Howdy, Stranger!

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

For the first time in a few days I think Reform are a sell on the spreads – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,400

    https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1804248188913881133

    EXCLUSIVE:

    JK Rowling has accused Sir Keir Starmer of 'abandoning women' who are concerned about transgender rights

    In an article for The Times the author criticised the Labour leader for taking a 'dismissive and often offensive' approach to feminist concerns

    She said she can no longer vote for the party that she was once a member of because she does not trust Starmer’s judgement and has a 'poor opinion' of his character

    Never realised BJO was a successful fiction author living in Edinburgh.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    How was that not a goal?

    Offside player was too close to the keeper so "involved in play". Think it was correct to be ruled out tbh
    Having watched it again, the goalie was way off his line, and unsighted by his own defender, irrespective of what the Dutch player was doing. Harsh call.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,931

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    Wasn’t that him being interviewed on Panorama this evening?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    Wasn’t that him being interviewed on Panorama this evening?
    He went for a picnic with his daughter several hours ago.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362
    edited June 21

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.

    Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    Wasn’t that him being interviewed on Panorama this evening?
    He went for a picnic with his daughter several hours ago.
    Fair enough, probably for the best.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    Leon posts as Heathener (come on guys, he admits the fact frequently) and I believe has a new one called Double Dutch. He can rarely resist drawing attention to his own comic creations and I noticed him doing that today. Heathener is a satire on a censorious leftie woman and Double Dutch is a green loon. I don't know where he finds the energy.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    How was that not a goal?

    Offside player was too close to the keeper so "involved in play". Think it was correct to be ruled out tbh
    Having watched it again, the goalie was way off his line, and unsighted by his own defender, irrespective of what the Dutch player was doing. Harsh call.
    I think the keeper probably doesn't save it. But that's not enough. Don't be offside is the moral of the story.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,931

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.

    Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
    Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that child abuse?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,400

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.

    Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
    Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that child abuse?
    Don't worry, there will be lots of others around to keep an eye on things. LadyG won't let anything bad happen.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.

    Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
    Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that...
    You still have a few minutes to think better of that comment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,400

    I hear Nigel is campaigning in Salisbury tomorrow, due to his desire to visit its wonderful cathedral, with its famous clock and 123 metre spire.

    What about Old Sarum, home of the rigged vote?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    I hear Nigel is campaigning in Salisbury tomorrow, due to his desire to visit its wonderful cathedral, with its famous clock and 123 metre spire.

    Ffs hasn't Salisbury suffered enough already?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,965

    https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1804248188913881133

    EXCLUSIVE:

    JK Rowling has accused Sir Keir Starmer of 'abandoning women' who are concerned about transgender rights

    In an article for The Times the author criticised the Labour leader for taking a 'dismissive and often offensive' approach to feminist concerns

    She said she can no longer vote for the party that she was once a member of because she does not trust Starmer’s judgement and has a 'poor opinion' of his character

    Perhaps the Scottish Family Party might be a good fit for JK?
    I had the ill luck to catch their PPB the other night.

    https://youtu.be/z92f8zKZcDs?si=HMYHzyU86lNMaDfD
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969
    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
  • Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.

    Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
    Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that...
    You still have a few minutes to think better of that comment.
    Uh? It was clearly a joke comment.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437

    https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1804248188913881133

    EXCLUSIVE:

    JK Rowling has accused Sir Keir Starmer of 'abandoning women' who are concerned about transgender rights

    In an article for The Times the author criticised the Labour leader for taking a 'dismissive and often offensive' approach to feminist concerns

    She said she can no longer vote for the party that she was once a member of because she does not trust Starmer’s judgement and has a 'poor opinion' of his character

    Perhaps the Scottish Family Party might be a good fit for JK?
    I had the ill luck to catch their PPB the other night.

    https://youtu.be/z92f8zKZcDs?si=HMYHzyU86lNMaDfD
    The way things are going she'll be able to buy the Tory Party for a pound and a promise to fund the ongoing repairs.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    edited June 21

    Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.

    As far as I can seen the DM has ignored it.

    PS Is that you MrEd?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,587
    I wonder if the JK piece is a sign The Times won't endorse any party. Or maybe they'd print anything with star power...
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    Congress weren't hugely in favour of giving the Navy any money at that time and Tillman himself kept trying to get the budgets cut. The capacity was there but trying to get the funding for it was a constant battle.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
    And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.

    Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,421
    Jonathan said:

    How do you provoke someone to invade you?

