is just a chance we will have to take.
If they take them that's nature my friend. They won't take them all anyways. That's also nature. Congratulations on doing a small bit for all our benefit.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Are you not also British by citizenship?
No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Are you not also British by citizenship?
No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.
Says British in my passport.
If it said Knob, would that make it true?
Well, your passport says 'Dick' in it...so I can understand why you feel it wouldn't.
Completely OT I am more than a little chuffed tonight.
When we bought our place a decade or more ago it had two paddocks amounting to about 2 acres attached. We decided to extend some adjacent woodland, planting around 150 trees (birch, ash, hazel, poplar and oak), replant an ancient orchard that had existed until it was grubbed out in the 1980s and turn the rest of the land back to hay meadow. We have seen the return of many different birds and insects including a big increase in moth population which - thanks to he advice of our resident PB expert Marquee Mark - I have been recording the last few years.
Finally, this evening when out by the hedge between the two meadows I noticed that for the first time we now have hares in the meadow and at least one Form. It has taken a long time to get the land back into a proper state from the barren horse paddock it was but we are finally seeing the benefits. My only slight concern is whether the Red Kites nesting in the adjacent woodland might take a fancy to the leverets but that is just a chance we will have to take.
Delighted to hear it. I wouldn't worry too much about the red kites going for the leverets - in my experience, they go for the easy option, more than happy to go for worms behind a plough.
Buzzards, on the other hand.....
Still waiting to hear whether my Pauper Pug gets accepted as the first one recorded in Devon. Our county moth recorder has gone to collect a Ukrainian family, so I have a little wait!
Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.
The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.
L Dems squandered the best opportunity they have had to push to become one of the two main parties, or a third party on rough parity with Lab and Con during 2010 parliament. Stupid myopic short termist unprepared and unimaginative.
You'll not be surprised to hear I completely disagree.
In my political life, there have arguably been three occasions when the duopoly was under real pressure - 1981, with the birth of the SDP, 2003, when the Conservatives got rid of IDS under whose leadership they could easily have finished third in the 2005 election in terms of votes (if not seats) and 2019 when the Brexit Party was an existential threat to the Conservatives.
As for 2010, I can assure you the Party war-gamed coalition scenarios. It's no secret many in the Party hoped the arithmetic would allow for both supporting the Conservatives and Labour to be options with the option to play the two main parties off against each other but that didn't happen.
The second unexpected development was Cameron's bravura speech on the Friday afternoon offering Clegg a full and open discussion to which Clegg could not and would not decline. There had been an expectation in the Party the Conservatives would shun all deals and coalitions and would prefer to govern as a minority.
Third, the unfolding crisis in Greece and the threat to the Eurozone (which was resolved by the Sunday evening after the election) piled enormous pressure on the coalition negotiators to conclude a deal - that pressure came from civil servants and the media.
I'll add a fourth - Hague was brilliant in the negotiations and completely out-manoeuvred Huhne and the LDs who were unable to get anything of substance and were forced to accept junior ministerial roles and were compelled to vote for policies directly opposed by the party.
Point 4 is really just that the maths didn't give the LDs many options - there was no possible stable Labour-led coalition so the choice was the coalition we had or a short-term minority Cameron government followed by another election where the LDs would most likely get punished for not going into government.
No conceivable punishment would have left them with eight seats, about half of which were bizarre, transient local deviations from national Labour Party strength. So they would probably end 2020 on a few dozen seats facing a Tory austerity majority. Which would have been an electorally better position, if not quite morally better, by 2015.
Oh, indeed. But that would have required long term thinking.
I think it was lack of experience. All their forebears' previous coalitions ended with most Liberals attached to the Conservatives and slowly federating. So they tried hard to avoid that and maintain tension, but the tension just led to people who liked the Coalition switching to huggable Dave, and the rest towards Labour. They also saw other European countries where liberals had survived coalition (though Germany 2014 would have cooled their ardour).
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
Swedish volunteers did support Finland in the Winter War.
Sunil, that’s like everyone having a debate about shallots vs onions, and you hopping in and telling everyone how much you love bananas.
Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.
The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.
Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.
The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Are you not also British by citizenship?
