Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A LAB majority still longer than evens in the betting – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    Ukr could win literally within weeks.

    And if Putin drops a couple of tactical nukes they might decide fuck it we march on Moscow.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary

    Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
    No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.

    All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
    PS Several already in operation in the same area, but at district or scheme level.

    https://www.districtheatingscotland.com/map/#
  • Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Russia is ruled by one man though -not the politburo of old than could come to their collective senses - thats what makes it so dangerous
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,094
    Leon said:


    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer is going to win but he is completely fucked, however

    I had one of my NOTORIOUS DRINKS WITH A LEFTY FRIEND last night. A Cambridge educated journalist

    He was chortling about the travails of the Tories, and fair enough, but then I asked him: What will Starmer DO? How will he get down the debt, tackle the deficit, bring back confidence, tackle foreign policy, and so on?

    Answer came there none. My friend stopped chortling. Because there is no answer. The Labour government from 2024 on is going to be painfully different from Blair's in 1997, which basically just handed out the money made by the Tories

    Indeed I think the Labour government of Keir Starmer - if they get the framing wrong - could be one of the most divided and unpopular in history. It will be Wilson-Callaghan on steroids and ayahuasca. It will have to impose horrible spending cuts and it will have to deal ruthlessly with mass immigration, against all of its instincts. Nasty

    The Wilson-Callaghan governments weren't particularly unpopular. Or divided.
    Which is why I said it will be Wilson-Callaghan on STEROIDS AND AYAHUASCA
    Though Truss has done the nation a bit of a favour here.

    A different Conservative PM would have been more cynical about keeping the plates spinning until 2024. Let the incoming government have the crash and pains of rebuilding on their watch.

    By visibly screwing up so much now, the pain starts on the watch of Truss or her successor as Captain of the Titanic. And Starmer can probably get away with "painful but necessary, cleaning up the Tories' mess" for a good few years.

    It might not be enough, but it could be a lot worse.
    Nah, Starmer's honeymoon will last about 6 weeks. It is going to be very painful

    When it turns out he can't solve our problems fast the buyer's remorse will be intense and sudden. The polling for Labour is absurdly inflated by unfulfillable hopes
    Is there any evidence of that in the polling? There's a massive lead, but that doesn't necessarily mean people think that Labour is going to miraculously repair the country; just that they'd rather they were trying than the Tories.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
    THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRANS-COUNTRY PIPELINES. You are making it up.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    Ukr could win literally within weeks.

    And if Putin drops a couple of tactical nukes they might decide fuck it we march on Moscow.
    By which time Putin might already have nuked Kyiv
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    The thing is, even being driven out of Ukraine is not a "total defeat" for Russia. Russia would still have full control of its internationally recognised territory. So the threat to Russia never passes the threshold of "our world is ending, so we will end the world" that would lead to nuclear weapon use.

    If we were to signal that we knew we would have to compromise on Ukraine to avoid Russian use of nuclear weapons then that would invite Russia to use a nuclear weapon as a statement of their intent, and for our capitulation to follow. As long as we give a consistent message that use of a nuclear weapon will lead to a net loss for Russia, then it's not a pious hope that Russia won't do it, it's a realpolitik calculation.
  • Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
    THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRANS-COUNTRY PIPELINES. You are making it up.

    will they get their own toilets?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Russia is ruled by one man though -not the politburo of old than could come to their collective senses - thats what makes it so dangerous
    You and others here, here, have been overrating the capability of the mighty Russian bear for months now. Perhaps Russia is not mighty, after all.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
    THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRANS-COUNTRY PIPELINES. You are making it up.

    will they get their own toilets?
    Or, indeed, cis-country pipelines.

    Not relevant as there is no toilet need if there are none. Simples.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
    THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRANS-COUNTRY PIPELINES. You are making it up.

    Yes there is, pipes would have to have been constructed across the Balmoral estate to heat the castle and estate buildings under this dreadful law
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Russia is ruled by one man though -not the politburo of old than could come to their collective senses - thats what makes it so dangerous
    You and others here, here, have been overrating the capability of the mighty Russian bear for months now. Perhaps Russia is not mighty, after all.
    they have 5 THOUSAND nuclear warheads - stop being so deluded
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
    THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRANS-COUNTRY PIPELINES. You are making it up.

    Yes there is, pipes would have to have been constructed across the Balmoral estate to heat the castle and estate buildings under this dreadful law
    No, you are making it up. There is no such scheme as you imagine.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary

    Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
    No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.

    All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
    I spend a lot of every year on Highland estates, hyufd, and I find people are pretty resourceful at working round temporary road closures.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
    THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRANS-COUNTRY PIPELINES. You are making it up.

    Yes there is, pipes would have to have been constructed across the Balmoral estate to heat the castle and estate buildings under this dreadful law
    No, you are making it up. There is no such scheme as you imagine.

