The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
I'm afraid you've reached the breaking point for Leavers. No matter how desirable the aim, if the action conflicts with Brexit, they just can't contemplate it. On balance they'd rather help Mr Putin than see Brexit fail.
With feelings at the pitch they are, and our Government in the midst of it whipping it up, one rather wonders if Russia is not responsible, what climb down would be remotely possible. There is no room for manoeuvre. You'd think America would back us whatever the evidence said, but it wouldn't be the first time we've been left to hang out to dry.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
Well done you that's the spirit.
Good luck, an' all that; text us when you get there.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have a cooperative pan-European security order mainly on account of President Putin's actions. So subtly, Juncker is asking for Putin to work towards re-establishing a cooperative pan-European security order, in so doing, criticising him for there not being a cooperative pan-European security order.
Your welcome.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
Personally, I would be delighted if Russia joined the EU, because in order to do so it would have to free itself from all of the worst trappings of Putinism. It would have to deal with corruption, stop interfereing with freedom of speech and press, would become a capitalist liberal democracy, abide by the rule of law and entrench human rights. It would have to respect international borders and norms.
Clearly at present, Russia is moving away from all of these, as indeed is Turkey, so any accession of Russia is decades away, however welcome.
Russia will never join the EU. They would never be willing to sacrifice sovereignty. Like us, they were undefeated (post-Soviet implosion notwithstanding).
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have a cooperative pan-European security order mainly on account of President Putin's actions. So subtly, Juncker is asking for Putin to work towards re-establishing a cooperative pan-European security order, in so doing, criticising him for there not being a cooperative pan-European security order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have a cooperative pan-European security order mainly on account of President Putin's actions. So subtly, Juncker is asking for Putin to work towards re-establishing a cooperative pan-European security order, in so doing, criticising him for there not being a cooperative pan-European security order.
Your welcome.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
Personally, I would be delighted if Russia joined the EU, because in order to do so it would have to free itself from all of the worst trappings of Putinism. It would have to deal with corruption, stop interfereing with freedom of speech and press, would become a capitalist liberal democracy, abide by the rule of law and entrench human rights. It would have to respect international borders and norms.
Clearly at present, Russia is moving away from all of these, as indeed is Turkey, so any accession of Russia is decades away, however welcome.
Russia will never join the EU. They would never be willing to sacrifice sovereignty. Like us, they were undefeated (post-Soviet implosion notwithstanding).
I doubt Russia would join the EU as a single entity. It's quite easy to imagine fragments of what used to be Russia in due course joining the EU.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
I'm afraid you've reached the breaking point for Leavers. No matter how desirable the aim, if the action conflicts with Brexit, they just can't contemplate it. On balance they'd rather help Mr Putin than see Brexit fail.
Leavers would prefer to risk the Union, and give succour to our enemies like Putin, then contemplate Brexit. If the Queen came out for Remain (heaven forbid) they’d be screaming for abdication.
It’s a weird kind of patriotism that wishes to see one’s own country poorer, diminished, divided, and shambolic.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
I'm afraid you've reached the breaking point for Leavers. No matter how desirable the aim, if the action conflicts with Brexit, they just can't contemplate it. On balance they'd rather help Mr Putin than see Brexit fail.
And surely quite rightly so? Putin is a foreign Head of State. Our national sovereignty is our national sovereignty. It would be utterly perverse to sacrifice our own future to try and influence events abroad.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have a cooperative pan-European security order mainly on account of President Putin's actions. So subtly, Juncker is asking for Putin to work towards re-establishing a cooperative pan-European security order, in so doing, criticising him for there not being a cooperative pan-European security order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery o the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have a cooperative pan-European security order mainly on account of President Putin's actions. So subtly, Juncker is asking for Putin to work towards re-establishing a cooperative pan-European security order, in so doing, criticising him for there not being a cooperative pan-European security order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
It was ridiculous hubris by the West, but then we genuinely hoped we’d seen the “End of History” and didn’t need to bother with proactive efforts.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
I'm afraid you've reached the breaking point for Leavers. No matter how desirable the aim, if the action conflicts with Brexit, they just can't contemplate it. On balance they'd rather help Mr Putin than see Brexit fail.
Leavers would prefer to risk the Union, and give succour to our enemies like Putin, then contemplate Brexit. If the Queen came out for Remain (heaven forbid) they’d be screaming for abdication.
It’s a weird kind of patriotism that wishes to see one’s own country poorer, diminished, divided, and shambolic.
Brexit is a rejection of the complexities of the 21st century. Anything that advertises that those complexities aren't going to go away become objects of hostility for Leavers in their own right. So judges, the House of Lords, civil servants, journalists, Northern Ireland and Scotland have all found themselves on the wrong side of Leavers' frenzied hatred at times.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
Yup, you are. Your modus operandi is to find out whatever it is I’m interested in from a foreign or domestic policy point of view, and then to say that supporting full membership of the EU is the solution to it.
You’ve just sniffed what you think is a weakness on Putin and are getting all excited about it.
You play this card so obviously and so often you have zero credibility.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
I’m sorry, but what any of us wants doesn’t matter if it’s utterly beyond the ability of the British state to deliver. We must recognise our limits, as Mr Meeks and Luckyguy have pointed out.
