Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
Amusement aside, is that actually right? It's unclear to me (but may not be unclear to others) whether EFTA's existing trade agreements would be inherited by a state which joined EFTA now.
Do nations that join the EU like Croatia in 2013 get excluded from the EU's existing trade deals? Is there any reason for it to be any different for new EFTA members?
Dunno. I suppose it depends whether the agreement was with EFTA as a principal, or EFTA acting as agent for the four EFTA states. Or, alternatively, what provision there was in the agreements for new members.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Sure they have their delusions in this area, still. But Russia is a power in severe decline. Its economy is only that of a medium-sized European country now. Its demographics are appalling and low oil prices have completely pulled the rug from under it, financially speaking. It has already lost the great bulk of the eastern European and Caucasus empire it once had.
The sensible strategy is to let Russia continue to wither on the vine. It still has the capacity to cause considerable trouble, despite its chronic relative decline, but that capacity will wane as the years pass. Why give it the opportunity to flex its remaining muscles? Something which, incidentally, has probably cemented Putin's position even further.
Tonight we see the nihilism of so many Leave campaigners: exulting in condemning 50 million people to creeping colonialism by an authoritarian dictator because the alternative involved the EU.
And the PBers looked from man to pig, from Russiantroll to Europhobe, but could no longer see any difference.
And there we have it. I can't stand the way someone who disagrees with something is now a phobe. .
I mean phobe as an irrational fear.
Dan Hannan on Newsnight just volunteered that he had voted in favour of the EU -Ukraine treaty.
What is it about this treaty that you object to? Apart from the fact that it was negotiated by the EU?
I object to the fact that the EU along with the Americans encouraged regime change in Ukraine, whilst deliberately provoking Putin and Russia. We promised Russia after the end of the cold war that we wouldn't extend Nato to its own borders, let alone try to extend the EU up to the Russian border as well. You should know your recent history a bit better and how this plays amongst other countries outside the Eurocracy before commenting on such matters. It would have been far better for all concerned if the eastern part of Ukraine had been ceded to Russia, and have a western facing smaller Ukraine. The Ukraine on its current borders with the inevitable historic divisions and tensions was never going to be a viable thriving state long term.
The Mossack Fonseca coverage in our mainstream press has been typical in poking a stick at Russia (and China) instead of sorting out our own grubby affairs at home. Britain with its disgraceful corruption is in no position to lecture the rest of the world on tax affairs, particularly when the whole world finally finds out what has been going on at 788 790 Finchley Road and all of the interconnected boiler room operations.
You don't know your geography very well, but your ignorance is very revealing.
Norway has a border (and a highly sensitive one) with Russia, and was a founder member of NATO.
Turkey used to border the Soviet Union and was a NATO member since 1952.
Estonia and Latvia both border Russia, and Lithuania and Poland border the Russian enclave of Kalingrad. Otherwise there are large countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia between NATO and Russia. Only if you believe these countries should be Russian dominated has NATO "pushed its borders" up to Russia.
I am actually very Russophile. I love the people and culture, and would love Russia to become a Democracy with the rule of Law, so that it can flower to its fullest.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I'll take your word for it. I'll say this for Russia - they talk a good game. I know acting belligerent and flexing international muscles can be done to distract from internal weakness, but it does seem to convince people. Until it all collapses, if you are right.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Wow thats massive drop in earnings...and to think people here go totally apeshit when they only get 1% payrise....I don't even want to think about the reaction when interest rates actually start to rise to a more historical normal level.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Agreed entirely but then again how dangerous is a cornered, nuclear-armed Russian bear?
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I'll take your word for it. I'll say this for Russia - they talk a good game. I know acting belligerent and flexing international muscles can be done to distract from internal weakness, but it does seem to convince people. Until it all collapses, if you are right.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Source for the fall in average earnings?
Russia is in trouble because it hasn't diversified its economy beyond commodities and the military complex. But its a demographic crisis (which is linked to the economic woes) too - to be fair to Putin he is very well aware of this, and they've done everything to try to increase the birth rate, including giving monetary incentives to couples having children.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to counter Russian aggression in the face of German appeasement is one worth sacrificing the national interest for, IMO. Look at how Merkel had to be dragged kicking and screaming into sanctions on Russia that would hurt German capital goods manufacturers. If Germany is unwilling to take even the slightest hardship to her economy in order to face down despots like Putin, we need to be the opposing voice to that appeasement within the EU.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Source for the fall in average earnings?
Russia is in trouble because it hasn't diversified its economy beyond commodities and the military complex. But its a demographic crisis (which is linked to the economic woes) too - to be fair to Putin he is very well aware of this, and they've done everything to try to increase the birth rate, including giving monetary incentives to couples having children.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to counter Russian aggression in the face of German appeasement is one worth sacrificing the national interest for, IMO. Look at how Merkel had to be dragged kicking and screaming into sanctions on Russia that would hurt German capital goods manufacturers. If Germany is unwilling to take even the slightest hardship to her economy in order to face down despots like Putin, we need to be the opposing voice to that appeasement within the EU.
There's a lot of truth in that. And Germans like Schroeder were at the forefront of Putin love.
But I still don't think web should stay in the EU.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Agreed entirely but then again how dangerous is a cornered, nuclear-armed Russian bear?
I'm not sure backing down whenever Putin takes his shirt off is doing us or the Russian people any good.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to counter Russian aggression in the face of German appeasement is one worth sacrificing the national interest for, IMO. Look at how Merkel had to be dragged kicking and screaming into sanctions on Russia that would hurt German capital goods manufacturers. If Germany is unwilling to take even the slightest hardship to her economy in order to face down despots like Putin, we need to be the opposing voice to that appeasement within the EU.
Alternatively if Germany dominates the EU and is unwilling to take necessary actions then we should wipe our hands clean and walk away.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Agreed entirely but then again how dangerous is a cornered, nuclear-armed Russian bear?
I'm not sure backing down whenever Putin takes his shirt off is doing us or the Russian people any good.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
It is why the only significant foreign leader who would smile after Brexit is Putin.
No wonder Farage admires Putin. The same autocratical ideas in both men.
Tonight we see the nihilism of so many Leave campaigners: exulting in condemning 50 million people to creeping colonialism by an authoritarian dictator because the alternative involved the EU.
And the PBers looked from man to pig, from Russiantroll to Europhobe, but could no longer see any difference.
And there we have it. I can't stand the way someone who disagrees with something is now a phobe. .
I mean phobe as an irrational fear.
Dan Hannan on Newsnight just volunteered that he had voted in favour of the EU -Ukraine treaty.