    Yes there is, that is the terms of the law as it would have effected the royal estate
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary

    Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
    No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.

    All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
    I spend a lot of every year on Highland estates, hyufd, and I find people are pretty resourceful at working round temporary road closures.
    Quite. And it's not even as if you would install districvt heating for Balmoral - but it would bne relevant for the villages or small towns, and you need to be able to install the piping as one does other services or some landowner could stymie the whole process.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I'm still totally baffled how Labour Majority odds are still below 50%...

    It all feels very 1994/95 for the Tories before the 1997 landslide

    Because no-one believes 50-25 is really going to happen.
    45-30 gives lab majority 80

    43-32 lab maj 32

    Per electoralcalculus
    Yes, and the seat calculator is probably more likely to be underestimating Labour there. In general, the out party tends to do a bit better in targets in "change" elections, and there appears to be polling evidence that the Government is being hurt more in the marginals (45% cut was hardly designed to appeal to northern marginals).
    I was using it ultra crudely leaving other parties as per 2019, not allowing tactical voting, etc.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.

    You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.

    Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.

    You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.


    It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
    You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.

    As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.

    "Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?

    That is precisely what this plan does, the main impact it would have on the Crown is on big estates like Balmoral, it won't have any impact on city schemes either way. Implemented on Balmoral however it would destroy the roads and make management of the estate impossible all because of this ludicrous scheme.
    THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRANS-COUNTRY PIPELINES. You are making it up.

    Yes there is, pipes would have to have been constructed across the Balmoral estate to heat the castle and estate buildings under this dreadful law
    No, you are making it up. There is no such scheme as you imagine.

    Yes there is, that is the terms of the law as it would have effected the royal estate
    As a default: it wouldn't be needed for the whole estate bvut it would be there for where it is needed.BT have the right to install cable but they don't actually do it over every piece of land.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Russia is ruled by one man though -not the politburo of old than could come to their collective senses - thats what makes it so dangerous
    You and others here, here, have been overrating the capability of the mighty Russian bear for months now. Perhaps Russia is not mighty, after all.
    they have 5 THOUSAND nuclear warheads - stop being so deluded
    If their nuclear arsenal is the winner that you think it is, why have they not used it?

    If it is the winner you think it is, what is the point of offering any resistance to Russia?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary

    Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
    No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.

    All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
    I spend a lot of every year on Highland estates, hyufd, and I find people are pretty resourceful at working round temporary road closures.
    Quite. And it's not even as if you would install districvt heating for Balmoral - but it would bne relevant for the villages or small towns, and you need to be able to install the piping as one does other services or some landowner could stymie the whole process.
    Most of the residents of the communities round Balmoral work on the estate, so you destroy their livelihoods in the process for this wretched scheme
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    In the pub this evening, with school dads. None of them remotely worried about nuclear Armageddon.

    So we’re fine. Nothing to worry about.

    Still have my contingency plans for Ireland/Portugal/Morocco though.
  • Punctuation in the thread header wouldn’t go amiss.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    "Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats
    The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies'
    The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding
    Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"



    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11286835/US-buys-290m-worth-radiation-sickness-drugs-amid-Russias-nuclear-threat.html


    It is prudent on one way but shows how close we are to western civilisation being wiped out alone with all of us and our families. Whatever the rights and wrongs on Ukraine are , Ukraine is not worth it - Putin needs to save face, Biden said so as much today - something needs to be done soon now to deescalate
    I completely agree

    The time is coming when we have to make peace with Putin - or we all die

    It is not nice. It is horrible. Putin is a Slavic Hitler and his army is barbaric and he deserves total defeat and Russia should be occupied like Japan or Germany in 1945

    Nonetheless he has nukes, and that's the end of it. Total defeat of Putin is not on the menu

    The Peace needs to be sufficiently punishing of Russia such that they never try this shit again, but also offers him just enough "victory" to save face and retreat in order, his honour "restored". And then a deeply Cold War will ensue, where the West painfully learns to live without Russian energy, and Russia slowly realises it is now dependant on China and India. So be it

    That's the BEST outcome, now
    Total rubbish.

    Explain to me how we completely defeat Putin, utterly expel Russia from Ukraine, and humiliate the Russian military and the Russian nation, without getting far too close to nuclear holocaust?

    Because I can't see it. You need to map it out
    Cheese eating surrender monkey.
  • It emerged that Boris Johnson has nominated as many as eight serving Tory MPs for peerages in his resignation honours list, prompting efforts by Truss to avoid a series of damaging by-election defeats.......

    .....Anxiety among Truss’s supporters will be deepened by YouGov polling for The Times that shows a majority of voters believe the government is to blame for spiralling mortgage costs. Labour has maintained a substantial poll lead.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parents-to-get-cash-payments-under-liz-truss-childcare-plan-kt7xc989c
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary

    Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
    No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.