I’m no Putin fan, but he is a rational actor. Show him that these actions have a high cost and he will think again. That means the measures I’ve outlined towards Russia itself, and unstinting commitment to NATO and the defence of the EU members facing Russia outside the alliance (Sweden and Finland).
Campaigning for the latter two to join NATO would be a much better use of our government’s time and energy.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The EU is offering nothing on Russia other than toadying lickspittlism.
Germany is pacifist and dependent on its gas. France thinks it has some sort of transcendent high-cultural relationship with Moscow that puts it in a different league, but it’s a fantasy.
The only ones I’d trust would be Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway and Finland, together with the Baltic states.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The EU is offering nothing on Russia other than toadying lickspittlism.
Germany is pacifist and dependent on its gas. France thinks it has some sort of transcendent high-cultural relationship with Moscow that puts it in a different league, but it’s a fantasy.
The only ones I’d trust would be Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway and Finland, together with the Baltic states.
Erm, what about the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia? They have had a severe effect on the Russian economy, and they were imposed despite being against the interest of many European firms operating in the country.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
I’m sorry, but what any of us wants doesn’t matter if it’s utterly beyond the ability of the British state to deliver. We must recognise our limits, as Mr Meeks and Luckyguy have pointed out.
I’m no Putin fan, but he is a rational actor. Show him that these actions have a high cost and he will think again. That means the measures I’ve outlined towards Russia itself, and unstinting commitment to NATO and the defence of the EU members facing Russia outside the alliance (Sweden and Finland).
Campaigning for the latter two to join NATO would be a much better use of our government’s time and energy.
No need to apologise.
The UK can act in concert with its allies to achieve its foreign policy aims, as indeed it must. The fact we cannot achieve those aims entirely unilaterally should not preclude us from having them. We should lead and be comfortable to do so.
I largely agree with your suggestions in the 2nd paragraph, but I would go further. I’m far closer to JackWs views on this.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Ru
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have a cooperative pan-European security order mainly on account of President Putin's actions. So subtly, Juncker is asking for Putin to work towards re-establishing a cooperative pan-European security order, in so doing, criticising him for there not being a cooperative pan-European security order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
It was ridiculous hubris by the West, but then we genuinely hoped we’d seen the “End of History” and didn’t need to bother with proactive efforts.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have a cooperative pan-European security order mainly on account of President Putin's actions. So subtly, Juncker is asking for Putin to work towards re-establishing a cooperative pan-European security order, in so doing, criticising him for there not being a cooperative pan-European security order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
Putin’s goals are to ensure he stays in power with displays of prestige and power; be an “energy superpower” with his forays into the Middle East; and to preserve Russian independence as a great power through tactical alliances and actions against the Western order.
A fragmented and weakened Europe is a major policy aim, as this makes it easier to “divide and conquer” (not literally) his main export markets. And a divided Europe finds it harder to buddy up with the US on sanctions etc.
The U.K. is Russia’s pre-eminent enemy in Europe because we have tended to lead the defence of the Western order and have been first to respond to various Russian provocations. Germany itself is more divided and has a small but significant pro-Russian elite. While France often has its own “multi-polar” take on the world in which is more sympathetic to a Russian “sphere of influence”.
Brexit is Putin’s dream come true. He will continue to try to find ways to weaken us, divide us from Europe, undermine NATO unity, etc. It’s not clear what we should do about this long term.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The EU is offering nothing on Russia other than toadying lickspittlism.
Germany is pacifist and dependent on its gas. France thinks it has some sort of transcendent high-cultural relationship with Moscow that puts it in a different league, but it’s a fantasy.
The only ones I’d trust would be Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway and Finland, together with the Baltic states.
Erm, what about the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia? They have had a severe effect on the Russian economy, and they were imposed despite being against the interest of many European firms operating in the country.
That was three years ago, after some cajoling. Further, Italy, Hungary, Greece, France, Cyprus and Slovakia are already calling for review of those. There is also significant opposition in Germany.
I’ve seen much foot dragging over recent weeks, an ill advised letter of congratulation today, and no serious rise in its commitment to NATO or increase in defence spending, or further actions taken in solidarity with the UK.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
Yup, you are. Your modus operandi is to find out whatever it is I’m interested in from a foreign or domestic policy point of view, and then to say that supporting full membership of the EU is the solution to it.
You’ve just sniffed what you think is a weakness on Putin and are getting all excited about it.
You play this card so obviously and so often you have zero credibility.
If we want Putin gone, we need to convince ordinary Russians to accept a multilateral, rules-based order, in which to work with others to set common standards for the good of everyone is not to lose prestige or sovereignty.
Any idea what messages might work or how we might set a good example as another post-imperial power and victor over Nazism?
I'm surprised Facebook's business model is suddenly news
For the past three years I’ve been doing presentations to schools and parents about social media and the dangers of over sharing information. It’s good to finally see people waking up to it. Facebook’s share price falling rapidly again today.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery o the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
This would be a disproportionate response, and totally beyond the ability of the U.K. to deliver.
Uptick in sanctions, greater scrutiny of oligarch wealth, solid commitment to NATO in Eastern Europe are appropriate responses.
