(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).
Am I right in thinking that in the latter case, you argue that WWI was a European civil war, and WWII was therefore WWI?
What about the former?
Yes. I'd argue that either:
- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).
or
- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.
Why would the Seven Years war not count under your first definition? It was fought on 5 of the 7 continents which is only one less than WW2. It also fulfils your second definition of course.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
Difficult to disagree with that. But we were warned.
By the way, I think May’s response is frankly insufficient. Too cautious by half.
Sky reporter saying that he has not had time to analysis and review all the implications on the measures announced and that further measures are more than possible.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
I don't remember anyone asking similar questions about Litvinenko? Why him, why here, why then?
Anyone see this as a possible last hurrah of the moderates to try to save the labour party?
It has more clearly exposed the divisions between the backbenchers and the leadership than almost any other issue. I don't think they have the strength to do anything about Corbyn. It is a shame because our democracy needs a proper opposition party - with a leader who believes in the UK, believes in the rule of law and will stand up for UK interests.
Anyone see this as a possible last hurrah of the moderates to try to save the labour party?
No, what will happen is that Corbyn will issue a 'clarification', the sane Labour MPs will go back to sulking quietly on the back-benches, and Corbyn's supporters will accuse anyone who quotes what he said of smearing him.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
As I said yesterday, the Russian response seems to be moving towards "it might have been some bad Ukrainian boys with some left over Soviet gloop". They are parroting the Russian line almost word for word.
The Labour leadership are scum. The rest of the PLP needs to show whether they will be complicit or not.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
I don't remember anyone asking similar questions about Litvinenko? Why him, why here, why then?
There were questions, and it damged UK-Russo relations a lot if I remember, Probably worse now due to the policitical position, and that others were put at risk.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
No, we just don't have an appetite for the sort of bollocks you spout.
I have currently seen no downside at all regarding other countries' reactions to this event. Of course, sad little man that you are, you wish it could be so to try and justify your half arsed narrative but it simply hasn't happened. The European capitals have reacted in exactly the way we would have expected, Brexit or no Brexit.
Anyone see this as a possible last hurrah of the moderates to try to save the labour party?
No, what will happen is that Corbyn will issue a 'clarification', the sane Labour MPs will go back to sulking quietly on the back-benches, and Corbyn's supporters will accuse anyone who quotes what he said of smearing him.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
Decent of you to say so. And there are plenty of other strong Remainers on here who have not tried to make any connection either - probably the vast majority of them. Much like Corbyn and the Labour party it is only a few individuals who seek to tarnish their reputations.
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
And the bombing of Syria....he was called out too.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
Foreign policy???
Support for Hamas? Hezbollah? Chavez?
That isn't good judgement.
If Corbyn is not a surrogate of Putin he is an appeaser. A latter day Neville Chamberlain!
If Mrs May had waited a year to call the GE, she could have framed it as a referendum against the Russian aggressor. A vote for her would be patriotic and a vote for Corbyn would be a vote for Putin!
I always felt more than a bit sorry for Mr Chamberlain and the time won after Munich was of course critical to us getting Spitfires into service in sufficient numbers to win the Battle of Britain.
Bloomberg reporting - Italy's centre right and 5 Star agree to talks and a government from these talks would spook the financial markets and the EU over their spending plans and Euroscepticism
Is that the centre right as in the block of parties or Forza ? I'd describe Liga as more right than centre-right, thought Tajani is the leader of the biggest party within the block.
Italy's centre right alliance named by Bloomberg
Also Russian stock market falls after TM statement
Let us suppose Russia was not behind it. Russia would be wanting to know who did it and offering to help given their past history and knowledge of the nerve agent. There would be back channel discussions. Russia would not be acting as they are now. This shows that Russia are behind the actions.
If the EU had more Donald Tusks and less Jean Claude Junckers, it would be a much better institution.
Tusk is definitely the best of the 4 presidents. His work securing trade deals with Japan, Canada and others has been excellent too. I hope Fox can bring in the deals like Tusk has.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
Decent of you to say so. And there are plenty of other strong Remainers on here who have not tried to make any connection either - probably the vast majority of them. Much like Corbyn and the Labour party it is only a few individuals who seek to tarnish their reputations.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
There is no connection between Brexit and the incident itself. Disingenous Brexiters are creating a straw man.