    All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
    I spend a lot of every year on Highland estates, hyufd, and I find people are pretty resourceful at working round temporary road closures.
    Quite. And it's not even as if you would install districvt heating for Balmoral - but it would bne relevant for the villages or small towns, and you need to be able to install the piping as one does other services or some landowner could stymie the whole process.
    Most of the residents of the communities round Balmoral work on the estate, so you destroy their livelihoods in the process for this wretched scheme
    How is the livelihood destroyed if you install an efficient district heating system in each village? They are independnmt of each other, no piping is intalled elsewhere except for instance to a nearby distillery or source of waste heat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718
    TimS said:

    In the pub this evening, with school dads. None of them remotely worried about nuclear Armageddon.

    So we’re fine. Nothing to worry about.

    Still have my contingency plans for Ireland/Portugal/Morocco though.

    Ireland has been pretty pro Zelensky in its statements and NI bases would be hit, Portugal is in NATO and its major cities and bases would also be targets for the Russians
  • TimS said:

    In the pub this evening, with school dads. None of them remotely worried about nuclear Armageddon.

    So we’re fine. Nothing to worry about.

    Still have my contingency plans for Ireland/Portugal/Morocco though.

    maybe they are all too polite to scare you - but if the BBC are starting to put the headlines they have done this evening on their website I think its safe to say there is a lot of worry now
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,778

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited October 2022
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    Leon old chap.

    Might I suggest you go and look at the very sound advice you were giving earlier today.

    Stop panicking. It helps no one and certainly not yourself. Absolutely nothing you can say or do will make a blind bit of difference to what happens and all you are doing is upsetting yourself and making whatever remaining time you have left on this earth more miserable for you.

    Enjoy life. It is, after all, a terminal disease so you might as well make the most of it while you can.

    As someone famously probably didn't say. No one gets out alive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    Ukr could win literally within weeks.

    And if Putin drops a couple of tactical nukes they might decide fuck it we march on Moscow.
    By which time Putin might already have nuked Kyiv
    Putin nukes Kyiv, he is dead. Period.

    There are enough serious world actors who have a vested interest in making sure a nuke doesn't get dropped that would likely take action.

    Also consider this: we know there has been SVR / FSB penetration of the Ukrainian security services but what about the other way round? It now seems like the Ukrainians assassinated Dugina, someone whose father was supposed to be under FSB protection. What does that suggest?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary

    Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
    No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.

    All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
    I spend a lot of every year on Highland estates, hyufd, and I find people are pretty resourceful at working round temporary road closures.
    Quite. And it's not even as if you would install districvt heating for Balmoral - but it would bne relevant for the villages or small towns, and you need to be able to install the piping as one does other services or some landowner could stymie the whole process.
    Most of the residents of the communities round Balmoral work on the estate, so you destroy their livelihoods in the process for this wretched scheme
    How is the livelihood destroyed if you install an efficient district heating system in each village? They are independnmt of each other, no piping is intalled elsewhere except for instance to a nearby distillery or source of waste heat.
    You dig up all the roads, preventing them from getting to work and doing their work of managing the estate for a ludicrous heating system for rural communities who have happily got by with log fires for generations anyway
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,778
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    She’s not changing the legislation for anyone else - effectively the crown just can get certain exemptions. It’s a bit like the Treasury not paying interest to the Bank of England
    Your example would be more accurate if it were "Ms Truss makes it unnecessary to have to pay interest on her mortage to the BoE". This is the sovereign interfering in matters affecting her *private* property. Not on.
    The Crown has the specific right to do this. If you don’t like it change the constitution.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Yes, it will. Dropping just one tactical nuke will completely fuck markets in the West (markets from which Russia is now largely insulated, because sanctions)


    There will be a mind-boggling flight to safety: gold, US bonds, the dollar

    Everyone else will suffer and indebted countries will sink and banks will fail, especially in central Europe. A eurozone crisis will ensue. &c
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    And what would the world's reaction be? Outrage I suspect including from China and India. There would likely be complete economic isolation.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,538

    It emerged that Boris Johnson has nominated as many as eight serving Tory MPs for peerages in his resignation honours list, prompting efforts by Truss to avoid a series of damaging by-election defeats.......