Nah. I want the bastard gone, and consigned to the dustbin of history.
The one thing in our power that would truly be a setback for Putin would be if we reversed Brexit.
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
Yup, you are. Your modus operandi is to find out whatever it is I’m interested in from a foreign or domestic policy point of view, and then to say that supporting full membership of the EU is the solution to it.
You’ve just sniffed what you think is a weakness on Putin and are getting all excited about it.
You play this card so obviously and so often you have zero credibility.
If we want Putin gone, we need to convince ordinary Russians to accept a multilateral, rules-based order, in which to work with others to set common standards for the good of everyone is not to lose prestige or sovereignty.
Any idea what messages might work or how we might set a good example as another post-imperial power and victor over Nazism?
Yes, they move to a genuine free democracy, and we offer to help them in that. In return all sanctions are lifted and we do and encourage free open trade deals with them worldwide.
We should support good ordinary Russians and undermine support for his regime from within, many of whom despise Putin, but there’s no doubt it’s hard and dangerous work.
I'm surprised Facebook's business model is suddenly news
For the past three years I’ve been doing presentations to schools and parents about social media and the dangers of over sharing information. It’s good to finally see people waking up to it. Facebook’s share price falling rapidly again today.
What has always shocked me is not how much of people's personal life people publicly post on Facebook, but how much personal data which is totally unnecessary people are willing to fill in eg phone number.
They missed out a big boy did it and ran away. Possibly because Russia is still deluded into believing that it is a big boy.
Good to see our government fighting propaganda with cold hard facts. If anyone had any doubt who was responsible the action and conduct of the Russian government since it happened surely gives overwhelming support for the idea it was them.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have urity order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seen as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongmen at home.
Thatcher was very respected in Russia precisely because she was seen as a strong leader of her country
I'm surprised Facebook's business model is suddenly news
For the past three years I’ve been doing presentations to schools and parents about social media and the dangers of over sharing information. It’s good to finally see people waking up to it. Facebook’s share price falling rapidly again today.
What has always shocked me is not how much of people's personal life people publicly post on Facebook, but how much personal data which is totally unnecessary people are willing to fill in eg phone number.
Why do you think Facebook paid $19.3bn for WhatsApp?
It seems very surprising to me, but IANAL (let alone a Scottish one).
I expected that the case would be allowed to proceed at first instance for various reasons and said so on here. But I am surprised that the Inner House has overturned what is a decision based on discretion. Lord Carloway, our Lord President, is uncomfortably close to the First Minster who of course appointed him. This is only an allowance to proceed of course. The merits will be addressed at some later point by which time it is very likely to be somewhat academic.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have urity order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seem as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongman at home
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have urity order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seem as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongman at home
I'm surprised Facebook's business model is suddenly news
For the past three years I’ve been doing presentations to schools and parents about social media and the dangers of over sharing information. It’s good to finally see people waking up to it. Facebook’s share price falling rapidly again today.
What has always shocked me is not how much of people's personal life people publicly post on Facebook, but how much personal data which is totally unnecessary people are willing to fill in eg phone number.
Why do you think Facebook paid $19.3bn for WhatsApp?
It's a total mystery ;-)
Amazon has recently acquired a start up (which I won’t mention) that already has a large collection of extremely personal data and ability to easily collect it on a mass scale. My suspicion of what they are going to do will provide a very interesting new service, but I think in 5 years we will be having more discussions of how people didn’t know how the service collected so much incredibly personal data on them.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have urity order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seem as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongman at home
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seem as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongman at home
Yeltsin and Junker would have got along well
Juncker was PM of Luxembourg while Yeltsin was in office.
That snivelling congratulation letter to Putin from Junker is exactly why he shouldn't be anywhere near the role he holds.
And your post is exactly why you shouldn't be anywhere near politics or diplomacy.
Still as bitter as ever, eh TOPPING.
Not bitter at all. But evidently the nuances of interaction between world leaders are way beyond your comprehension.
There were no nuances in that letter, it was a boot licking, snivelling attempt at trying to get Russia into the EU club, despite the EU leaders uniting to condemn Putin's actions.
The elected leaders say one thing and the unelected bureaucrat contradicts them in the next breath.
As I said - not one for nuance or diplomatic speak are you?
I might have to put you on remedial Yes Minister watching until you are up to speed.
So please, if you are so well versed, point out Junker's nuance other than "please don't turn off our gas Mr Putin, pleeeeaaaase".
Juncker wants a cooperative pan-European security order. We don't currently have urity order.
Your welcome.
The idea that Putin's Russia could ever be involved in any pan-European defence initiative is repulsive. The last pan-European security order was probably the USSR. Not exactly something anyone should strive to emulate. As someone pointed out before, Russia's view wrt it's neighbours is "you're in our circle of influence or you are our enemy". A few bootlicking words from Junker won't change that.
What Junker was really saying was "the door is still open for Russia to join the EU". No more, no less.
I think the chance of Russia joining the EU is about the same as you taking Juncker's job.
The biggest mistake the West ever made was not reaching out and helping Russia in the 1990s when it had a broadly non-hostile leader in Yeltsin, and was open to rejoining the ranks of civilised nations.