What is it about this treaty that you object to? Apart from the fact that it was negotiated by the EU?
s.
You don't know your geography very well, but your ignorance is very revealing.
Norway has a border (and a highly sensitive one) with Russia, and was a founder member of NATO.
Turkey used to border the Soviet Union and was a NATO member since 1952.
Estonia and Latvia both border Russia, and Lithuania and Poland border the Russian enclave of Kalingrad. Otherwise there are large countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia between NATO and Russia. Only if you believe these countries should be Russian dominated has NATO "pushed its borders" up to Russia.
I am actually very Russophile. I love the people and culture, and would love Russia to become a Democracy with the rule of Law, so that it can flower to its fullest.
Firstly, the Baltic states joined in 2004 well after the immediate early 1990's period post the cold war.
And I should have probably said 'mainstream' border with Russia or similar - the border with Kaliningrad as a Russian enclave, and the Norwegian border with Russian around Kirkenes are hardly matters for great geo-strategic significance and were not included in the 'taking NATO up to the Russian border' promise that the West made to Russia in the early 1990's, so your comments are splitting hairs.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to counter Russian aggression in the face of German appeasement is one worth sacrificing the national interest for, IMO. Look at how Merkel had to be dragged kicking and screaming into sanctions on Russia that would hurt German capital goods manufacturers. If Germany is unwilling to take even the slightest hardship to her economy in order to face down despots like Putin, we need to be the opposing voice to that appeasement within the EU.
But there would have been no need for sanctions had the EU not contributed to provoking Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
So here we have a case of the EU wanting to posture as a great power but entirely lacking in the necessary a) cunning or b) spine to pull it off. Dangerous dilettantism.
Tonight we see the nihilism of so many Leave campaigners: exulting in condemning 50 million people to creeping colonialism by an authoritarian dictator because the alternative involved the EU.
And the PBers looked from man to pig, from Russiantroll to Europhobe, but could no longer see any difference.
And there we have it. I can't stand the way someone who disagrees with something is now a phobe. .
I mean phobe as an irrational fear.
Dan Hannan on Newsnight just volunteered that he had voted in favour of the EU -Ukraine treaty.
What is it about this treaty that you object to? Apart from the fact that it was negotiated by the EU?
s.
You don't know your geography very well, but your ignorance is very revealing.
Norway has a border (and a highly sensitive one) with Russia, and was a founder member of NATO.
Turkey used to border the Soviet Union and was a NATO member since 1952.
Estonia and Latvia both border Russia, and Lithuania and Poland border the Russian enclave of Kalingrad. Otherwise there are large countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia between NATO and Russia. Only if you believe these countries should be Russian dominated has NATO "pushed its borders" up to Russia.
I am actually very Russophile. I love the people and culture, and would love Russia to become a Democracy with the rule of Law, so that it can flower to its fullest.
Firstly, the Baltic states joined in 2004 well after the immediate early 1990's period post the cold war.
And I should have probably said 'mainstream' border with Russia or similar - the border with Kaliningrad as a Russian enclave, and the Norwegian border with Russian around Kirkenes are hardly matters for great geo-strategic significance and were not included in the 'taking NATO up to the Russian border' promise that the West made to Russia in the early 1990's, so your comments are splitting hairs.
The North Cape of Norway is highly strategic. It is the gateway to the Atlantic for the Russian Nuclear Submarine fleet.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Source for the fall in average earnings?
Russia is in trouble because it hasn't diversified its economy beyond commodities and the military complex. But its a demographic crisis (which is linked to the economic woes) too - to be fair to Putin he is very well aware of this, and they've done everything to try to increase the birth rate, including giving monetary incentives to couples having children.
Yes, the Rouble has fallen in half roughly against the US Dollar, and you'll remember that I was the lone USD bull on here back in 2009 when people thought I was talking nonsense!
But for the average Russian that deals in Roubles, and not the elite in USD, their domestic purchasing power hasn't fallen by as much as your USD statistic would indicate.
There's a lot of truth in that. And Germans like Schroeder were at the forefront of Putin love.
But I still don't think web should stay in the EU.
Schroeder brought Putin in from the cold in 2004/5 in return for cheap Russian gas. The Germans are not to be trusted when it comes to Russian engagement.
Agreed, unless Putin starts knocking on the doors of Finland or Poland keeping him bottled up in Georgia and Ukraine/Crimea seems like the best bet.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to counter Russian aggression in the face of German appeasement is one worth sacrificing the national interest for, IMO. Look at how Merkel had to be dragged kicking and screaming into sanctions on Russia that would hurt German capital goods manufacturers. If Germany is unwilling to take even the slightest hardship to her economy in order to face down despots like Putin, we need to be the opposing voice to that appeasement within the EU.
But there would have been no need for sanctions had the EU not contributed to provoking Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
So here we have a case of the EU wanting to posture as a great power but entirely lacking in the necessary a) cunning or b) spine to pull it off. Dangerous dilettantism.
To be fair, the US is at least as culpable in the Ukraine as the EU.
Tonight we see the nihilism of so many Leave campaigners: exulting in condemning 50 million people to creeping colonialism by an authoritarian dictator because the alternative involved the EU.
And the PBers looked from man to pig, from Russiantroll to Europhobe, but could no longer see any difference.
And there we have it. I can't stand the way someone who disagrees with something is now a phobe. .
I mean phobe as an irrational fear.
Dan Hannan on Newsnight just volunteered that he had voted in favour of the EU -Ukraine treaty.
What is it about this treaty that you object to? Apart from the fact that it was negotiated by the EU?
s.
You don't know your geography very well, but your ignorance is very revealing.
Norway has a border (and a highly sensitive one) with Russia, and was a founder member of NATO.
Turkey used to border the Soviet Union and was a NATO member since 1952.
Estonia and Latvia both border Russia, and Lithuania and Poland border the Russian enclave of Kalingrad. Otherwise there are large countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia between NATO and Russia. Only if you believe these countries should be Russian dominated has NATO "pushed its borders" up to Russia.
I am actually very Russophile. I love the people and culture, and would love Russia to become a Democracy with the rule of Law, so that it can flower to its fullest.
Firstly, the Baltic states joined in 2004 well after the immediate early 1990's period post the cold war.
And I should have probably said 'mainstream' border with Russia or similar - the border with Kaliningrad as a Russian enclave, and the Norwegian border with Russian around Kirkenes are hardly matters for great geo-strategic significance and were not included in the 'taking NATO up to the Russian border' promise that the West made to Russia in the early 1990's, so your comments are splitting hairs.