    .....Anxiety among Truss’s supporters will be deepened by YouGov polling for The Times that shows a majority of voters believe the government is to blame for spiralling mortgage costs. Labour has maintained a substantial poll lead.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parents-to-get-cash-payments-under-liz-truss-childcare-plan-kt7xc989c

    Maybe he’s doing it on purpose . Some terrible by-election results for Truss whose given her P45 and then Bozo returns to save the party !
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    She’s not changing the legislation for anyone else - effectively the crown just can get certain exemptions. It’s a bit like the Treasury not paying interest to the Bank of England
    Your example would be more accurate if it were "Ms Truss makes it unnecessary to have to pay interest on her mortage to the BoE". This is the sovereign interfering in matters affecting her *private* property. Not on.
    The Crown has the specific right to do this. If you don’t like it change the constitution.
    That's rather the point.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    You seem to think an all-out exchange of strategic nuclear weapons will "end the war in the West's favour"

    I am close to giving up, at this point
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Yes, it will. Dropping just one tactical nuke will completely fuck markets in the West (markets from which Russia is now largely insulated, because sanctions)


    There will be a mind-boggling flight to safety: gold, US bonds, the dollar

    Everyone else will suffer and indebted countries will sink and banks will fail, especially in central Europe. A eurozone crisis will ensue. &c
    I think you need to lie down. You're frightening yourself needlessly.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    In the pub this evening, with school dads. None of them remotely worried about nuclear Armageddon.

    So we’re fine. Nothing to worry about.

    Still have my contingency plans for Ireland/Portugal/Morocco though.

    Ireland has been pretty pro Zelensky in its statements and NI bases would be hit, Portugal is in NATO and its major cities and bases would also be targets for the Russians
    No, those 3 countries will be fine. There aren’t enough nuclear weapons to wipe out Europe, let alone the world.

    I think there’s space here for prudent realism.

    And in the meantime Ukraine needs to keep liberating as much territory in the Russian-occupied regions as possible.
  • Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,155
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".

    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.

    Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
    So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
    No it isn't at all.

    If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.

    Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
    It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?

    Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?

    The Crown is being preferentially treated.
    Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/

    As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
    Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
    And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
    Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary

    Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
    No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.

    All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
    I spend a lot of every year on Highland estates, hyufd, and I find people are pretty resourceful at working round temporary road closures.
    Quite. And it's not even as if you would install districvt heating for Balmoral - but it would bne relevant for the villages or small towns, and you need to be able to install the piping as one does other services or some landowner could stymie the whole process.
    Most of the residents of the communities round Balmoral work on the estate, so you destroy their livelihoods in the process for this wretched scheme
    How is the livelihood destroyed if you install an efficient district heating system in each village? They are independnmt of each other, no piping is intalled elsewhere except for instance to a nearby distillery or source of waste heat.
    You dig up all the roads, preventing them from getting to work and doing their work of managing the estate for a ludicrous heating system for rural communities who have happily got by with log fires for generations anyway
    Have a look at that map I posted - plenty of district schemes in that very area. Already happening, already working. I don't see any howling from the locals.

    And what about HM property elsewhere? It will wreck schemes in those locations.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
    Russia's withdrawal to its February frontiers will mitigate that risk considerably.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    In the pub this evening, with school dads. None of them remotely worried about nuclear Armageddon.

    So we’re fine. Nothing to worry about.

    Still have my contingency plans for Ireland/Portugal/Morocco though.

    Ireland has been pretty pro Zelensky in its statements and NI bases would be hit, Portugal is in NATO and its major cities and bases would also be targets for the Russians
    The current owners of the Liss Ard Estate have a decent chef cooking for them.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    edited October 2022
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Yes, it will. Dropping just one tactical nuke will completely fuck markets in the West (markets from which Russia is now largely insulated, because sanctions)


    There will be a mind-boggling flight to safety: gold, US bonds, the dollar

    Everyone else will suffer and indebted countries will sink and banks will fail, especially in central Europe. A eurozone crisis will ensue. &c
    I think you need to lie down. You're frightening yourself needlessly.
    lol

    I'm drinking a rather fine Saffer Shiraz

    Groot Constantia Landgoed 2018

    https://www.vivino.com/US/en/groot-constantia-rood/w/1117223?year=2018

    I am far from "frightening myself needlessly". I am just saying it like it is. The war mongers on here need to take a chill pill
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Russia is ruled by one man though -not the politburo of old than could come to their collective senses - thats what makes it so dangerous
    You and others here, here, have been overrating the capability of the mighty Russian bear for months now. Perhaps Russia is not mighty, after all.
    they have 5 THOUSAND nuclear warheads - stop being so deluded
    5,000 - and they haven't used one. Because even one gives them pariah status and loses them their friendships with China and India and Brazil and Mexico. It gains implacable enemy status with the main economies of the planet.

    Once upon a time they had 5,000 tanks. Now the have approaching half that, with the ancient museum pieces making up the bulk.

    They might about now be thinking they'd have been better off having 50,000 tanks and 500 nukes.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    Russia would do it to try and scare Ukraine/the collective West into backing off and seeking some kind of negotiated peace.

    However, while there are some scenarios where this leads to a some kind of conventional NATO response followed by Russia backing down and allowing itself to be occupied/de-Putinised, there are many other scenarios where the subsequent tit-for-tat results in a wider nuclear exchange.