No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.
Says British in my passport.
If it said Knob, would that make it true?
But the point is, it doesn't say "Knob", it says British.
Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.
The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.
So have the jury already voted behind closed doors?
Yep, happens every year. The dress rehearsal for each show happens the night before the televised event and is what the national juries vote on. It means they can start revealing votes earlier since they're not calculating two sets of votes at the same time. The televote is always added at the end of the jury vote reveal.
There's six nights of competition every year. e.g Semi Final 1 on Tuesday had a dry run for the juries on Monday, Semi Final 2 on Thurs had a dry run on Wed, Final on Sat has a dry run on Fri. There is a full crowd during every show so if a mishap occurs someone will have caught it on camera.
Completely OT I am more than a little chuffed tonight.
When we bought our place a decade or more ago it had two paddocks amounting to about 2 acres attached. We decided to extend some adjacent woodland, planting around 150 trees (birch, ash, hazel, poplar and oak), replant an ancient orchard that had existed until it was grubbed out in the 1980s and turn the rest of the land back to hay meadow. We have seen the return of many different birds and insects including a big increase in moth population which - thanks to he advice of our resident PB expert Marquee Mark - I have been recording the last few years.
Finally, this evening when out by the hedge between the two meadows I noticed that for the first time we now have hares in the meadow and at least one Form. It has taken a long time to get the land back into a proper state from the barren horse paddock it was but we are finally seeing the benefits. My only slight concern is whether the Red Kites nesting in the adjacent woodland might take a fancy to the leverets but that is just a chance we will have to take.
That is brilliant. What a great story to end the day on. Hats off to you sir!
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…
Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.
Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.
"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!
I’m both.
Are you not also British by citizenship?
No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.
Says British in my passport.
If it said Knob, would that make it true?
That's what the observations bit is for, isn't it?
Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.
The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.
Funnily enough, the Yookay is drifting. Now out to 9.2
If that's for the overall competition that sounds about right. Personally I want Sweden to win since you can't pick your own country. I think a lot of the "Europe hates the UK, it's all about politics" people will be surprised tomorrow night, but I don't expect us to win. Top 5 would be a reasonable expectation.
Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.
The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.
The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.
How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?
I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...
Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉
My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.
I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.
How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.
Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?
Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?
I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.
You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.
I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
Ironic that it was a successful invasion of Sweden by Russia that made them forswear war (which up to then they had been rather good at, eg Gustavus Adolphus) and come over all neutral. Not so much being generally peace-loving as having lost big time and not wanting to lose again.
"Mr Rees-Mogg said he would also examine Met Office weather reports over suggestions [civil servant] officials were staying at home on the sunniest days."
"Mr Rees-Mogg said he would also examine Met Office weather reports over suggestions [civil servant] officials were staying at home on the sunniest days."
Telegraph
Far be it for me to suggest that his behaviour is not the greatest example of government efficiency for the Minister of Government Efficiency to display.
"Mr Rees-Mogg said he would also examine Met Office weather reports over suggestions [civil servant] officials were staying at home on the sunniest days."
Telegraph
True? Sunning themselves. False? Staying at home because they're afraid of a little rain.
Not sure going to war with the civil service ends well for fag end governments.
It adds to the narrative defence for any potential loss - the 'mainstream media' and 'the Establishment' (here embodied by bitter civil servants) were against them donchaknow?
"Mr Rees-Mogg said he would also examine Met Office weather reports over suggestions [civil servant] officials were staying at home on the sunniest days."
Telegraph
Sunny days, where have you gone? I get the strangest feeling you belong Why does it always rain on me? Is it because I'm a Victorian charicature? Why does it always rain on me? Even when the sun is shining I can't avoid the lightning.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2022/may/13/star-inn-vogue-cornish-pub-will-not-change-name-despite-letter-from-conde-nast
Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched
They triggered an unnecessary election in which they lost their pole position!
I can't be the only person sick of the DUP acting like children then protecting that they are not taken seriously.