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seen as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongmen at home.
Thatcher was very respected in Russia precisely because she was seen as a strong leader of her country
Yes, there is truth in that. The trick would be to somehow mesh the two.
In 10 years time we will be closer to having enough doctors graduating, which will be a postwar novelty.
Good to see where the new medical schools are going to be. As well as hopefully retaining some doctors locally*, it will attract higher calibre senior staff too as teachers.
*though in the East Mids at our two University hospitals we retain only 50% of our graduates locally, the lowest rate in the country. National recruitment to specialist training is in part to blame. If this was devolved back to the regions then local retention would be better.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seem as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongman at home
Yeltsin and Junker would have got along well
Juncker was PM of Luxembourg while Yeltsin was in office.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seem as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongman at home
Yeltsin and Junker would have got along well
Juncker was PM of Luxembourg while Yeltsin was in office.
It seems very surprising to me, but IANAL (let alone a Scottish one).
I expected that the case would be allowed to proceed at first instance for various reasons and said so on here. But I am surprised that the Inner House has overturned what is a decision based on discretion. Lord Carloway, our Lord President, is uncomfortably close to the First Minster who of course appointed him. This is only an allowance to proceed of course. The merits will be addressed at some later point by which time it is very likely to be somewhat academic.
It is extremely rude about the form of the petition and notably does not address the point made by the Lord Ordinary that this was not only academic given the position of the government but very likely to be academic because we will have left before this issue is determined. It would make sense for the government to appeal this further to the Supreme Court just in case.
Russian leaders popular in the West e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, tend to be seen as weak at home while Russian leaders seem as dangerous tyrants in the West e.g. Stalin and Putin, are seen as strongman at home
Yeltsin and Junker would have got along well
Juncker was PM of Luxembourg while Yeltsin was in office.
The more I think about it, the more sick and outraged I feel about the Salisbury attack.
The UK has been violated and assaulted in one of the most despicable ways possible. All things being equal, it’s an act of war. He must be made to feel real pain for this, or it will happen again and again. There will be no end to it. And none of us is safe. Any one of us could be collateral in Putin’s wars, and he has no respect for us.
The UK should make the ending of Putin’s regime a foreign policy objective from now on, IMHO, and the emergence of a democratic Russia.
Personally, I'd say the Litvinenko attack was worse, with the botched attempt and the trail or radioactivity left across London. But IANAE, and I'd leave it to someone like TimT to say which was worse, if it is possible to make such a distinction.
I do read comments like Casinos above with great amusement.
What do you seriously expect us to do. Declare war on Russia? Invade it? Do you think that would be an easy or straightforward thing to do?
The ending of Putin's regime has been the de facto foreign policy objective for at least 10 years, possibly longer. And, until recently we had the US on our side, and we even bought the EU along with us, at great cost to countries like Finland and Estonia who, through the various sanctions we imposed on Russia via the EU, lost billions of euros worth of exports as well as suffering threats of war and invasion, against which (at least in Finlands case) they are completely undefended.
All this time we were being advised that that Russia was just about on the point of collapse, it was just a case of one more winter, one more heave. It hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it ever will.
The situation now looks like the product of the policy you are suggesting we double down on. If we aren't going to go to war with Russia, what exactly are we going to do?
I have been to Russian three times and it is a fascinating Country with a chequered history.
However, I am implacably opposed to Putin and his cohorts.
Corbyn, Milne and his Office are acting as pro Putin cheer leaders and for the first time in my life I see a marxist pro Russian anti West leader of the labour party wanting to launch communism on the UK.
Can anyone really imagine Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott running this country with all that would mean to national security, and state, with union backed control of every aspect of our lives.
That is the present labour offer to the UK, sadly
And May etc. are pro-Bin Salman cheerleaders, whitewashing a regime that is by several degrees more brutal, less democratic and more backward than the Russian one. Not to mention a far bigger sponsor of terror. (and I'm not saying they are entirely wrong to do so) Dirty foreign connections are par for the course, there are just approved dirty ones and non-approved.
Saudis buy our weapons. They don't use them on us. Some difference....
But they do fund the ideology which inspires some people to attack us.
So not quite as big a difference as you might think.
I have been to Russian three times and it is a fascinating Country with a chequered history.
However, I am implacably opposed to Putin and his cohorts.
Corbyn, Milne and his Office are acting as pro Putin cheer leaders and for the first time in my life I see a marxist pro Russian anti West leader of the labour party wanting to launch communism on the UK.
Can anyone really imagine Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbott running this country with all that would mean to national security, and state, with union backed control of every aspect of our lives.
That is the present labour offer to the UK, sadly
And May etc. are pro-Bin Salman cheerleaders, whitewashing a regime that is by several degrees more brutal, less democratic and more backward than the Russian one. Not to mention a far bigger sponsor of terror. (and I'm not saying they are entirely wrong to do so) Dirty foreign connections are par for the course, there are just approved dirty ones and non-approved.
Saudis buy our weapons. They don't use them on us. Some difference....
But they do fund the ideology which inspires some people to attack us.
So not quite as big a difference as you might think.