    If there's even a 1% risk of the horrible deaths of billions of people, we should treat it seriously and seek ways to mitigate that risk. We're probably now in a situation where the risk of a nuclear exchange is higher than 1%. Thus, let's try to mitigate the risk!
    So what do you do? Giving in to nuclear blackmail means it would be more likely to happen again. What can Putin seriously be offered? His land grabs are so outrageous it would make a total mockery of the post 1945 world.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
  • Is there a new YouGov poll?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    Tonight's addition to the list of things HY knows fuck-all about:

    District heating

  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
    well go and fight then
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    It's perverse to be advocating surrender to Russia, when Russia is ...losing.
  • Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.

    Yes, it will. Dropping just one tactical nuke will completely fuck markets in the West (markets from which Russia is now largely insulated, because sanctions)


    There will be a mind-boggling flight to safety: gold, US bonds, the dollar

    Everyone else will suffer and indebted countries will sink and banks will fail, especially in central Europe. A eurozone crisis will ensue. &c
    I think you need to lie down. You're frightening yourself needlessly.
    lol

    I'm drinking a rather fine Saffer Shiraz

    Groot Constantia Landgoed 2018

    https://www.vivino.com/US/en/groot-constantia-rood/w/1117223?year=2018

    I am far from "frightening myself needlessly". I am just saying it like it is. The war mongers on here need to take a chill pill
    Putin started it - he invaded Ukraine!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
    well go and fight then
    Why don't you go and fight for Russia? You love them so much.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,778
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.

    Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.

    That's extremely odd.

    Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
    Canada is independent.
    Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
    Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.

    Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
    The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
    The Governor General does in Bermuda too.

    Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?

    Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.

    Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
    Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.

    Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
    That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.

    Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?

    Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?

    Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.

    Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
    The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
    But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
    No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
    You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
    Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
    "Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.

    But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/05/scottish-ministers-refuse-to-confirm-if-king-asked-for-rent-freeze-bill-changes

    And make up your mind.
    The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.

    The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
    'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'

    But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.

    This needs to change asap.

    You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.

    In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
    Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."

    That's interference.

    Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.

    Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.

    In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
    No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo

    "Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
    So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.

    Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates

    "facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".


    What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.

    That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
    She’s not changing the legislation for anyone else - effectively the crown just can get certain exemptions. It’s a bit like the Treasury not paying interest to the Bank of England
    Your example would be more accurate if it were "Ms Truss makes it unnecessary to have to pay interest on her mortage to the BoE". This is the sovereign interfering in matters affecting her *private* property. Not on.
    The Crown has the specific right to do this. If you don’t like it change the constitution.
    That's rather the point.
    It is

    To interfere requires a “lack of permission or necessity”. It’s an illegitimate action.

    This is a permitted input into legislation at the draft stage. It’s up to the government and the Crown to agree the necessity.

    By definition it’s not interference
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
  • Sean_F said:

    It's perverse to be advocating surrender to Russia, when Russia is ...losing.

    surrender and "losing" are two old fashioned words in wars that cannot be a good strategy to want one side or another to get to in a nuclear world - try using "saving face" " ramp off (BIden) " or negotiation instead
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    It's perverse to be advocating surrender to Russia, when Russia is ...losing.

    surrender and "losing" are two old fashioned words in wars that cannot be a good strategy to want one side or another to get to in a nuclear world - try using "saving face" " ramp off (BIden) " or negotiation instead
    If we want Russia to save face, we can say "advancing to the rear as a gesture of goodwill."
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
    well go and fight then
    Why don't you go and fight for Russia? You love them so much.
    i dont and dont want this fight to continue - you want it to so I suggest you go and fight this slavic dispute
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    No offence taken.

    You are arguing that our panic in response to a tactical nuke will be what wins it for him.

    I suggest we don't panic. Starting now.

    In eras past, Leon would have been locked up as a fifth columnist, for everyone else’s safety.
  • Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    If we ever get the semblance of a reasonable government in Russia after this war, the major powers of the world need to agree on multilateral nuclear disarmament so that no country has more than about 100 warheads. Enough to deter any invasion but nowhere near enough to end the world.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Why are you convinced that Russia will do that? It won't stave off defeat either. It now seems pretty likely that using a strategic nuclear weapon would see a massive conventional response against Russia's military from Nato. Enough to probably end the war in the west's favour. Unless Putin and co fancy global armageddon with a full scale nuclear war with Nato that would be it.

    No-one I've seen has suggested tactical nukes would do anything for Russia's position on the battlefield.
    You seem to think an all-out exchange of strategic nuclear weapons will "end the war in the West's favour"

    I am close to giving up, at this point
    No a conventional not nuclear response from Nato would likely end things. Targeting the Russian military. I do find it hard to believe that Russia has 5,000 warheads. I mean we go on about how expensive trident is to maintain. How on earth do they maintain all that? And since they appear to have done nothing to move any of the nuclear weapons the whole conversation feels academic.