When we bought our place a decade or more ago it had two paddocks amounting to about 2 acres attached. We decided to extend some adjacent woodland, planting around 150 trees (birch, ash, hazel, poplar and oak), replant an ancient orchard that had existed until it was grubbed out in the 1980s and turn the rest of the land back to hay meadow. We have seen the return of many different birds and insects including a big increase in moth population which - thanks to he advice of our resident PB expert Marquee Mark - I have been recording the last few years.
Finally, this evening when out by the hedge between the two meadows I noticed that for the first time we now have hares in the meadow and at least one Form. It has taken a long time to get the land back into a proper state from the barren horse paddock it was but we are finally seeing the benefits. My only slight concern is whether the Red Kites nesting in the adjacent woodland might take a fancy to the leverets but that is just a chance we will have to take.
1. DUP and any other Unionists will not support a government that has made promises to the SNP that enable another referendum - an independent Scotland will surely lead to NI leaving the Union, either as a United Federal Republic, or an independent entity.
2. A Labour government that relies on both LibDem and SNP support won't last as long as you can say Jack Robinson, they don't like each other. One or the other could last a long time, but not both.
I did okay. Better than I expected. 40% in a solid conservative area. An area where 60% is the standard conservative vote. I didn't feel punished.
In my opinion Labour are not in power because they are a not prepared to compromise. Which is just dumb considering that successful government is about finding compromises that suit your goals.
Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.
As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.
Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!
Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.
Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.
All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.
If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.
So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.
Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.
But if he did, under our system, none of us would have any say or grounds for complaint even if we disagreed.
Just as if he decided to take us back into the EU (and who would put it past him if he thought it was in his interests?) he could do so if Parliament backed him.
Hydra - no cars, one town, no real roads, less than two hours from Piraeus
Serifos - fine architecture, pebbly beaches and captivating character
Tinos - food, hiking, surfing and wild beauty
Mind you Putin would be proud of you
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_frivilligkåren
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svenska_frivilligbataljonen
Hmmm. Doesn't seem to work somehow?
Nobody is convincing you to 'love nuclear weapons.' All that I am doing is pointing out the situation Sweden is in. It's frankly not one I envy. But you seem to be in denial of the seriousness of it. Andersson's actions show she is anything but.
Now we know.
And as a Nordic citizen that even applies to the 2 non-EU Nordic countries: Iceland and Norway.
My home, both physical and psychological, is attractive. Many years ago SeanT wrote a memorable post about his warm feelings for his European home. He was going through a brief period of EU-enthusiasm. It was quite poetic. Shame the archives have been lost. I’d guess it was perhaps around 2012. Anyone else remember it?
Congratulations on doing a small bit for all our benefit.
Buzzards, on the other hand.....
Still waiting to hear whether my Pauper Pug gets accepted as the first one recorded in Devon. Our county moth recorder has gone to collect a Ukrainian family, so I have a little wait!
The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.
Jury voting odds: https://eurovisionworld.com/odds/eurovision-jury
Overall odds: https://eurovisionworld.com/odds/eurovision
Looks like it was busy with journos and photographers.
He has found his cause.
Not sure I would bet against him holding the seat.
There's six nights of competition every year. e.g Semi Final 1 on Tuesday had a dry run for the juries on Monday, Semi Final 2 on Thurs had a dry run on Wed, Final on Sat has a dry run on Fri. There is a full crowd during every show so if a mishap occurs someone will have caught it on camera.
I see the government’s plan for Northern Ireland is unravelling again.
When oh when will they listen to Barty Bobbins? We hold all the cards!
I've got another plan - this time it'll work
Yeah, I've got another plan - this time it'll work
Or I'll be struck down, struck down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QcHjcMUz_4
Don't worry. There is no impartiality. Its non-stop comedy bullshit from the start of the show to the final unveiling. God I love it.
I wanna be the leader
I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader
I'm the leader
OK what shall we do?
Such nutters.
No wonder that local Wakefield twit got the old heave-ho.
Telegraph
False? Staying at home because they're afraid of a little rain.
Reversing the Universal Credit cut would cost £6bn.
The government is out of ideas.
I get the strangest feeling you belong
Why does it always rain on me?
Is it because I'm a Victorian charicature?
Why does it always rain on me?
Even when the sun is shining I can't avoid the lightning.