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K. which are important context to this current affair.a
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
Difficult to disagree with that. But we were warned.
By the way, I think May’s response is frankly insufficient. Too cautious by half.
Sky reporter saying that he has not had time to analysis and review all the implications on the measures announced and that further measures are more than possible.
Decent of you to say so. And there are plenty of other strong Remainers on here who have not tried to make any connection either - probably the vast majority of them. Much like Corbyn and the Labour party it is only a few individuals who seek to tarnish their reputations.
Thanks Richard. I've not had time to read every single comment made on the Russia crisis but I was getting a little alarmed to see some people linking it to Brexit. I don't think that's helpful to anyone. In my opinion Brexit brings enough problems for this country in its own right without trying to create fictional links to every other bad thing that happens.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
Difficult to disagree with that. But we were warned.
By the way, I think May’s response is frankly insufficient. Too cautious by half.
Sky reporter saying that he has not had time to analysis and review all the implications on the measures announced and that further measures are more than possible.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
Decent of you to say so. And there are plenty of other strong Remainers on here who have not tried to make any connection either - probably the vast majority of them. Much like Corbyn and the Labour party it is only a few individuals who seek to tarnish their reputations.
Let us suppose Russia was not behind it. Russia would be wanting to know who did it and offering to help given their past history and knowledge of the nerve agent. There would be back channel discussions. Russia would not be acting as they are now. This shows that Russia are behind the actions.
Occam's razor.
The only other vaguely credible explanation is that there are parts of the Russian security service that are not under central control with their own agenda. Whether that is better, of course, is open to doubt.
I think people are misunderstanding Corbyn again. Whilst his response does not play well with MPs on either side of the HoC or the media, like a lot of his actions it isn't intended to. Check Twitter and comment feed and you realise there are a lot of people out there who don't trust our own establishment. Remember as well how Farage played the Putin/ Russia card. There is a sizeable audience who will see Corbyn's comments as spot on
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
There is no connection between Brexit and the incident itself. Disingenous Brexiters are creating a straw man.
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K., a
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
The UK sought to make a very big deal of the Litvinenko murder. And the question is not one of what our reaction was it is one of why the Russians felt safe in doing the killing in the first place. A few ignorant Remainer nutters like you are saying that Brexit made this attack more likely. The Litvinenko murder puts the lie to that idiotic proposition.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
There is no connection between Brexit and the incident itself. Disingenous Brexiters are creating a straw man.
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K., a
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
The UK sought to make a very big deal of the Litvinenko murder. And the question is not one of what our reaction was it is one of why the Russians felt safe in doing the killing in the first place. A few ignorant Remainer nutters like you are saying that Brexit made this attack more likely. The Litvinenko murder puts the lie to that idiotic proposition.
I’m not saying Brexit makes this more likely. And I don’t think I’ve read anyone on here claim as much.
As I say, you are disingenous, and often offensive with it.
Let us suppose Russia was not behind it. Russia would be wanting to know who did it and offering to help given their past history and knowledge of the nerve agent. There would be back channel discussions. Russia would not be acting as they are now. This shows that Russia are behind the actions.
If the EU had more Donald Tusks and less Jean Claude Junckers, it would be a much better institution.
Tusk is "new Europe", Juncker is "old Europe", as Rumsfeld might have once said.
Hi Dr P. Yesterday I yellow-penned the Bentham Line, Settle Junction - Carnforth. Possibly the only stretch of railway named after a philosopher. A very Utilitarian journey.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
There is no connection between Brexit and the incident itself. Disingenous Brexiters are creating a straw man.
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K., a
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
The UK sought to make a very big deal of the Litvinenko murder. And the question is not one of what our reaction was it is one of why the Russians felt safe in doing the killing in the first place. A few ignorant Remainer nutters like you are saying that Brexit made this attack more likely. The Litvinenko murder puts the lie to that idiotic proposition.
I’m not saying Brexit makes this more likely. And I don’t think I’ve read anyone on here claim as much.