The North Cape of Norway is highly strategic. It is the gateway to the Atlantic for the Russian Nuclear Submarine fleet.
We were talking about the land border, not maritime considerations!
If you want some amusement, Googling "788 790 Finchley Road" is brilliant.
Its not like searching for a needle in a haystack to find some juicy stuff there and on YouTube - but with your investigative capacities I'm sure it would be!
If you want some amusement, Googling "788 790 Finchley Road" is brilliant.
Alice in Wonderland stuff I presume?
It's like the glory days when 'Tapestry' posted here.
Whatever happened to old Tap..is he still pumping out the blog with the crazy conspiracy theories on every world event that makes the news (and lots that don't)?
If you want some amusement, Googling "788 790 Finchley Road" is brilliant.
Alice in Wonderland stuff I presume?
It's like the glory days when 'Tapestry' posted here.
Whatever happened to old Tap..is he still pumping out the blog with the crazy conspiracy theories on every world event that makes the news (and lots that don't)?
The last I heard was something to do with Owen Paterson and fracking. It was going to decide the 2015 election. But I guess the Bilderbergs must have got there first and hushed it up.
Tonight we see the nihilism of so many Leave campaigners: exulting in condemning 50 million people to creeping colonialism by an authoritarian dictator because the alternative involved the EU.
And the PBers looked from man to pig, from Russiantroll to Europhobe, but could no longer see any difference.
And there we have it. I can't stand the way someone who disagrees with something is now a phobe. .
I mean phobe as an irrational fear.
Dan Hannan on Newsnight just volunteered that he had voted in favour of the EU -Ukraine treaty.
What is it about this treaty that you object to? Apart from the fact that it was negotiated by the EU?
s.
You don't know your geography very well, but your ignorance is very revealing.
Norway has a border (and a highly sensitive one) with Russia, and was a founder member of NATO.
Turkey used to border the Soviet Union and was a NATO member since 1952.
Estonia and Latvia both border Russia, and Lithuania and Poland border the Russian enclave of Kalingrad. Otherwise there are large countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia between NATO and Russia. Only if you believe these countries should be Russian dominated has NATO "pushed its borders" up to Russia.
I am actually very Russophile. I love the people and culture, and would love Russia to become a Democracy with the rule of Law, so that it can flower to its fullest.
Firstly, the Baltic states joined in 2004 well after the immediate early 1990's period post the cold war.
And I should have probably said 'mainstream' border with Russia or similar - the border with Kaliningrad as a Russian enclave, and the Norwegian border with Russian around Kirkenes are hardly matters for great geo-strategic significance and were not included in the 'taking NATO up to the Russian border' promise that the West made to Russia in the early 1990's, so your comments are splitting hairs.
The North Cape of Norway is highly strategic. It is the gateway to the Atlantic for the Russian Nuclear Submarine fleet.
We were talking about the land border, not maritime considerations!
Were we? Keeping the Russian fleet under watch from bases in Norway has always mattered to NATO.
And for years the long USSR/ NATO border in Turkey too.
Absolutely typical of Cameron. And just digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself all the time, and that's before anything about THAT ADDRESS comes to light. Not as though I'm waiting for the day when somebody in the Commons gets up and says, 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!'
Alternatively if Germany dominates the EU and is unwilling to take necessary actions then we should wipe our hands clean and walk away.
And have a 27 bloc union being led by a nation which appeases despotic aggression without a counter voice willing to stand up to them? I'd like to think that wouldn't be a problem and that we would just use NATO to stand in in the way of Putin (or anyone else for that matter), but the US hasn't exactly been the most willing ally of late. We are a nation with few real friends and I don't count any of the EU nations among them, however, foreign policy is the one and only area in which I think Britain wields real and powerful influence. It was Dave that forced the EU into pushing sanctions onto Putin against German wishes, not Hollande or Rajoy, both are far too weak to stand up to Merkel.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to
But there would have been no need for sanctions had the EU not contributed to provoking Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
So here we have a case of the EU wanting to posture as a great power but entirely lacking in the necessary a) cunning or b) spine to pull it off. Dangerous dilettantism.
To be fair, the US is at least as culpable in the Ukraine as the EU.
Culpable of trying to spread trade and democratic ideas? There are worse things to be culpable of!
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
Agreed entirely but then again how dangerous is a cornered, nuclear-armed Russian bear?
I'm not sure backing down whenever Putin takes his shirt off is doing us or the Russian people any good.
Equally I am not comfortable with being part of the EU a body that has an incoherent approach in its policies towards a dangerous person such as Putin. It needs a careful, consistent, long term approach.
Absolutely typical of Cameron. And just digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself all the time, and that's before anything about THAT ADDRESS comes to light. Not as though I'm waiting for the day when somebody in the Commons gets up and says, 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!'
Tonight we see the nihilism of so many Leave campaigners: exulting in condemning 50 million people to creeping colonialism by an authoritarian dictator because the alternative involved the EU.
And the PBers looked from man to pig, from Russiantroll to Europhobe, but could no longer see any difference.
And there we have it. I can't stand the way someone who disagrees with something is now a phobe. .
I mean phobe as an irrational fear.
Dan Hannan on Newsnight just volunteered that he had voted in favour of the EU -Ukraine treaty.
What is it about this treaty that you object to? Apart from the fact that it was negotiated by the EU?
s.
You ullest.
Firstly, the Baltic states joined in 2004 well after the immediate early 1990's period post the cold war.
And I should have probably said 'mainstream' border with Russia or similar - the border with Kaliningrad as a Russian enclave, and the Norwegian border with Russian around Kirkenes are hardly matters for great geo-strategic significance and were not included in the 'taking NATO up to the Russian border' promise that the West made to Russia in the early 1990's, so your comments are splitting hairs.
The North Cape of Norway is highly strategic. It is the gateway to the Atlantic for the Russian Nuclear Submarine fleet.
We were talking about the land border, not maritime considerations!
Were we? Keeping the Russian fleet under watch from bases in Norway has always mattered to NATO.
And for years the long USSR/ NATO border in Turkey too.
USSR / Nato border in Turkey was BEFORE the early 1990's promise the West made to Russia about taking Nato 'up to its [mainstream] borders'.
And the Russian Northern fleet, largely based in Murmansk is largely concerned with protecting Russian interests in the Arctic rather than any Atlantic considerations.
St Petersburg with its access to the Baltic, and the bases in Syria and Cyprus with Mediterranean access are hugely important geo-strategically if you wish to discuss maritime considerations.
Tonight we see the nihilism of so many Leave campaigners: exulting in condemning 50 million people to creeping colonialism by an authoritarian dictator because the alternative involved the EU.