Putin's election result among Russians living in the UK was 52%.
My wife is learning Russian, and she practices by Skype with a former student of hers who now lives in Germany and Sicily. She voted for Putin because "he's a strong leader". Another Russian friend (who spoilt their ballot) told us that any Russians living overseas who vote for Putin are simply "nostalgic".
... and there seems to be a large orange LibDem panel on it.
This Lib Dem newspaper seems to be much more objective than the Express, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the BBC..... Even the Guido Fawkes internet pages.
What is Guido complaining about?
To be fair a declaration of interest might be appropriate
Certainly, Mr Wales, a declaration of interest might be most appropriate in the case of the Express, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the BBC..... Yet these publications usually purport to be neutral, don`t they? Some even call themselves newspapers.
Do you approve of these LibDem "newspapers"? They seem to be aimed at the easily duped....
Far better, Mr Mark, for the Lib Dems to get in first and expose the truth about these incompetent Conservative-run councils, than wait for the Conservative machine to come up with its usual spin and lies.
Are you suggesting that the reporting of Conservative inadequacy is anything less than the burnished truth?
I just find it amusing that the LibDems follow the mantra of the despised George W Bush: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
If I remember correctly, it is two Conservative-run local authorities that have had to be taken over by teams of bureaucrats sent down by central government. Of course, you Conservatives would like to pretend that this has nothing to do with the short-sighted Conservative policies that they were following.
If anybody is trying to fool the people, it is the Conservatives who are running everything down into the ground.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
I thought Corbyn was impressive on this on R4 today.
The nub of the issue for me is simply this. Either Russia did this and wants everyone to know they did it (Russian-developed nerve agent in a public place is hardly subtle). Or someone else did it and wants everyone to think Russia did it.
I truly believe that The Kremlin would have no compunction in doing this if they stood to gain. I just don't think they really do gain anything. Even as revenge on a double agent, this spy was part of an exchange, so it doesn't work as a motive for me. Putin is happy to get his hands very dirty, but never for no reason.
The motive would be "pour encourager les autres" ie don't step out of line because we know you know we can get you, even if you are abroad. Otherwise you'd surely just bump them off with a bash on the head or a standard 9mm pistol which could be anyone (so to speak).
However, as the unfortunate victims are not actually dead and are seemingly hanging on by a thread, it would seem something went "wrong" with the administration of the nerve agent.
If they’d just wanted him dead, they’d have bashed him in the back of the head with a baseball bat, and the Salisbury Journal would be the only publication looking for the killer. The Russian reaction makes it quite clear that this is another Litvinenko, it was done as it was pour encourager les autres.
I think that was made clear when "Vremya" (Russian state TV's flagship evening news and current affairs programme) ran that piece the other day about how dangerous a place Britain was proving to be for Russian exiles.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
Well also this "data grab". People signed up and agreed to the T&Cs on an app. Now their friend network info was also scraped, but only ones that were public profiles i.e. it was publicly available info. The advantage of doing it this way was the ease of grabbing such a large amount, but I could write a script to do the same without any need for an app.
It is why I a) keep my profile locked down b) fill virtually no info accurately and c) never use log-in with Facebook / Google for anything.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
The difference is that well-targeted commercial advertising is of value to the user. Well-targeted political advertising of the form we're talking about is detrimental to the user.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
Your own data, sure. Your network’s data, no. I appreciate that most people on Facebook don’t give a monkeys and are therefore conniving at their own brainwashing, but there were and are rules to prevent wholesale data siphoning - and rightly so, given the power that data gives you.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
In 1830, you'd have said "there is no balance of power in Europe, just France versus the awkward squad"
In 1650, you'd have said "there is no balance of power in Europe, just Spain versus the awkward squad"
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
Your own data, sure. Your network’s data, no. I appreciate that most people on Facebook don’t give a monkeys and are therefore conniving at their own brainwashing, but there were and are rules to prevent wholesale data siphoning - and rightly so, given the power that data gives you.
AFAIK, it was only profiles in your network that had their settings to public who had info shared i.e. profiles that could have been scraped anyway. Friends in your network who had changed settings to increase the privacy settings didn't.
This was during a period when Facebook privacy settings were particular crap, basically all on or all off. That has changed now.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
My dad used to say to me that you never get anything for nothing. Very few services are provided for free: if they're not getting money from you, they're getting it from somewhere else. (*)
If you're ever offered something for free, you need to ask where the person offering it is getting their money from. On t'Internet it may be advertising... or something else.
(*) Free software can be a notable exception to this, and not always.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
The collection of data by Amazon, Google, Facebook is scary.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
How is she still alive? Her insides must be screwed.
I once chatted to a bloke on a bench ouside Highbury Magistrates' Court - I was having a sandwich lunch, he was waiting to be tried for assault. He said ruefully that he sometimes just lost his temper, didn't know why. At his feet he had a bag of 20 or so Red Bull cans. I asked how many he drank - about 10 a day, he said. I suggested that might be a reason and he said do you think so, hey, I never thought of that...
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
Your own data, sure. Your network’s data, no. I appreciate that most people on Facebook don’t give a monkeys and are therefore conniving at their own brainwashing, but there were and are rules to prevent wholesale data siphoning - and rightly so, given the power that data gives you.