As I say, you are disingenous, and often offensive with it.
In that case you are a blind as well as stupid. I am offensive to people like you who seek to make political capital out of an event like this because that is in itself an offensive attitude.
Trying to pretend that is not your intent makes you a liar as well as ignorant.
I think people are misunderstanding Corbyn again. Whilst his response does not play well with MPs on either side of the HoC or the media, like a lot of his actions it isn't intended to. Check Twitter and comment feed and you realise there are a lot of people out there who don't trust our own establishment. Remember as well how Farage played the Putin/ Russia card. There is a sizeable audience who will see Corbyn's comments as spot on
Reminds me a bit of Trump in the GOP Carolina debate.
I think people are misunderstanding Corbyn again. Whilst his response does not play well with MPs on either side of the HoC or the media, like a lot of his actions it isn't intended to. Check Twitter and comment feed and you realise there are a lot of people out there who don't trust our own establishment. Remember as well how Farage played the Putin/ Russia card. There is a sizeable audience who will see Corbyn's comments as spot on
Sure. How many of them didn't vote for Labour last June?
He can't win an election based on the Stop The War coalition.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
There is no connection between Brexit and the incident itself. Disingenous Brexiters are creating a straw man.
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K., a
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
The UK sought to make a very big deal of the Litvinenko murder. And the question is not one of what our reaction was it is one of why the Russians felt safe in doing the killing in the first place. A few ignorant Remainer nutters like you are saying that Brexit made this attack more likely. The Litvinenko murder puts the lie to that idiotic proposition.
I’m not saying Brexit makes this more likely. And I don’t think I’ve read anyone on here claim as much.
As I say, you are disingenous, and often offensive with it.
In that case you are a blind as well as stupid. I am offensive to people like you who seek to make political capital out of an event like this because that is in itself an offensive attitude.
Trying to pretend that is not your intent makes you a liar as well as ignorant.
Blind, stupid, ignorant. If you could just add a remark about how you’d actually prefer full and absolute freedom of movement, we’d have a full Tyndall flush.
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
And the bombing of Syria....he was called out too.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
I think people are misunderstanding Corbyn again. Whilst his response does not play well with MPs on either side of the HoC or the media, like a lot of his actions it isn't intended to. Check Twitter and comment feed and you realise there are a lot of people out there who don't trust our own establishment. Remember as well how Farage played the Putin/ Russia card. There is a sizeable audience who will see Corbyn's comments as spot on
Corbyn having followers who are as deluded and wrong as him comes as no surprise. Twitter feeds mean nothing.
All he had to do was to stand up today and personally condemn the attempted murders on UK soil. He couldn't do it. He kept saying 'we' - thus putting distance between himself and what he was saying.
He has got this wrong. Repeating lines being used by Russian officials only makes him look more wrong.
There is nothing to misunderstand about what Corbyn and his spokesman have said today. They have shown no respect for our country, no respect for our citizens and no respect for our intelligence/police services.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
There is no connection between Brexit and the incident itself. Disingenous Brexiters are creating a straw man.
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K., a
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
The UK sought to make a very big deal of the Litvinenko murder. And the question is not one of what our reaction was it is one of why the Russians felt safe in doing the killing in the first place. A few ignorant Remainer nutters like you are saying that Brexit made this attack more likely. The Litvinenko murder puts the lie to that idiotic proposition.
I’m not saying Brexit makes this more likely. And I don’t think I’ve read anyone on here claim as much.
As I say, you are disingenous, and often offensive with it.
In that case you are a blind as well as stupid. I am offensive to people like you who seek to make political capital out of an event like this because that is in itself an offensive attitude.
Trying to pretend that is not your intent makes you a liar as well as ignorant.
Blind, stupid, ignorant. If you could just add a remark about how you’d actually prefer full and absolute freedom of movement, we’d have a full Tyndall flush.
Easy way for you to try and crawl away from your own comments. You really are shameful.
(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).
Am I right in thinking that in the latter case, you argue that WWI was a European civil war, and WWII was therefore WWI?
What about the former?
Yes. I'd argue that either:
- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).
or
- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.