And the PBers looked from man to pig, from Russiantroll to Europhobe, but could no longer see any difference.
And there we have it. I can't stand the way someone who disagrees with something is now a phobe. .
I mean phobe as an irrational fear.
Dan Hannan on Newsnight just volunteered that he had voted in favour of the EU -Ukraine treaty.
What is it about this treaty that you object to? Apart from the fact that it was negotiated by the EU?
s.
You ullest.
Firstly, the Baltic states joined in 2004 well after the immediate early 1990's period post the cold war.
And I should have probably said 'mainstream' border with Russia or similar - the border with Kaliningrad as a Russian enclave, and the Norwegian border with Russian around Kirkenes are hardly matters for great geo-strategic significance and were not included in the 'taking NATO up to the Russian border' promise that the West made to Russia in the early 1990's, so your comments are splitting hairs.
The North Cape of Norway is highly strategic. It is the gateway to the Atlantic for the Russian Nuclear Submarine fleet.
We were talking about the land border, not maritime considerations!
Were we? Keeping the Russian fleet under watch from bases in Norway has always mattered to NATO.
And for years the long USSR/ NATO border in Turkey too.
USSR / Nato border in Turkey was BEFORE the early 1990's promise the West made to Russia about taking Nato 'up to its [mainstream] borders'.
And the Russian Northern fleet, largely based in Murmansk is largely concerned with protecting Russian interests in the Arctic rather than any Atlantic considerations.
St Petersburg with its access to the Baltic, and the bases in Syria and Cyprus with Mediterranean access are hugely important geo-strategically if you wish to discuss maritime considerations.
The Northern Fleet is more concerned with protecting the subsea UFO bases. Why aren't you in on this too?
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to
But there would have been no need for sanctions had the EU not contributed to provoking Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
So here we have a case of the EU wanting to posture as a great power but entirely lacking in the necessary a) cunning or b) spine to pull it off. Dangerous dilettantism.
To be fair, the US is at least as culpable in the Ukraine as the EU.
Culpable of trying to spread trade and democratic ideas? There are worse things to be culpable of!
I think you're in the wrong class. This is advanced foreign affairs, not theoretical liberalism 101.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
No, but can we reject it for other reasons, such as Ukrainian corruption?
The slightly amusing bit is that if we quit the EU for EFTA, we'll find ourselves with a Ukraine free trade deal.
The interesting thing is the Russians clearly don't see EFTA as a threat, but they do see the EU as a threat. Which is of course because they correctly perceive that the EU is not really about trade, but empire building.
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to
But there would have been no need for sanctions had the EU not contributed to provoking Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
So here we have a case of the EU wanting to posture as a great power but entirely lacking in the necessary a) cunning or b) spine to pull it off. Dangerous dilettantism.
To be fair, the US is at least as culpable in the Ukraine as the EU.
Culpable of trying to spread trade and democratic ideas? There are worse things to be culpable of!
I think you're in the wrong class. This is advanced foreign affairs, not theoretical liberalism 101.
Appeasement 101? Taught by UKIP? Thats what we are looking for...
The drop in recruitment particularly affects, A and E, Paediatrics, Obstetrics and acute medicine (though a fairly dramatic vacancy rate in GP too at 30%).
The new contract doesn't look like it is going to help much with a 7 day NHS. People voting with their feet by not choosing front line posts. I don't blame them.
Anyone who supports rejecting the Ukrainian trade deal in order to appease Putin ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves. I suppose we should have rejected any support of Poland in order to appease Hitler?
...
...
The Russians want a fragmented Europe. It is in their interests to be the dominant power on Europe. No EU, no NATO, and them as r dominant energy supplier to the continent would be geopolitical mana from heaven for them.
Honestly, Russian aggression is the only thing that might swing me into the remain camp, but I would want to eject the freeloaders and obstructionists at the same time.
People on this board seem in total denial about how much trouble Russia is in. Average monthly earnings have dropped from $900 to $400 in just 18 months. Russian exports are now smaller than Belgium's, and are more than 80% commodities.
Just as the commodity down cycle of the 1980s did for the USSR, it is highly likely this one will do for Putin's Russia.
I know all of that and agree that over the long term Russia are in a poor position, even if oil recovers to $60-70 it is going to be tough for their economy to recover. However, in the short term I think having Britain as a voice in the EU to
But there would have been no need for sanctions had the EU not contributed to provoking Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
So here we have a case of the EU wanting to posture as a great power but entirely lacking in the necessary a) cunning or b) spine to pull it off. Dangerous dilettantism.
To be fair, the US is at least as culpable in the Ukraine as the EU.
Culpable of trying to spread trade and democratic ideas? There are worse things to be culpable of!
I think you're in the wrong class. This is advanced foreign affairs, not theoretical liberalism 101.
Appeasement 101? Taught by UKIP? Thats what we are looking for...
Those naive in their understanding of foreign affairs often compare opposing actions that have consequences to appeasement. For example, just the same arguments were made by those pro the Iraq war.
So how does HMG's plans to distribute remain leaflets square with the purdah rules? Is it because the leaflets will be distributed more than 28 days before the vote?
So how does HMG's plans to distribute remain leaflets square with the purdah rules? Is it because the leaflets will be distributed more than 28 days before the vote?
They are relying, probably with good reason, on most of the public not noticing that they are being taken for fools.
I see the National Enquirer is still going after Ted Cruz.....and another story we're possibly injuncted from discussing in the UK......press freedom, eh?
Now that the Dutch have voted 61.1% to 38% to reject the Ukraine deal, their government is trying to wriggle out of the referendum results by questioning turnout. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35976086
Turnout was pushed down by rainy, windy and unseasonably cold weather combined with confusion over what the vote was about: hostility to the EU or a highly complicated international agreement with Ukraine that is more than 2,000 pages long, setting trade tariffs on everything from apricots to cars.
“No” campaigners accused the government of trying to keep the turnout low by providing only half the normal number of polling stations used in a national election. “It is outrageous,” Harry Van Bommel, an MP for the Eurosceptic Socialist party, said.
The vote was on an “association treaty” that triggered unrest and the collapse of a pro-Russian Ukrainian government in late 2013, plunging the country into turmoil.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you've got it the wrong way round on the EU/Russia. The possibility of joining the EU was first raised just after 2000 as a way of stopping the Russians from meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs. In fact, at every stage it has been the Ukrainians who have been pushing for EU help. Indeed, the current trade agreement was negotiated by Russian puppet Yanukovych in the hope of appeasing the pro-EU factions while not giving the EU any real influence. The current crisis began when Putin vetoed the deal as a step too far.