AFAIK, it was only profiles in your network that had their settings to public who had info shared i.e. profiles that could have been scraped anyway. Friends in your network who had changed settings to increase the privacy settings didn't.
This was during a period when Facebook privacy settings were particular crap, basically all on or all off. That has changed now.
You are correct and it perhaps better to talk of improper data exploitation rather than access. The access - though unethical - was technical possible but not prohibited. However, the exploitation of it was forbidden under Facebook rules.
Sufficient private data is a bit like nuclear weaponry. Very dangerous in the wrong hands.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
In 1830, you'd have said "there is no balance of power in Europe, just France versus the awkward squad"
In 1650, you'd have said "there is no balance of power in Europe, just Spain versus the awkward squad"
Perhaps but on both occasions like now we were part of the awkward squad.
We never addressed the balance of power in Europe by seeking to pool sovereignty with France in 1830 or Spain in 1650. We did so by being an independent nation standing up where appropriate for ourselves or with others.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
The collection of data by Amazon, Google, Facebook is scary.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
In 1830, you'd have said "there is no balance of power in Europe, just France versus the awkward squad"
In 1650, you'd have said "there is no balance of power in Europe, just Spain versus the awkward squad"
Perhaps but on both occasions like now we were part of the awkward squad.
We never addressed the balance of power in Europe by seeking to pool sovereignty with France in 1830 or Spain in 1650. We did so by being an independent nation standing up where appropriate for ourselves or with others.
Something come 2019 we'll start to do again.
I don't disagree. I just think those who think the European hegemon has always been Germany are incorrect.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
Our dirty tricks campaign is absolutely fine, theirs is despicable and should be outlawed.
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
Your own data, sure. Your network’s data, no. I appreciate that most people on Facebook don’t give a monkeys and are therefore conniving at their own brainwashing, but there were and are rules to prevent wholesale data siphoning - and rightly so, given the power that data gives you.
AFAIK, it was only profiles in your network that had their settings to public who had info shared i.e. profiles that could have been scraped anyway. Friends in your network who had changed settings to increase the privacy settings didn't.
This was during a period when Facebook privacy settings were particular crap, basically all on or all off. That has changed now.
You are correct and it perhaps better to talk of improper data exploitation rather than access. The access - though unethical - was technical possible but not prohibited. However, the exploitation of it was forbidden under Facebook rules.
Sufficient private data is a bit like nuclear weaponry. Very dangerous in the wrong hands.
Oh don't get me wrong. The rules seem laughable. You can have this data, but please be good with it.
The whistleblower said the extent on their checks on him since he left CA was they sent him a letter telling him to delete this data and a form to sign to say he had done it. That was it.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
The collection of data by Amazon, Google, Facebook is scary.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
I did not know that, but am unsurprised. Facebook’s business - more than anybody else’s - is to sell your attention to advertisers. There have been an unending list of ethical breaches over the past 10 years - unsurprisingly given the company ethos is to commodify you.
I had a Facebook account in 2006, and deleted it in around 2010.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The EU is offering nothing on Russia other than toadying lickspittlism.
Germany is pacifist and dependent on its gas. France thinks it has some sort of transcendent high-cultural relationship with Moscow that puts it in a different league, but it’s a fantasy....
And the extent to which they’ll admit there’s a problem will be that Trump benefited from it. They’ll all think nothing of doing the same at the next election, if they can benefit a candidate that they prefer.
That’s what’s chilling, that they think they can decide an election.
The one potential positive I saw coming from Brexit was that there might develop a new realism about the limitations Britain now operated under in the modern world, given its new isolation and relatively modest heft. Sadly, the Brexiters seem to becoming steadily more delusional. Any day now they're going to declare a resurrection of Pax Britannica.
Despite the sneery overtone, you're accidentally right! A small, well-defended, non-interfering and non-interfered with Britain on the model of a bigger Switzerland would be ideal. It's EU fans who think we need to club together as part of a big bloc to tell other people what to do. And they accuse us of being nostalgic for the days of Empire.
As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." I'm afraid the greater Switzerland option simply isn't available to the UK, or England, because of its role in the balance of power in Europe.
there is no balance of power in Europe, just Germany versus the awkward squad
Germany is an economic power, but clearly not a military one. The only military expansionist countries on our continent are Russia and Turkey, and the latters ambitions are not in Europe.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
The EU is offering nothing on Russia other than toadying lickspittlism.
Germany is pacifist and dependent on its gas. France thinks it has some sort of transcendent high-cultural relationship with Moscow that puts it in a different league, but it’s a fantasy....
Trump likes strongmen. The Russians have bailed him out on previous occasions. And then there’s kompromat, and the support Russian players provided Trump in the election - whether he wishes to acknowledge it or not.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
The collection of data by Amazon, Google, Facebook is scary.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
I have also been to Russia - 30 years ago. I met my husband there. After 4 days we became an item and have been together ever since. I blame - or credit - the appalling Russian food which must have addled our brains.
It was appalling: the meat was indescribable and inedible; the water tasted as if someone had farted into it; there were no vegetables of any kind though we were once shown an orange.