Why would the Seven Years war not count under your first definition? It was fought on 5 of the 7 continents which is only one less than WW2. It also fulfils your second definition of course.
I'd argue that the scale of the fighting in the Seven Years War outside Europe was insufficent to count as a general conflict: it was essentially a European war carried on out of area, rather than an equivalent of the European war. The contrast is with the number of Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and so on who fought in WW2, for example.
I just want to say, as a very enthusiastic Remain voter, that I don't see (or seek to make) any connection at all between Brexit and the Russian incident.
There is no connection between Brexit and the incident itself. Disingenous Brexiters are creating a straw man.
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K., a
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has isI."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Yeah, but then I remember that the same thing happened while we were in the bosom of the EU. Fat lot of good it did then!
For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
I’m not saying Brexit makes this more likely. And I don’t think I’ve read anyone on here claim as much.
As I say, you are disingenous, and often offensive with it.
In that case you are a blind as well as stupid. I am offensive to people like you who seek to make political capital out of an event like this because that is in itself an offensive attitude.
Trying to pretend that is not your intent makes you a liar as well as ignorant.
Blind, stupid, ignorant. If you could just add a remark about how you’d actually prefer full and absolute freedom of movement, we’d have a full Tyndall flush.
Easy way for you to try and crawl away from your own comments. You really are shameful.
Your comments are not accurate.
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
Reddit might not be Twitter, but it's not far off.
Top comments there are "Surprisingly solid response from Theresa May for now"
"This is a welcomed response from the UK and hopefully all parties will stand against this Russian attack. "
"It's be great if those European leaders also did something like May is doing in solidarity, to show Russia that actions like this have far reaching consequences. "
"Jesus. Putin lobbed a real softball to May. This is her very real chance to erase the narrative of her weakness since the election.
Meanwhile my man Corbyn sounded straight up idiotic. I know he has to be contrarian as an opposition leader but this was definitely the wrong thing to sound off on."
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
Corbyn's response to this situation may make EU leaders very thoughtful and quite concerned about doing anything that makes a Corbyn government more likely. If he becomes PM, the EU should not expect British help against Putin in the future.
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.
There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.
This is a species of that argument.
However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.
(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).
Am I right in thinking that in the latter case, you argue that WWI was a European civil war, and WWII was therefore WWI?
What about the former?
Yes. I'd argue that either:
- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).
or
- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.
Why would the Seven Years war not count under your first definition? It was fought on 5 of the 7 continents which is only one less than WW2. It also fulfils your second definition of course.
I'd argue that the scale of the fighting in the Seven Years War outside Europe was insufficent to count as a general conflict: it was essentially a European war carried on out of area, rather than an equivalent of the European war. The contrast is with the number of Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and so on who fought in WW2, for example.
I suppose I think that is only a matter of the technology available at the time although I take your point. I am just not sure how it can be differentiated.
(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).
Am I right in thinking that in the latter case, you argue that WWI was a European civil war, and WWII was therefore WWI?
What about the former?
Yes. I'd argue that either:
- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).
or
- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.
Why would the Seven Years war not count under your first definition? It was fought on 5 of the 7 continents which is only one less than WW2. It also fulfils your second definition of course.
I'd argue that the scale of the fighting in the Seven Years War outside Europe was insufficent to count as a general conflict: it was essentially a European war carried on out of area, rather than an equivalent of the European war. The contrast is with the number of Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and so on who fought in WW2, for example.
I think people are misunderstanding Corbyn again. Whilst his response does not play well with MPs on either side of the HoC or the media, like a lot of his actions it isn't intended to. Check Twitter and comment feed and you realise there are a lot of people out there who don't trust our own establishment. Remember as well how Farage played the Putin/ Russia card. There is a sizeable audience who will see Corbyn's comments as spot on
Sure. How many of them didn't vote for Labour last June?
He can't win an election based on the Stop The War coalition.
Plenty of people on social media are Russian trolls.
F1: two chaps potentially being lined up as Charlie Whiting's successor as race director have left the FIA in recent months. I'd forgotten about the first chap, but his presence may well help Renault rather a lot: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43406180
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
And that is where you are wrong. If you are saying that this is relevant to Russian policy in the context of this poisoning - and that is clearly what is being said in the comments you were initially defending (Why here and why now) then you are saying that Brexit made this event more likely. That is the basic logical conclusion of your claim - and that of Logical Song and Alastair Meeks.