    Deny possession of weapons of mass destruction?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,585
    OnboardG1 said:

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    Congress weren't hugely in favour of giving the Navy any money at that time and Tillman himself kept trying to get the budgets cut. The capacity was there but trying to get the funding for it was a constant battle.
    Sounds rather familiar. Some things never change.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724
    BBC News at 10.

    What the actual fuck???!!!

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437

    Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.

    As far as I can seen the DM has ignored it.

    PS Is that you MrEd?
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
    And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.

    Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
    Any invasion plan there was would be public domain by now, as the US one has become.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,843

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
    And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.

    Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
    Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
  • Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.

    As far as I can seen the DM has ignored it.

    PS Is that you MrEd?
    Yep Mail ignored it - other than the "Nigel Farage faces fury as he claims the West 'provoked' Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine" hit piece
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969

    Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.

    It was a BBC interview and Farage made the comments himself, nothing to do with the Tories. The Mail and Telegraph Farage lovers in the comments will be diehard Reform voters anyway
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437
    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,806

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    Wasn’t that him being interviewed on Panorama this evening?
    He went for a picnic with his daughter several hours ago.
    He’ll be spannered in a pubtaurant in Bray by now,
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,843
    ydoethur said:

    I hear Nigel is campaigning in Salisbury tomorrow, due to his desire to visit its wonderful cathedral, with its famous clock and 123 metre spire.

    What about Old Sarum, home of the rigged vote?
    A rotten candidate for a rotten borough?
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    edited June 21

    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
    No thanks, I don't need to know what Mail readers think of anything. Especially the terminally online ones.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.

    Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
    Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that...
    You still have a few minutes to think better of that comment.
    Uh? It was clearly a joke comment.
    I think Leon goes too far with some of his joke comments, and I think such jokes, especially about posters children, are in poor taste.

    It's the sort of joke that us amateurs should leave to the professionals.

    And I decided to merely suggest that they think again, rather than have a big go at them, which I think is a reasonable balance.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,270

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
    And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.

    Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
    Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
    Arguably the best ships of WWI !! - along with Furious, they formed the first homogenous carrier battle group under Admiral Henderson. Who used them to invent and prove the whole basis of mass attack carrier aviation.

    They served well into WWII - when most of the contemporaries were long gone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969

    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
    If you believed the DM comments were representative, Farage would be heading for an even bigger landslide than Thatcher got in 1983
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,806
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    How was that not a goal?

    Offside player was too close to the keeper so "involved in play". Think it was correct to be ruled out tbh
    Having watched it again, the goalie was way off his line, and unsighted by his own defender, irrespective of what the Dutch player was doing. Harsh call.
    I think the keeper probably doesn't save it. But that's not enough. Don't be offside is the moral of the story.
    The keeper was never getting anywhere near it. Terrible decision.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437
    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
    No thanks, I don't need to know what Mail readers think of anything. Especially the terminally online ones.
    If you're interested in politics and can read comments that don't agree with your world view without being triggered, you should.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
    And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.

    Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
    Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
    Spurious, Curious and Outrageous were the nicknames for the "large light cruisers". They made good carriers though.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,286

    BBC News at 10.

    What the actual fuck???!!!

    What's going on?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,839
    ydoethur said:

    Hmm. Sounds familiar...



    The Kyiv Independent
    @KyivIndependent

    ⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.

    I'm surprised he didn't say it was due to Ukraine supporting Biden's plans for electric boats.
    And sharks. Don’t forget the sharks.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437
    edited June 21
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
    If you believed the DM comments were representative, Farage would be heading for an even bigger landslide than Thatcher got in 1983
    They are certainly representative of a fairly large online readership. I would expect these outraged Reform-considering Tories who are now going to go back and vote Sunak because NF's Putin love in is too gamey for them to be represented if they are a big group.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,400

    ydoethur said:

    I hear Nigel is campaigning in Salisbury tomorrow, due to his desire to visit its wonderful cathedral, with its famous clock and 123 metre spire.

    What about Old Sarum, home of the rigged vote?
    A rotten candidate for a rotten borough?
    Unkind.

    To Mr Baldrick.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    edited June 21

    Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.

    As far as I can seen the DM has ignored it.

    PS Is that you MrEd?
    Yep Mail ignored it - other than the "Nigel Farage faces fury as he claims the West 'provoked' Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine" hit piece
    My bad - I made the mistake of going to the DM home page and then their General Election page - no reference to it there. Then I got lost in a flood of 'Doctors say to do this...' adverts.

    (Of course you could have just posted the link, which is what LuckyGuy has just done - thanks LG.)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724

    ydoethur said:

    I hear Nigel is campaigning in Salisbury tomorrow, due to his desire to visit its wonderful cathedral, with its famous clock and 123 metre spire.