So this is the Ukrainian answer to Russian expansionism, not a Russian response to EU expansionism.
Now that the Dutch have voted 61.1% to 38% to reject the Ukraine deal, their government is trying to wriggle out of the referendum results by questioning turnout. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35976086
Turnout was pushed down by rainy, windy and unseasonably cold weather combined with confusion over what the vote was about: hostility to the EU or a highly complicated international agreement with Ukraine that is more than 2,000 pages long, setting trade tariffs on everything from apricots to cars.
“No” campaigners accused the government of trying to keep the turnout low by providing only half the normal number of polling stations used in a national election. “It is outrageous,” Harry Van Bommel, an MP for the Eurosceptic Socialist party, said.
The vote was on an “association treaty” that triggered unrest and the collapse of a pro-Russian Ukrainian government in late 2013, plunging the country into turmoil.
7 Apr 2016 The Times Bruno Waterfield Amsterdam
I thought the referendum was non-binding, so they government could just ignore the results at their pleasure!
The Dutch vote on the Ukraine deal shows, once again, just how simple and speedy it is to conclude free trade agreements with the EU. It's EFTA/EEA or bust for us, post-Brexit.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you've got it the wrong way round on the EU/Russia. The possibility of joining the EU was first raised just after 2000 as a way of stopping the Russians from meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs. In fact, at every stage it has been the Ukrainians who have been pushing for EU help. Indeed, the current trade agreement was negotiated by Russian puppet Yanukovych in the hope of appeasing the pro-EU factions while not giving the EU any real influence. The current crisis began when Putin vetoed the deal as a step too far.
So this is the Ukrainian answer to Russian expansionism, not a Russian response to EU expansionism.
Are you familiar with the 'Fxxk the EU' tape by the fragrant Ms. Nuland?
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you've got it the wrong way round on the EU/Russia. The possibility of joining the EU was first raised just after 2000 as a way of stopping the Russians from meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs. In fact, at every stage it has been the Ukrainians who have been pushing for EU help. Indeed, the current trade agreement was negotiated by Russian puppet Yanukovych in the hope of appeasing the pro-EU factions while not giving the EU any real influence. The current crisis began when Putin vetoed the deal as a step too far.
So this is the Ukrainian answer to Russian expansionism, not a Russian response to EU expansionism.
Are you familiar with the 'Fxxk the EU' tape by the fragrant Ms. Nuland?
The dutch vote will just be ignored as usual as the people gave the wrong answer.
It's been proved time and time again that people just can't be trusted to vote on anything to do with Europe. Just leave it to the elite, they know best.
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
On another subject, some of the Tory press is still going for Cameron to a point that seems to me exaggerated - the Mail today has another splash (Cameron's dad passed on assets in Jersey, which he might inherit) and an editorial, parts of which could have been in the Mirror (Buliingdon, not one of us, etc.).
This is presumably being driven by the referendum, but also perhaps by the perception that Cameron is going anyway, so they can damage him without permanent damage to the Tories. They're also whinging about not being able to tell us that some celeeb has had a threesome, meh.
Being someone who considers themselves European as well as British I'm now coming to the view that 'Leave' would be the best option all round. We owe it to our partners to assist them in removing this malignant xenophobic carbuncle from the 28 while we have the opportunity.
If the opinion of leavers is that expressed on this site and in particular on this thread then I have no doubt that the civilized countries of the EU will be much better off without us.
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
Yep. A very reasoned position Nick and one I agree with entirely. Some of your Europhile fellow travellers (of whom Dr Fox was a perfect example yesterday evening) on here seem to think that any statement that doesn't support the EU regarding the Ukraine is showing support for Putin or is driven by more general opposition to the EU. For most people this is not the case. It is simply a recognition of the history to date as you have summarised it.
Odd that neither the Mail nor the Express led on the £9 million mail drop last night, particularly as neither of their lead stories were especially sparkling. Perhaps some of their readers are suffering from referendum fatigue.
Haven't had the chance to go back through the threads but has this been mentioned? I mean Jeeez this is beyond appalling and crass what was she thinking? The stupid woman can't even relate that the victims were buried on the moors. It's the nickname luv that gives you the fecking clue.
"SNP election agent is condemned as 'a disgrace' after comparing David Cameron and Boris Johnson to child killers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley Photo doctored to make Cameron and Johnson look like Moors murderers "
Haven't had the chance to go back through the threads but has this been mentioned? I mean Jeeez this is beyond appalling and crass what was she thinking? The stupid woman can't even relate that the victims were buried on the moors. It's the nickname luv that gives you the fecking clue.
"SNP election agent is condemned as 'a disgrace' after comparing David Cameron and Boris Johnson to child killers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley Photo doctored to make Cameron and Johnson look like Moors murderers "
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
Yep. A very reasoned position Nick and one I agree with entirely. Some of your Europhile fellow travellers (of whom Dr Fox was a perfect example yesterday evening) on here seem to think that any statement that doesn't support the EU regarding the Ukraine is showing support for Putin or is driven by more general opposition to the EU. For most people this is not the case. It is simply a recognition of the history to date as you have summarised it.
A couple of years ago, I thought that partitioning Ukraine was the only sensible solution.
And then Putin made it effectively impossible by invading.
Being someone who considers themselves European as well as British I'm now coming to the view that 'Leave' would be the best option all round. We owe it to our partners to assist them in removing this malignant xenophobic carbuncle from the 28 while we have the opportunity.
If the opinion of leavers is that expressed on this site and in particular on this thread then I have no doubt that the civilized countries of the EU will be much better off without us.
Leftie hates his countrymen. No change there then.
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
On another subject, some of the Tory press is still going for Cameron to a point that seems to me exaggerated - the Mail today has another splash (Cameron's dad passed on assets in Jersey, which he might inherit) and an editorial, parts of which could have been in the Mirror (Buliingdon, not one of us, etc.).
This is presumably being driven by the referendum, but also perhaps by the perception that Cameron is going anyway, so they can damage him without permanent damage to the Tories. They're also whinging about not being able to tell us that some celeeb has had a threesome, meh.
Could someone direct me to the text of the commitment to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded to the Russian border? It is much asserted but the precise words seem very elusive.
Good article on the Panama papers that is getting closer to the nub of it all. They stop short of mentioning 788 790 Finchley Road and the interlocking addresses, but it takes things a step further:
One of my sources has mentioned that there was a protest march in London today with regard to the Panama papers - does anyone have any further information about this? No mention in the mainstream media about this of course!