But the rejoinder to that is that if that is the case then why was a similar attack launched by Russia against Litvinenko long before Brexit ever became an issue? The patterns are basically identical and vary only in their choice of banned substance.
Like I said, your response is thoroughly dishonest. You insinuate a connection and then deny such a claim when challenged.
Anyone see this as a possible last hurrah of the moderates to try to save the labour party?
No, what will happen is that Corbyn will issue a 'clarification', the sane Labour MPs will go back to sulking quietly on the back-benches, and Corbyn's supporters will accuse anyone who quotes what he said of smearing him.
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.
There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.
This is a species of that argument.
However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.
Clearly, we have less influence out.
We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?
Mr. Walker, there was something written/linked to here some months ago about Communism under Stalin, and the show trials. Some people willingly agreed to plead guilty to crimes of which they were innocent, effectively because they were willing to take a hit for the team if it meant promoting the cause of Communism.
This smells like a similar brand of ideological insanity.
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.
There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.
This is a species of that argument.
However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.
Clearly, we have less influence out.
We've gone from zero influence inside to zero influence outside.
Anyone see this as a possible last hurrah of the moderates to try to save the labour party?
No, what will happen is that Corbyn will issue a 'clarification', the sane Labour MPs will go back to sulking quietly on the back-benches, and Corbyn's supporters will accuse anyone who quotes what he said of smearing him.
I agree with Richard
It depends on just how far this goes over the coming weeks and even months and how Corbyn reacts. We may not be far away from a tipping point where the 170 odd labour mps leave Corbyn to his own devices
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
And that is where you are wrong. If you are saying that this is relevant to Russian policy in the context of this poisoning - and that is clearly what is being said in the comments you were initially defending (Why here and why now) then you are saying that Brexit made this event more likely. That is the basic logical conclusion of your claim - and that of Logical Song and Alastair Meeks.
But the rejoinder to that is that if that is the case then why was a similar attack launched by Russia against Litvinenko long before Brexit ever became an issue? The patterns are basically identical and vary only in their choice of banned substance.
Like I said, your response is thoroughly dishonest. You insinuate a connection and then deny such a claim when challenged.
Nope you’re flat out wrong, as from what I read from Mr Meeks and Song, you’re wrong about them too.
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
If I were stuck in a Moscow troll-farm, I'd be hitting the vodka too......
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
See you are still talking to yourself
Sky praising TM statesmanship and contrasting it with Corbyn's misjudged comments.
Bad day for Corbyn today, good day for the Country
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.
There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.
This is a species of that argument.
However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.
Clearly, we have less influence out.
We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?
When it comes down to it, Brexitism is one long sulk. “We had no influence in.” I mean, really? The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
"Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm." Tellingly careful wording, because if there is a Western alliance, it's NATO, but you daren't call it that because doing so makes it all too obvious how wrong the claim is. What weakens NATO, perhaps fatally, is Donald Trump; the EU doesn't come in to it. Not saying it won't in 20 years time if NATO leaves a gap that needs filling, but there is nothing about the EU at present that suggests that it would want to be or be capable of being a proper military superpower.
a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election
Do you actually think this will happen ? I don't.
I don't think there will be many deselections, but I would be getting a few sleepless nights if I were the likes of John Woodcock, Chris Leslie or Jess Phillips.
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
It was 1982 childish willy-waving earlier. Make your mind up.
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
If I were stuck in a Moscow troll-farm, I'd be hitting the vodka too......
I wish mate, having to rip fools a new one on my own dime unfortunately.
Skys beth rigby basically just said in corbyns response he used all of russia's attack likes against the uk. He hasnt been meeting eastern European diplomats again has he?
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
If I were stuck in a Moscow troll-farm, I'd be hitting the vodka too......
@marqueeMark Do you think Adrian Harper has returned?
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
Expelling diplomats is "ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding"?