    My guess is Zelensky doesn't really believe that Russia is likely to go nuclear but wants to get the message across that the Ukrainians won't be intimidated and so the threats from Putin are pointless if he thinks he can force them to the negotiating table.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
    well go and fight then
    Why don't you go and fight for Russia? You love them so much.
    i dont and dont want this fight to continue - you want it to so I suggest you go and fight this slavic dispute
    I don't want this fight to continue either. Unlike you, I don't blame the victim. Russia can stop this fight any time it wants.
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
    well go and fight then
    Why don't you go and fight for Russia? You love them so much.
    i dont and dont want this fight to continue - you want it to so I suggest you go and fight this slavic dispute
    You're too busy sucking Putin's 70 year old cock?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
    Hitler didn’t even use his chemical weapons.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Exactly. The parallel would be that, instead of signing away the Sudetenland at Munich, we provided Czechoslovakia with weapons and training, and they subsequently succeeded in fighting Germany to a standstill and then rolled them back. And we don't even have to directly join in the fight.

    It's a direct example of where earlier robust action avoids more destructive outcomes later on. If we'd made a more robust response in 2014 then we would likely have avoided the Feb 24th invasion, and even more destruction could have been averted.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited October 2022

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    Because, he always has the choice between living (probably in comfortable retirement) and dying. Putin, and Putin's associates, have a way out.

    Hitler knew that the only outcome that awaited him was a one way trip to the gallows.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,718
    edited October 2022
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Unlike Hitler he also has nuclear weapons. Had Hitler had nuclear weapons by 1945 we may never have tried to invade Germany.

    Fortunately the US got them before he did completing the Manhattan Project in 1945 but even then had the Nazis got them shortly after that would have changed the end of the war to stalemate
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    But he will always have lots to lose - all of internationally recognised Russia. No-one is marching on Moscow.
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
    well go and fight then
    Why don't you go and fight for Russia? You love them so much.
    i dont and dont want this fight to continue - you want it to so I suggest you go and fight this slavic dispute
    You're too busy sucking Putin's 70 year old cock?
    just confirms that there are plenty of idiots like you who just cannot comprehend the consequences of macho war talk .
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    TimS said:

    If we ever get the semblance of a reasonable government in Russia after this war, the major powers of the world need to agree on multilateral nuclear disarmament so that no country has more than about 100 warheads. Enough to deter any invasion but nowhere near enough to end the world.

    Not going to happen

    It the world survives this particular nuclear stramash, the inevitable result is proliferation. You read it here first

    Japan, South Korea, Taiwan will all acquire nukes and they won't care who knows it. They will indeed tell us. Likewise Brazil, Indonesia, and possibly the EU or subdivisions thereof: Poland, the Baltics, Germany

    Nukes mean you don't get invaded and that means all your women aren't raped
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    Because, he always has the choice between living (probably in comfortable retirement) and dying.

    Hitler knew that the only outcome that awaited him was a one way trip to the gallows.
    I'm not sure he does have that choice, but it would be well worth our while to make sure he does, and knows that he does.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
    Hitler didn’t even use his chemical weapons.
    You think Hitler refrained from using wonder weapons out of some belated sense of decorum?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Unlike Hitler he also has nuclear weapons. Had Hitler had nuclear weapons by 1945 we may never have tried to invade Germany.

    Fortunately the US got them before he did completing the Manhattan Project in 1945 but even then had the Nazis got them shortly after that would have changed the end of the war to stalemate
    Hitler and his colleagues had no choice but to fight to the bitter end, because they only outcome for them was execution.

    That is not the only option available to Putin and his colleagues.
  • Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    But he will always have lots to lose - all of internationally recognised Russia. No-one is marching on Moscow.
    I'm thinking more of the threat from his own people. A lot of them will probably be looking to string him up if Russia is obviously defeated. There's a good chance that he wouldn't survive a Russian surrender, and he likely knows that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    But he will always have lots to lose - all of internationally recognised Russia. No-one is marching on Moscow.
    I'm thinking more of the threat from his own people. A lot of them will probably be looking to string him up if Russia is obviously defeated. There's a good chance that he wouldn't survive a Russian surrender, and he likely knows that.
    And if that is so, there are plenty of countries that would provide him with asylum.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
    Hitler didn’t even use his chemical weapons.
    You think Hitler refrained from using wonder weapons out of some belated sense of decorum?
    It’s historical fact that Hitler did not resort to chemical weapons. The millions of gas masks distributed in the U.K. were never needed. But if Hitler had a nuke, and a way to deliver it to London, he’ll yes he would have used it.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    If we ever get the semblance of a reasonable government in Russia after this war, the major powers of the world need to agree on multilateral nuclear disarmament so that no country has more than about 100 warheads. Enough to deter any invasion but nowhere near enough to end the world.