Well we had a typical smoke and mirrors job from Cameron yesterday, not once but four times. Wes Streeting is quite right, until Cameron publishes all his tax returns going back to and including the 2010/11 tax year he has no hope of shutting this down. And depending on how quickly any inheritance disbursement from Blairmore Holdings fell into his lap, he has to publish back to 2010/11. Charles Walker was well and truly bested by Streeting and Jon Snow on Channel 4 News earlier this evening.
Now yesterday, I mentioned about the Carroll Trust. Nothing very much is really known about the demise of the Carroll Trust, but the trust set up in 1986 which had 85 companies in it, was at one stage estimated to have a net worth of £250m. The following article tells some of the story about the collapse by 1993:
Why has no one to date been brought before the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) about the alleged fraud?
What was the link between Smith Williamson Holdings and Blairmore Holdings and the Carroll Trust?
What does Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe know about this?
Why are the files in complete lockdown about this at the FBI in Washington and at Scotland Yard? I do wonder if anyone has tried to make an FOI request on these files, but I can guess what the response was.
What a load of bollocks - "David Cameron's Blairmore trust"... Brought to you by a weird person.
Still, it stops Hunchman posting about loopy chartist theories and the nutty fraudster cum antique coin salesman.
Too bad again that you have such a closed mindset on the way the world works, and don't want to learn. I'm sure you'll want to read this article on Mossack Fonseca from the forecaster's forecaster, who's got more talent in his little finger than anything you posess:
The dutch vote will just be ignored as usual as the people gave the wrong answer.
It's been proved time and time again that people just can't be trusted to vote on anything to do with Europe. Just leave it to the elite, they know best.
Quite so. But isn't the usual procedure to make them vote again until they give the right answer?
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
Yep. A very reasoned position Nick and one I agree with entirely. Some of your Europhile fellow travellers (of whom Dr Fox was a perfect example yesterday evening) on here seem to think that any statement that doesn't support the EU regarding the Ukraine is showing support for Putin or is driven by more general opposition to the EU. For most people this is not the case. It is simply a recognition of the history to date as you have summarised it.
A couple of years ago, I thought that partitioning Ukraine was the only sensible solution.
And then Putin made it effectively impossible by invading.
Yep. I really don't think Putin is too bothered with a negotiated settlement on this. He believes he holds all the cards.
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
On another subject, some of the Tory press is still going for Cameron to a point that seems to me exaggerated - the Mail today has another splash (Cameron's dad passed on assets in Jersey, which he might inherit) and an editorial, parts of which could have been in the Mirror (Buliingdon, not one of us, etc.).
This is presumably being driven by the referendum, but also perhaps by the perception that Cameron is going anyway, so they can damage him without permanent damage to the Tories. They're also whinging about not being able to tell us that some celeeb has had a threesome, meh.
If they could print the story it would give them a good front-page splash.
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
Yep. A very reasoned position Nick and one I agree with entirely. Some of your Europhile fellow travellers (of whom Dr Fox was a perfect example yesterday evening) on here seem to think that any statement that doesn't support the EU regarding the Ukraine is showing support for Putin or is driven by more general opposition to the EU. For most people this is not the case. It is simply a recognition of the history to date as you have summarised it.
A couple of years ago, I thought that partitioning Ukraine was the only sensible solution.
And then Putin made it effectively impossible by invading.
Yep. I really don't think Putin is too bothered with a negotiated settlement on this. He believes he holds all the cards.
When dealing with Putin, one should remember he is somebody who believes, and has said, that the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century is the collapse of the USSR. It's certainly a view.
Could someone direct me to the text of the commitment to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded to the Russian border? It is much asserted but the precise words seem very elusive.
Now you mention it I wasn't sure either, so have googled a bit. Here's the US version - basically we promised not to expand the military presence, then we didn't do it "substantially", then after the Crimean annexation we did:
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
On another subject, some of the Tory press is still going for Cameron to a point that seems to me exaggerated - the Mail today has another splash (Cameron's dad passed on assets in Jersey, which he might inherit) and an editorial, parts of which could have been in the Mirror (Buliingdon, not one of us, etc.).
This is presumably being driven by the referendum, but also perhaps by the perception that Cameron is going anyway, so they can damage him without permanent damage to the Tories. They're also whinging about not being able to tell us that some celeeb has had a threesome, meh.
Could someone direct me to the text of the commitment to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded to the Russian border? It is much asserted but the precise words seem very elusive.
And Nato has a border with Russia since 1949!
This is not a NATO freetrade treaty, it is an EU one. Commitments concerning NATO expansion are irrelevant in a trade deal.
Could someone direct me to the text of the commitment to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded to the Russian border? It is much asserted but the precise words seem very elusive.
Now you mention it I wasn't sure either, so have googled a bit. Here's the US version - basically we promised not to expand the military presence, then we didn't do it "substantially", then after the Crimean annexation we did:
I'm with Sam Goldwyn: a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. It seems extraordinary that Russia argue that an indefinite commitment, rather than a statement of intent, was given in conversation without ever being formally recorded.
Is it any wonder the Tories are moribund in Scotland , when the best they can deploy are dummies like you. There is no deal signed , not even for a penny. Just for someone as thick as you it is an MOU, nothing more and not a penny signed up.
Being someone who considers themselves European as well as British I'm now coming to the view that 'Leave' would be the best option all round. We owe it to our partners to assist them in removing this malignant xenophobic carbuncle from the 28 while we have the opportunity.
If the opinion of leavers is that expressed on this site and in particular on this thread then I have no doubt that the civilized countries of the EU will be much better off without us.
Just seen the Dutch rejected the Ukraine deal. Is it off the table, will the vote be ignored, or will there be a pause for contemplation, reflection and for people to forget about the vote before the EU ignores it?
Could someone direct me to the text of the commitment to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded to the Russian border? It is much asserted but the precise words seem very elusive.
Now you mention it I wasn't sure either, so have googled a bit. Here's the US version - basically we promised not to expand the military presence, then we didn't do it "substantially", then after the Crimean annexation we did:
I'm with Sam Goldwyn: a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. It seems extraordinary that Russia argue that an indefinite commitment, rather than a statement of intent, was given in conversation without ever being formally recorded.
I think people tend to take a different view of verbal agreements when they have guns.
That is not meant to be a throw away or sarcastic comment. Basically Putin is following a 'might is right' policy but needs a bit of a smoke screen as well. The verbal agreements - which no one seems to deny were made - are a perfect for that as they allow him to cast the West as untrustworthy and dishonest.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you've got it the wrong way round on the EU/Russia. The possibility of joining the EU was first raised just after 2000 as a way of stopping the Russians from meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs. In fact, at every stage it has been the Ukrainians who have been pushing for EU help. Indeed, the current trade agreement was negotiated by Russian puppet Yanukovych in the hope of appeasing the pro-EU factions while not giving the EU any real influence. The current crisis began when Putin vetoed the deal as a step too far.