    What about Old Sarum, home of the rigged vote?
    A rotten candidate for a rotten borough?
    Nothing wrong with the odd rotten borough!!!
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589

    OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
    No thanks, I don't need to know what Mail readers think of anything. Especially the terminally online ones.
    If you're interested in politics and can read comments that don't agree with your world view without being triggered, you should.
    I'm also interested in environmental science, but I'm happy to leave the study of effluent outflow to experts.
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 964

    OT

    I notice it's only 10 seats in it on Electoral Calculus....

    Between Tory wipeout and not?
  • OnboardG1 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
    No thanks, I don't need to know what Mail readers think of anything. Especially the terminally online ones.
    If you're interested in politics and can read comments that don't agree with your world view without being triggered, you should.
    Especially if you are interested in betting on politics.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,091

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    No, thought not.

    He might not be prioritising PB tonight. He's taking his daughter out for a nice meal because she's worried about her A-level performance.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648
    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    Shameful. It's 'that has been'.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    Indeed. EU expansion to the Eastern Bloc is obviously comparable to a war of aggression that's cost a couple of hundred thousand lives.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,843

    Second - like the second coming of La Truss

    If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.

    https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1804218534568038425
    I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.

    As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
    You can't be neutral against evil.
    America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
    Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.

    It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?

    (The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
    USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
    That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.

    The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.

    Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
    The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
    And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.

    Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
    Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
    Arguably the best ships of WWI !! - along with Furious, they formed the first homogenous carrier battle group under Admiral Henderson. Who used them to invent and prove the whole basis of mass attack carrier aviation.

    They served well into WWII - when most of the contemporaries were long gone.
    But that was after conversion from Fisher's original design!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,839

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    Just maybe if Russia wasn’t a kleptocracy that would make robber barons blush everyone in Eastern Europe wouldn’t have been so attracted to the EU.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,994
    edited June 21
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    Just maybe if Russia wasn’t a kleptocracy that would make robber barons blush everyone in Eastern Europe wouldn’t have been so attracted to the EU.
    If I was in Ukraine or Poland I would 100% definitely vote to join/remain in the EU. For bloody good reason.

    The UK really is exceptional in not needing the security blanket of being in the EU. Other nations, their mileage varies.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,843

    ydoethur said:

    I hear Nigel is campaigning in Salisbury tomorrow, due to his desire to visit its wonderful cathedral, with its famous clock and 123 metre spire.

    What about Old Sarum, home of the rigged vote?
    A rotten candidate for a rotten borough?
    Nothing wrong with the odd rotten borough!!!
    Of course! :lol:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    Is it Germany v Spain in the European final ?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,994

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Yes and having a foreign policy of welcoming friends and allies who democratically choose to ally with us, is a good foreign policy.
  • OnboardG1 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    Indeed. EU expansion to the Eastern Bloc is obviously comparable to a war of aggression that's cost a couple of hundred thousand lives.
    A continuation of Greater Germany by other means.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.

    Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,220

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    Ah, a clarification. An explanation. Ahem.

    Because when you're expaining, your're doing really well.

    Farage may well pull this off, but he knows he's screwed up here.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    It’s legitimate. He’s also a treacherous twat.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Don’t be absurd.
    It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
    The point is just that it's not as simple as the right of a sovereign country to decide for itself.

    Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    Nigelb said:

    Is it Germany v Spain in the European final ?

    Quarter final.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662
    edited June 21

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    Ah, a clarification. An explanation. Ahem.

    Because when you're expaining, your're doing really well.

    Farage may well pull this off, but he knows he's screwed up here.
    Though he could hardly deny his previous Putinophilia and remarks. Better to own it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863

    Anyone heard from @Leon this evening?

    Wasn’t that him being interviewed on Panorama this evening?
    Leon and Farage shared the same far right pro-Russia viewpoint during the early days of the war - but one of them has at least summoned up enough sense to try to reinvent himself as a champion of the plucky Ukrainians, hoping we will forget the earlier colossal misjudgement.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,220

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Don’t be absurd.
    It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
    The point is just that it's not as simple as the right of a sovereign country to decide for itself.

    Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
    No, because France was part of the EEC (as was at the time).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437
    edited June 21
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.

    Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
    I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Don’t be absurd.
    It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
    The point is just that it's not as simple as the right of a sovereign country to decide for itself.

    Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
    No, because France was part of the EEC (as was at the time).
    And if a French politician subsequently argued that it was a mistake to expand beyond the initial six, that would be a fair comment.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.

    Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
    I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
    Man of the people.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Don’t be absurd.
    It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
    The point is just that it's not as simple as the right of a sovereign country to decide for itself.

    Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
    You’re embarrassing yourself.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,437
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Don’t be absurd.
    It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.

    And it’s less than the square root of fuck all to do with Putin, as Farage is still arguing. He’s a shill for a mass murdering dictator.
    I love this new plan of yours that only politicians should offer opinions on foreign policy matters on Twitter. It's definitely one to run by Elon.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,994

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Don’t be absurd.
    It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
    The point is just that it's not as simple as the right of a sovereign country to decide for itself.

    Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
    No, because France was part of the EEC (as was at the time).
    And if a French politician subsequently argued that it was a mistake to expand beyond the initial six, that would be a fair comment.
    If they did that because they thought it was not in their interests to see the expansion happen, that would be a fair comment.

    If they did that because of intimidation from Russia/USSR, that would not.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,994
    Farooq said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    The EU can expand wherever it likes. It's a club where membership is voluntary. In fact, you have to work fucking hard to join. If a country wants in, and the EU will take them, 🤝, it's a deal. Do your neighbours not like it? Tough shit. The thing about sovereignty is that you can listen to your neighbours' advice if you want but in the end you do what you like.

    Normal people get this. A lot of people who voted for Brexit got this. It's kinda weird that Nigel Fartrage doesn't get it. He can fuck off to Moscow.
    Absofuckinglutely!

    I believe in sovereignty. British sovereignty, Ukrainian sovereignty.

    Nigel Farage is Putinist scum who does not.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,995

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.

    Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
    I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
    So just to clarify, you think there’s a big groundswell among the “working men’s clubs” that you presumably frequent and which represent the majority of British public opinion, for an accommodating approach towards Putin. Whose defensive war against the marauding Ukrainians is understandable because of the gross provocation by the EU.

    Right? That’s the real voice of the people?

    Maybe I don’t understand my country after all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.

    Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
    I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
    That's a political bubble. Not an insignificant one, but pub bores are never going to win you a seat under FPTP.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,063
    Have been following the conversation tonight, and to be honest Farage and his Trump devoted pro Putin fans leave me cold and reaffirm my wife amd my decision that we will vote conservative in a small demonstration of how we utterly repudiate Farage and Reform and hope traditional conservatives will do the right thing and also vote for the party no matter how much they critise it

    Starmer is de facto PM and nothing will change that by conservatives standing against the threat to their very existence

    And I wish everyone a good night's sleep as there is plenty of football, cricket and golf to lose oneself in and switch off the hatred that is horrible
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.

    Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
    I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
    Man of the people.
    Commodity trader of the people!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,969

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week

    I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
    If you believed the DM comments were representative, Farage would be heading for an even bigger landslide than Thatcher got in 1983
    They are certainly representative of a fairly large online readership. I would expect these outraged Reform-considering Tories who are now going to go back and vote Sunak because NF's Putin love in is too gamey for them to be represented if they are a big group.
    The most recent poll taken yesterday and today has Reform on 13% and the Tories on 22%, I would expect most of those commenting in the DM comments section to be in that 13%
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,662
    EU Membership Voting Intention:

    Rejoin: 50% (+1)
    Stay out: 31% (-2)

    via @wethinkpolling, 20-21 Jun

    (Changes with 13 Jun)

    EU Membership Voting Intention:

    *UK must adopt Euro*

    Rejoin: 39% (+2)
    Stay out: 40% (-3)

    via @wethinkpolling, 20-21 Jun

    (Changes with 13 Jun)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,558
    Just visited a pub for 10 mins, which consisted of a lot of fat men saying how awful all politicians are. Not very inspiring.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    STARMER
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,406
    There are barely any working men's clubs these days.
    Even round here they are shut or on their arse.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,648
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.

    Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
    Does it make you miss Boris as the populist standard bearer?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....

    One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.

    NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
    https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1804256739270996102

    I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.

    Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.

    The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
    What a twat.
    The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
    A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
    Don’t be absurd.
    It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.

    And it’s less than the square root of fuck all to do with Putin, as Farage is still arguing. He’s a shill for a mass murdering dictator.
    I love this new plan of yours that only politicians should offer opinions on foreign policy matters on Twitter. It's definitely one to run by Elon.
    He can say what he likes.

    William is arguing that he has some kind of standing in the matter - but he’s just another arsehole with an opinion. In this case a very stupid one.
This discussion has been closed.