When Lobby hacks pressed Milne as to if Corbyn believed Russia was responsible for the attack, Milne said the PM continued to leave open the possibility that Russia had lost control of the nerve agent. Milne prefers to doubt MI6 and give the benefit of the doubt to the FSB….
And to think these people could be in charge of the country...Trump and corbyn different cheeks of the same arse.
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
Expelling diplomats is "ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding"?
It is when you haven't seemingly got any concrete proof that the Russian government has done anything yet, yes.
Let us suppose Russia was not behind it. Russia would be wanting to know who did it and offering to help given their past history and knowledge of the nerve agent. There would be back channel discussions. Russia would not be acting as they are now. This shows that Russia are behind the actions.
I like that line of thought a great deal. The only alternative I can come up with is that they are behaving like AQ or IS, by claiming responsibility for a terrible act even if they didn't do it. Just to look scarier or more macho and 'appeal to the base'.
No evidence of that frame of mind in Putin's past though... oh.
As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
Comments
Maybe give a day or two before passing judgement
I have currently seen no downside at all regarding other countries' reactions to this event. Of course, sad little man that you are, you wish it could be so to try and justify your half arsed narrative but it simply hasn't happened. The European capitals have reacted in exactly the way we would have expected, Brexit or no Brexit.
VERIFIED ACCOUNT @jessphillips
I have long known that standing up to bullies is the only answer.
See, Jess gets it.
Corbyn, not so much.
Also Russian stock market falls after TM statement
"We're more noxious than this"
There are however, significant geopolitical consequences of Brexit for the U.K. which are important context to this current affair.a For whatever reason, the U.K. did not seek to make a big deal of Litvinenko. Not EU’s fault.
Who is the fifth ?
The only other vaguely credible explanation is that there are parts of the Russian security service that are not under central control with their own agenda. Whether that is better, of course, is open to doubt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Union
As I say, you are disingenous, and often offensive with it.
Trying to pretend that is not your intent makes you a liar as well as ignorant.
He can't win an election based on the Stop The War coalition.
If you could just add a remark about how you’d actually prefer full and absolute freedom of movement, we’d have a full Tyndall flush.
All he had to do was to stand up today and personally condemn the attempted murders on UK soil. He couldn't do it. He kept saying 'we' - thus putting distance between himself and what he was saying.
He has got this wrong. Repeating lines being used by Russian officials only makes him look more wrong.
There is nothing to misunderstand about what Corbyn and his spokesman have said today. They have shown no respect for our country, no respect for our citizens and no respect for our intelligence/police services.
But it does Europe no favours to call all of them Presidents.
It’s as if we had a President May, President Bercow, President Carney, President Heywood and President Queen!
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-gazprom-trading-exclusive/exclusive-gazprom-to-cut-hundreds-of-traders-as-kremlin-retreats-from-west-idUKKCN1GQ1U5?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/973939821939916801
As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.
What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.
I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).
Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/973942312895176706
What is WRONG with these people?
Top comments there are "Surprisingly solid response from Theresa May for now"
"This is a welcomed response from the UK and hopefully all parties will stand against this Russian attack. "
"It's be great if those European leaders also did something like May is doing in solidarity, to show Russia that actions like this have far reaching consequences. "
"Jesus. Putin lobbed a real softball to May. This is her very real chance to erase the narrative of her weakness since the election.
Meanwhile my man Corbyn sounded straight up idiotic. I know he has to be contrarian as an opposition leader but this was definitely the wrong thing to sound off on."
This is a species of that argument.
However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.
Clearly, we have less influence out.
I hope he hasn't been dining in Salisbury recently.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43406180
But the rejoinder to that is that if that is the case then why was a similar attack launched by Russia against Litvinenko long before Brexit ever became an issue? The patterns are basically identical and vary only in their choice of banned substance.
Like I said, your response is thoroughly dishonest. You insinuate a connection and then deny such a claim when challenged.
This smells like a similar brand of ideological insanity.
Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.
I don't.
Sky praising TM statesmanship and contrasting it with Corbyn's misjudged comments.
Bad day for Corbyn today, good day for the Country
The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.
And to think these people could be in charge of the country...Trump and corbyn different cheeks of the same arse.
No evidence of that frame of mind in Putin's past though... oh.