So this is the Ukrainian answer to Russian expansionism, not a Russian response to EU expansionism.
Are you familiar with the 'Fxxk the EU' tape by the fragrant Ms. Nuland?
No. Why? Is it relevant to my point in some way?
Since you mention it, yes. Since it records the US state department deciding upon the make up of the next Ukranian Government. And when the EU is brought up, the eponymous epiphet is used. Far be it from me to excuse the EU anything, but it's entirely obvious that in this instance they were acting as agents of US power. The Ukrainians knew it, the Russians knew it.
As long as Russia shirks an honest debate about why so many of its neighbors seek to orient themselves towards the West.........the NATO-Russia relationship will remain haunted by myths of the past instead of looking to the future.
Alternatively if Germany dominates the EU and is unwilling to take necessary actions then we should wipe our hands clean and walk away.
And have a 27 bloc union being led by a nation which appeases despotic aggression without a counter voice willing to stand up to them? I'd like to think that wouldn't be a problem and that we would just use NATO to stand in in the way of Putin (or anyone else for that matter), but the US hasn't exactly been the most willing ally of late. We are a nation with few real friends and I don't count any of the EU nations among them, however, foreign policy is the one and only area in which I think Britain wields real and powerful influence. It was Dave that forced the EU into pushing sanctions onto Putin against German wishes, not Hollande or Rajoy, both are far too weak to stand up to Merkel.
You are off your trolley, real power and influence is the last thing the UK has. laughing stock may be more appropriate. Lucky your Dad was around.
Could someone direct me to the text of the commitment to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded to the Russian border? It is much asserted but the precise words seem very elusive.
Now you mention it I wasn't sure either, so have googled a bit. Here's the US version - basically we promised not to expand the military presence, then we didn't do it "substantially", then after the Crimean annexation we did:
I'm with Sam Goldwyn: a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. It seems extraordinary that Russia argue that an indefinite commitment, rather than a statement of intent, was given in conversation without ever being formally recorded.
The House of Lords report on this is a good source of information, highlighting the case of both sides. Can't link to it as it's too tricky from my phone, but I think it's googleable.
The dutch vote will just be ignored as usual as the people gave the wrong answer.
It's been proved time and time again that people just can't be trusted to vote on anything to do with Europe. Just leave it to the elite, they know best.
Actually, this is a particularly awkward one for the EU. The Dutch government ratified the treaty before it even had the referendum. If every other country has ratified the treaty (and I don't know if they have) then even if the Dutch government unratified it, then it would still stand.
(This is not an EU point, but a point with treaties generally: the point at which all parties ratify it is the point it comes into effect, regardless of what any country does subsequently. To give you an example of we unratified the Lisbon Treaty, it would have no effect because they changes to the EU had taken place at the point all countries ratified it.)
Personally I think that we should avoid getting into the Russia-Ukraine feud more than necessary - it's a classic example where it's unwise to take sides in a nationalist dispute, since what's happening is that people who just want to get on with life in reasonable amity (I know several people on both sides of the issue) are being whipped into rival nationalisms by unscrupulous and corrupt politicians on both sides.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
Yep. A very reasoned position Nick and one I agree with entirely. Some of your Europhile fellow travellers (of whom Dr Fox was a perfect example yesterday evening) on here seem to think that any statement that doesn't support the EU regarding the Ukraine is showing support for Putin or is driven by more general opposition to the EU. For most people this is not the case. It is simply a recognition of the history to date as you have summarised it.
A couple of years ago, I thought that partitioning Ukraine was the only sensible solution.
And then Putin made it effectively impossible by invading.
Yep. I really don't think Putin is too bothered with a negotiated settlement on this. He believes he holds all the cards.
When dealing with Putin, one should remember he is somebody who believes, and has said, that the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century is the collapse of the USSR. It's certainly a view.
To correct that quote, he said 'geopolitical catastrophe'.
Your dismissive comment highlights why most in the West have a hard time processing the situation in Ukraine. We tend to see the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe (an unqualified good thing) and the collapse of the USSR as the same historic event when they are not.
People who look forward to Putin's Russia going the same way as the USSR should be careful what they wish for as the worst case scenario is not Putin being replaced by someone as bad or worse, but rather a Yugoslavia style break up on a continental scale.
Is it any wonder the Tories are moribund in Scotland , when the best they can deploy are dummies like you. There is no deal signed , not even for a penny. Just for someone as thick as you it is an MOU, nothing more and not a penny signed up.
Since no details have been released about the contents of the document, you have no idea whether Sturgeon has agreed to sell Scotland for a bag of beans, or her own island in the South China Sea.
One can now understand why someone of such limited intelligence as yours, would share Donnachie's views on the vile doctored photographs of the Moors murderers. Jog on, Malky.
Blue Rog..Do you think the Eu will ignore the UK Leave vote....what fun.
The UK will invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty if we vote for Brexit. There is no "ignore" option
Just as the EU is not in a position to ignore the Dutch vote.
The Dutch government might choose to ignore it, just as our government could ignore a Leave vote. If the Dutch government revokes it's ratification of this agreement then since the agreement hasn't passed yet and needs unanimity it fails, there is no ignore option there either.
Comments
The sensible strategy is to let Russia continue to wither on the vine. It still has the capacity to cause considerable trouble, despite its chronic relative decline, but that capacity will wane as the years pass. Why give it the opportunity to flex its remaining muscles? Something which, incidentally, has probably cemented Putin's position even further.
Norway has a border (and a highly sensitive one) with Russia, and was a founder member of NATO.
Turkey used to border the Soviet Union and was a NATO member since 1952.
Estonia and Latvia both border Russia, and Lithuania and Poland border the Russian enclave of Kalingrad. Otherwise there are large countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia between NATO and Russia. Only if you believe these countries should be Russian dominated has NATO "pushed its borders" up to Russia.
I am actually very Russophile. I love the people and culture, and would love Russia to become a Democracy with the rule of Law, so that it can flower to its fullest.
Russia is in trouble because it hasn't diversified its economy beyond commodities and the military complex. But its a demographic crisis (which is linked to the economic woes) too - to be fair to Putin he is very well aware of this, and they've done everything to try to increase the birth rate, including giving monetary incentives to couples having children.
But I still don't think web should stay in the EU.