The ice cream was good as was the bread and vodka.
I'm amazed that Russians are nostalgic for the Soviet period. Soviet Russia was like a third world country: not just no food but badly built buildings, tar on the roads which melted in the heat and a general air of down at heel shabbiness. There was nothing in the shops. Nothing. Apart from some rather nice Lenin cards, which I still have.
Like Burkina Faso but with bombs, as someone once said.
The churches, which were being repaired, were beautiful; the circus was great fun; the Moscow metro was gorgeous and the people - to the extent we could communicate with them - seemed friendly enough. But what struck me was the poverty. It was a revelation. For all the changes since then I do wonder whether life for ordinary Russians has got significantly better.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
The collection of data by Amazon, Google, Facebook is scary.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
Google owns 23andme, the dna testing service. So for the 5m customers of 23andme google knows everything about them, down to their entire genome. That is spooky.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
The collection of data by Amazon, Google, Facebook is scary.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
Google owns 23andme, the dna testing service. So for the 5m customers of 23andme google knows everything about them, down to their entire genome. That is spooky.
Google is *slightly* different in that their ethos has always been about organising the world’s information for you, rather than organising information *about* you.
In practice it means they tend to have fewer ethical “problems” than Facebook seems to.
Just catching up on Ch4 expose on CA. Am I supposed to be shocked that political campaigns try to use peoples emotions rather than run on simply the facts and that Super PACs run attack ads.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
No. The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
I was talking specifically about this evenings episode, which was shock horror campaigns play on fear and emotion and we have Super PACs to run attack ads.
I have commented on previous episodes.
I am not watching it, but by the sound of it there’s not much new there. However, most audiences will likely be unaware of the power of social media to hyper target and shape opinion.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
The collection of data by Amazon, Google, Facebook is scary.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
Google owns 23andme, the dna testing service. So for the 5m customers of 23andme google knows everything about them, down to their entire genome. That is spooky.
AFAIK, 23andme isn't owned by Google / Alphabet, they are an investor (along with a load of other people). The founder was Sergey Brin wife until a few years ago.
Comments
I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's true.
Isolation against the continent is not attractive, a strong political and economic alliance with the mainland would be far better.
Good luck, an' all that; text us when you get there.
https://apply.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-join/age
By doing nothing we helped create the Putin monster we have today.
It’s a weird kind of patriotism that wishes to see one’s own country poorer, diminished, divided, and shambolic.
dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5522413/Cringeworthy-posts-people-accidentally-shared-social-media.html
You’ve just sniffed what you think is a weakness on Putin and are getting all excited about it.
You play this card so obviously and so often you have zero credibility.
I’m no Putin fan, but he is a rational actor. Show him that these actions have a high cost and he will think again. That means the measures I’ve outlined towards Russia itself, and unstinting commitment to NATO and the defence of the EU members facing Russia outside the alliance (Sweden and Finland).
Campaigning for the latter two to join NATO would be a much better use of our government’s time and energy.
Germany is pacifist and dependent on its gas. France thinks it has some sort of transcendent high-cultural relationship with Moscow that puts it in a different league, but it’s a fantasy.
The only ones I’d trust would be Poland, the Czech Republic, Norway and Finland, together with the Baltic states.
The UK can act in concert with its allies to achieve its foreign policy aims, as indeed it must. The fact we cannot achieve those aims entirely unilaterally should not preclude us from having them. We should lead and be comfortable to do so.
I largely agree with your suggestions in the 2nd paragraph, but I would go further. I’m far closer to JackWs views on this.
A fragmented and weakened Europe is a major policy aim, as this makes it easier to “divide and conquer” (not literally) his main export markets. And a divided Europe finds it harder to buddy up with the US on sanctions etc.
The U.K. is Russia’s pre-eminent enemy in Europe because we have tended to lead the defence of the Western order and have been first to respond to various Russian provocations. Germany itself is more divided and has a small but significant pro-Russian elite. While France often has its own “multi-polar” take on the world in which is more sympathetic to a Russian “sphere of influence”.
Brexit is Putin’s dream come true. He will continue to try to find ways to weaken us, divide us from Europe, undermine NATO unity, etc. It’s not clear what we should do about this long term.
I’ve seen much foot dragging over recent weeks, an ill advised letter of congratulation today, and no serious rise in its commitment to NATO or increase in defence spending, or further actions taken in solidarity with the UK.
Any idea what messages might work or how we might set a good example as another post-imperial power and victor over Nazism?
https://twitter.com/RichardAngell/status/976158426182176768
I expect PM Corbyn will though!
We should support good ordinary Russians and undermine support for his regime from within, many of whom despise Putin, but there’s no doubt it’s hard and dangerous work.
Good to see our government fighting propaganda with cold hard facts. If anyone had any doubt who was responsible the action and conduct of the Russian government since it happened surely gives overwhelming support for the idea it was them.
Thatcher was very respected in Russia precisely because she was seen as a strong leader of her country
Amazon has recently acquired a start up (which I won’t mention) that already has a large collection of extremely personal data and ability to easily collect it on a mass scale. My suspicion of what they are going to do will provide a very interesting new service, but I think in 5 years we will be having more discussions of how people didn’t know how the service collected so much incredibly personal data on them.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-43463358
In 10 years time we will be closer to having enough doctors graduating, which will be a postwar novelty.