    Not going to happen

    It the world survives this particular nuclear stramash, the inevitable result is proliferation. You read it here first

    Japan, South Korea, Taiwan will all acquire nukes and they won't care who knows it. They will indeed tell us. Likewise Brazil, Indonesia, and possibly the EU or subdivisions thereof: Poland, the Baltics, Germany

    Nukes mean you don't get invaded and that means all your women aren't raped
    Well we all will have a choice. Or rather, the US will have a choice. There will be a window of opportunity during which the horror of nuclear Armageddon will play on people’s minds, and partial disarmament will be on the table.

    If the US remains engaged (ie Trump doesn’t win next time) then a form of Pax Americana should prevent proliferation in the West.

    China is progressing rapidly enough in conventional arms that it probably doesn’t need to rely on nuclear deterrence so much. Any battle over Taiwan would be two highly sophisticated conventional militaries fighting each other conventionally.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
    Hitler didn’t even use his chemical weapons.
    You think Hitler refrained from using wonder weapons out of some belated sense of decorum?
    No, he refrained because he worried about the Allied response. Just like Putin.
  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Pretty shit for the Ukrainians who have seen their kids deported to Russia.
    "A small far away country, of which we know little or nothing" is the answer, I think.
    that was a pre nuclear age ---- nobody deep down does really give much of a chit about Ukraine though - Remember 2014 and the russian invasion of Ukraine then? It was soon forgotten by the west and everyone got on with their lives - It has barely been a year since there was a lot of supposed angst about the Taleban taking over Afghanistan but nobody is bothered now - We only really give a fk about our own families and lives at the end of the day and they are starting to be threatened by a slavic war that is only being at the forefront of our minds because it was bigged up more than earlier russian invasions of 2014 and also say Georgia
    You don't care. You wouldn't care if Russia marched into the Baltics, or other Eastern states.

    But, you shouldn't assume that the rest of us feel the same way.
    well go and fight then
    Why don't you go and fight for Russia? You love them so much.
    i dont and dont want this fight to continue - you want it to so I suggest you go and fight this slavic dispute
    You're too busy sucking Putin's 70 year old cock?
    just confirms that there are plenty of idiots like you who just cannot comprehend the consequences of macho war talk .
    Putin started it - he invaded Ukraine.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    But he will always have lots to lose - all of internationally recognised Russia. No-one is marching on Moscow.
    I'm thinking more of the threat from his own people. A lot of them will probably be looking to string him up if Russia is obviously defeated. There's a good chance that he wouldn't survive a Russian surrender, and he likely knows that.
    A nuclear weapon doesn't really help him against his own people. What does is doing deals with Kadyrov, and Wagner, so that they will fight for him against any attempted coup by the Russian military command, or against rebellious civilians in Dagestan or wherever.

    Using a nuclear weapon will just make his position in Russia weaker, because he will lose more of his security apparatus to NATO retaliation.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 3,867
    edited October 2022

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    But he will always have lots to lose - all of internationally recognised Russia. No-one is marching on Moscow.
    I'm thinking more of the threat from his own people. A lot of them will probably be looking to string him up if Russia is obviously defeated. There's a good chance that he wouldn't survive a Russian surrender, and he likely knows that.
    A nuclear weapon doesn't really help him against his own people. What does is doing deals with Kadyrov, and Wagner, so that they will fight for him against any attempted coup by the Russian military command, or against rebellious civilians in Dagestan or wherever.

    Using a nuclear weapon will just make his position in Russia weaker, because he will lose more of his security apparatus to NATO retaliation.
    I hope you are correct, but it has to be said that Putin doesn't seem to be in the habit of carefully and dispassionately considering his options before acting. And the Russians do seem to like a strongman.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
    Hitler didn’t even use his chemical weapons.
    You think Hitler refrained from using wonder weapons out of some belated sense of decorum?
    No, he refrained because he worried about the Allied response. Just like Putin.
    Lack of fuel, more than anything, was what crippled Germany, after Romania fell.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,289
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
    Hitler didn’t even use his chemical weapons.
    You think Hitler refrained from using wonder weapons out of some belated sense of decorum?
    No, he refrained because he worried about the Allied response. Just like Putin.
    What???

    He saw Germany utterly vanquished, and its cities entirely levelled, and millions of German women raped by the Red Army, and he thought it was fine because "the German people disappointed me". His words

    Hitler was completely fucking BONKERS by the end. My God, if he had possessed WMD of course he would have used them. Wipe out the enemy. FFS he enacted the Jewish Holocaust and diverted much effort to that end. And yet you think he was fastidious about using chemical weapons because he was "worried about the Allied response"?!

    Are you on notably bad drugs?

  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    edited October 2022

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    But he will always have lots to lose - all of internationally recognised Russia. No-one is marching on Moscow.
    I'm thinking more of the threat from his own people. A lot of them will probably be looking to string him up if Russia is obviously defeated. There's a good chance that he wouldn't survive a Russian surrender, and he likely knows that.
    A nuclear weapon doesn't really help him against his own people. What does is doing deals with Kadyrov, and Wagner, so that they will fight for him against any attempted coup by the Russian military command, or against rebellious civilians in Dagestan or wherever.