No wonder Farage admires Putin. The same autocratical ideas in both men.
And I should have probably said 'mainstream' border with Russia or similar - the border with Kaliningrad as a Russian enclave, and the Norwegian border with Russian around Kirkenes are hardly matters for great geo-strategic significance and were not included in the 'taking NATO up to the Russian border' promise that the West made to Russia in the early 1990's, so your comments are splitting hairs.
So here we have a case of the EU wanting to posture as a great power but entirely lacking in the necessary a) cunning or b) spine to pull it off. Dangerous dilettantism.
Coincidence?
Disclaimer: I'm one
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/wages
Yes, the Rouble has fallen in half roughly against the US Dollar, and you'll remember that I was the lone USD bull on here back in 2009 when people thought I was talking nonsense!
But for the average Russian that deals in Roubles, and not the elite in USD, their domestic purchasing power hasn't fallen by as much as your USD statistic would indicate.
Agreed, unless Putin starts knocking on the doors of Finland or Poland keeping him bottled up in Georgia and Ukraine/Crimea seems like the best bet.
And for years the long USSR/ NATO border in Turkey too.
To be fair, the US is at least as culpable in the Ukraine as the EU.
I wouldn't argue with that. Another foreign policy failure by Obama I am afraid.
http://www.hsj.co.uk/7003836.article
It's a sad sad situation,
And it's getting more and more absurd.
I've bought companies from some of those 'boiler rooms'. Watch out Hunchman, I'm one of the lizard people.
And the Russian Northern fleet, largely based in Murmansk is largely concerned with protecting Russian interests in the Arctic rather than any Atlantic considerations.
St Petersburg with its access to the Baltic, and the bases in Syria and Cyprus with Mediterranean access are hugely important geo-strategically if you wish to discuss maritime considerations.
Good night all.
The new contract doesn't look like it is going to help much with a 7 day NHS. People voting with their feet by not choosing front line posts. I don't blame them.
Now that the Dutch have voted 61.1% to 38% to reject the Ukraine deal, their government is trying to wriggle out of the referendum results by questioning turnout.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35976086
Turnout was pushed down by rainy, windy and unseasonably cold weather combined with confusion over what the vote was about: hostility to the EU or a highly complicated international agreement with Ukraine that is more than 2,000 pages long, setting trade tariffs on everything from apricots to cars.
“No” campaigners accused the government of trying to keep the turnout low by providing only half the normal number of polling stations used in a national election. “It is outrageous,” Harry Van Bommel, an MP for the Eurosceptic Socialist party, said.
The vote was on an “association treaty” that triggered unrest and the collapse of a pro-Russian Ukrainian government in late 2013, plunging the country into turmoil.
7 Apr 2016 The Times Bruno Waterfield Amsterdam
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you've got it the wrong way round on the EU/Russia. The possibility of joining the EU was first raised just after 2000 as a way of stopping the Russians from meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs. In fact, at every stage it has been the Ukrainians who have been pushing for EU help. Indeed, the current trade agreement was negotiated by Russian puppet Yanukovych in the hope of appeasing the pro-EU factions while not giving the EU any real influence. The current crisis began when Putin vetoed the deal as a step too far.
So this is the Ukrainian answer to Russian expansionism, not a Russian response to EU expansionism.
Hitler mention in 3, 2...
In was in the context of anti-Slavic racism, which I was pointing out did exist.
It's been proved time and time again that people just can't be trusted to vote on anything to do with Europe. Just leave it to the elite, they know best.
We broke a promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO to the Russian border and if we try to indulge Ukrainian nationalism as well, we shouldn't grumble if the Russians are unhelpful in other ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a free trade deal but we should make it clear that further integration is not going to happen for the forrseeable future. Making that clear might be a reasonable response to the Dutch vote.
On another subject, some of the Tory press is still going for Cameron to a point that seems to me exaggerated - the Mail today has another splash (Cameron's dad passed on assets in Jersey, which he might inherit) and an editorial, parts of which could have been in the Mirror (Buliingdon, not one of us, etc.).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527366/More-taxing-questions-PM-Cameron-s-father-stashed-fortune-Jersey-Dave-inherit-mother.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3527375/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Lessons-PM-tries-one-us.html
This is presumably being driven by the referendum, but also perhaps by the perception that Cameron is going anyway, so they can damage him without permanent damage to the Tories. They're also whinging about not being able to tell us that some celeeb has had a threesome, meh.
If the opinion of leavers is that expressed on this site and in particular on this thread then I have no doubt that the civilized countries of the EU will be much better off without us.
And then Putin made it effectively impossible by invading.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer
A letter here quotes Gorbachev saying that expansion breached the spirit of the deal, but he doesn't claim a cast-iron commitment:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/nato-is-misquoting-mikhail-gorbachev
However, this Spiegel analysis seems to settle it:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
This is not a NATO freetrade treaty, it is an EU one. Commitments concerning NATO expansion are irrelevant in a trade deal.
NATO enlargement and Russia: myths and realities:
A helpful background to the events which lead to the alleged promise.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2014/russia-ukraine-nato-crisis/nato-enlargement-russia/en/index.htm
A classic disease of the British Left.
Just seen the Dutch rejected the Ukraine deal. Is it off the table, will the vote be ignored, or will there be a pause for contemplation, reflection and for people to forget about the vote before the EU ignores it?
That is not meant to be a throw away or sarcastic comment. Basically Putin is following a 'might is right' policy but needs a bit of a smoke screen as well. The verbal agreements - which no one seems to deny were made - are a perfect for that as they allow him to cast the West as untrustworthy and dishonest.
(This is not an EU point, but a point with treaties generally: the point at which all parties ratify it is the point it comes into effect, regardless of what any country does subsequently. To give you an example of we unratified the Lisbon Treaty, it would have no effect because they changes to the EU had taken place at the point all countries ratified it.)
Your dismissive comment highlights why most in the West have a hard time processing the situation in Ukraine. We tend to see the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe (an unqualified good thing) and the collapse of the USSR as the same historic event when they are not.
People who look forward to Putin's Russia going the same way as the USSR should be careful what they wish for as the worst case scenario is not Putin being replaced by someone as bad or worse, but rather a Yugoslavia style break up on a continental scale.
24 hours 24 minutes 24 seconds
One can now understand why someone of such limited intelligence as yours, would share Donnachie's views on the vile doctored photographs of the Moors murderers. Jog on, Malky.
The Dutch government might choose to ignore it, just as our government could ignore a Leave vote. If the Dutch government revokes it's ratification of this agreement then since the agreement hasn't passed yet and needs unanimity it fails, there is no ignore option there either.