    Using a nuclear weapon will just make his position in Russia weaker, because he will lose more of his security apparatus to NATO retaliation.
    I must say a Prigozhin-led Russia of warlords and militias, with nukes, is a scary prospect. But I think that’s where we’re headed.

    Tragic that such a huge, half empty portion of the Northern Hemisphere is seemingly headed towards rogue nation status. While much of the tropics boil and overflow with overpopulated humanity.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    And, unlike Hitler, if he is so defeated he is forced into his bunker near Irkutsk, he can press the button that ends the world

    Would Hitler have done that? Absolutely, of course he would. Gotterdammerung. But he did not have the choice

    Putin does
    Hitler didn’t even use his chemical weapons.
    You think Hitler refrained from using wonder weapons out of some belated sense of decorum?
    No, he refrained because he worried about the Allied response. Just like Putin.
    What???

    He saw Germany utterly vanquished, and its cities entirely levelled, and millions of German women raped by the Red Army, and he thought it was fine because "the German people disappointed me". His words

    Hitler was completely fucking BONKERS by the end. My God, if he had possessed WMD of course he would have used them. Wipe out the enemy. FFS he enacted the Jewish Holocaust and diverted much effort to that end. And yet you think he was fastidious about using chemical weapons because he was "worried about the Allied response"?!

    Are you on notably bad drugs?

    https://www.history.com/.amp/news/the-nazis-developed-sarin-gas-but-hitler-was-afraid-to-use-it

    Tis true
  • I see Chicken Licken is busy on here again tonight.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    Wrong.

    The German generals were increasingly worried about Hitler's actions in the 1930s. If the UK and France had shown some balls over the Rhineland or Austria or Czechoslovakia, then it was very likely Hitler would have been overthrown.

    The French Army was much stronger than the German army throughout the 30s, as was the Czech army. The Polish army was also a match for the Germans up to a certain point (the mid-30s).

    We messed up in the 30s. And giving in to Putin risks repeating that now.

  • TimS said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.

    Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
    @AdamKinzinger
    Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue


    https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752

    I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated

    Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)


    "The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."

    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ

    What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?

    Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"

    I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
    I wonder what China is thinking about all this?

    Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.

    How much influence does China have over Putin?
    NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
    Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
    It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb

    That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
    Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
    This is moronic beyond belief

    If Russia drops just one - just one - tactical nuclear warhead, it will tip multiple economies (and perhaps societies) into unprecedented chaos and anarchy, and probably major Depression

    FFS the Trussonomic Budget nearly caused a run on UK banks, imagine what a NUKE would do to economic confidence. Markets will crash, currencies will crater, 3rd world countries will sink under their debt. Horrendous

    You're an idiot, sorry
    I like you a lot @Leon on so many things but, on this topic, you are simply wrong. Give in to Russia and we will be facing the same conversation in 18 months time over the Baltics or Poland or what is left of Ukraine etc etc.

    This is the Rhineland 1936 redux. And you are on the side of those who would let the dictator get away with it.
    Point of Order, M'Lud

    The West, and the UK in particular, was arguably well advised to cede territories to Hitler through the 1930s, as so-called appeasement allowed us to quietly re-arm, such that we were a match for Hitler in 1939, and actually able to win the Battle of Britain in 1940 - thereby saving the Free World

    It wasn't pretty. it was quite shit for the Sudetenland and Austria etc. but such is realpolitik

    However, we are not in a 1938 situation. This is worse, in some ways. Putin has nukes
    But, unlike Hitler, he's getting his arse handed to him.
    Which is, of course, what makes him so dangerous. If he reaches the point at which he thinks he has nothing left to lose, why would he not press the button?
    But he will always have lots to lose - all of internationally recognised Russia. No-one is marching on Moscow.
    I'm thinking more of the threat from his own people. A lot of them will probably be looking to string him up if Russia is obviously defeated. There's a good chance that he wouldn't survive a Russian surrender, and he likely knows that.
    A nuclear weapon doesn't really help him against his own people. What does is doing deals with Kadyrov, and Wagner, so that they will fight for him against any attempted coup by the Russian military command, or against rebellious civilians in Dagestan or wherever.

    Using a nuclear weapon will just make his position in Russia weaker, because he will lose more of his security apparatus to NATO retaliation.
    I must say a Prigozhin-led Russia of warlords and militias, with nukes, is a scary prospect. But I think that’s where we’re headed.

    Tragic that such a huge, half empty portion of the Northern Hemisphere is seemingly headed towards rogue nation status. While much of the tropics boil and overflow with overpopulated humanity.
    I would say little chance of that. The Siloviki hate both of them, as does the military. More likely they both get bumped off.
This discussion has been closed.