Good to see where the new medical schools are going to be. As well as hopefully retaining some doctors locally*, it will attract higher calibre senior staff too as teachers.
*though in the East Mids at our two University hospitals we retain only 50% of our graduates locally, the lowest rate in the country. National recruitment to specialist training is in part to blame. If this was devolved back to the regions then local retention would be better.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/20/trump-campaign-cambridge-analytica-473650?lo=ap_c1
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/cambridge-analytica-suspends-ceo-alexander-nix
It is extremely rude about the form of the petition and notably does not address the point made by the Lord Ordinary that this was not only academic given the position of the government but very likely to be academic because we will have left before this issue is determined. It would make sense for the government to appeal this further to the Supreme Court just in case.
What do you seriously expect us to do. Declare war on Russia? Invade it? Do you think that would be an easy or straightforward thing to do?
The ending of Putin's regime has been the de facto foreign policy objective for at least 10 years, possibly longer. And, until recently we had the US on our side, and we even bought the EU along with us, at great cost to countries like Finland and Estonia who, through the various sanctions we imposed on Russia via the EU, lost billions of euros worth of exports as well as suffering threats of war and invasion, against which (at least in Finlands case) they are completely undefended.
All this time we were being advised that that Russia was just about on the point of collapse, it was just a case of one more winter, one more heave. It hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it ever will.
The situation now looks like the product of the policy you are suggesting we double down on.
If we aren't going to go to war with Russia, what exactly are we going to do?
So not quite as big a difference as you might think.
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 44% (+1)
LAB: 41% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 2% (-1)
UKIP: 1% (-1) <- new low
via @ICMResearch, 16 - 18 Mar
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-43469742
How is she still alive? Her insides must be screwed.
If anybody is trying to fool the people, it is the Conservatives who are running everything down into the ground.
We seem to be forgetting the other side were involved in the dodgy dossier against Trump and there seems to be a lot of false info in that dossier.
https://twitter.com/saradannerdukic/status/976125179049988097
I'm genuinely shocked at the indignation towards Facebook. They have always been upfront that their users are the product.
The data was improperly obtained. Probably with Facebook turning a blind eye.
As for the dossier, which info was false?
It is why I a) keep my profile locked down b) fill virtually no info accurately and c) never use log-in with Facebook / Google for anything.
I appreciate that most people on Facebook don’t give a monkeys and are therefore conniving at their own brainwashing, but there were and are rules to prevent wholesale data siphoning - and rightly so, given the power that data gives you.
I have commented on previous episodes.
In 1650, you'd have said "there is no balance of power in Europe, just Spain versus the awkward squad"
This was during a period when Facebook privacy settings were particular crap, basically all on or all off. That has changed now.
It’s moved on a lot since even the Obama win, and what we now have is actually bloody scary when used effectively by political campaigners. It raises real issues about what the public sphere means in a democracy.
The challenge though is getting the data - which is where CA came in...
If you're ever offered something for free, you need to ask where the person offering it is getting their money from. On t'Internet it may be advertising... or something else.
(*) Free software can be a notable exception to this, and not always.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, Facebook doesn't just collect your data from its site. It is one of the worlds biggest buyer of personal data. They have so much, it is known they can match up quite a lot of anonymized data based on what you have put on Facebook and all the other sources they have previously purchased and aligned.
https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-doesnt-tell-users-everything-it-really-knows-about-them
Sufficient private data is a bit like nuclear weaponry. Very dangerous in the wrong hands.
We never addressed the balance of power in Europe by seeking to pool sovereignty with France in 1830 or Spain in 1650. We did so by being an independent nation standing up where appropriate for ourselves or with others.
Something come 2019 we'll start to do again.
The whistleblower said the extent on their checks on him since he left CA was they sent him a letter telling him to delete this data and a form to sign to say he had done it. That was it.
Facebook’s business - more than anybody else’s - is to sell your attention to advertisers.
There have been an unending list of ethical breaches over the past 10 years - unsurprisingly given the company ethos is to commodify you.
I had a Facebook account in 2006, and deleted it in around 2010.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/trump-congratulates-putin-on-his-reelection-kremlin-says/2018/03/20/379effd0-2c57-11e8-8dc9-3b51e028b845_story.html
That’s what’s chilling, that they think they can decide an election.
The Russians have bailed him out on previous occasions.
And then there’s kompromat, and the support Russian players provided Trump in the election - whether he wishes to acknowledge it or not.
Utterly bonkers
I have also been to Russia - 30 years ago. I met my husband there. After 4 days we became an item and have been together ever since. I blame - or credit - the appalling Russian food which must have addled our brains.
It was appalling: the meat was indescribable and inedible; the water tasted as if someone had farted into it; there were no vegetables of any kind though we were once shown an orange.
The ice cream was good as was the bread and vodka.
I'm amazed that Russians are nostalgic for the Soviet period. Soviet Russia was like a third world country: not just no food but badly built buildings, tar on the roads which melted in the heat and a general air of down at heel shabbiness. There was nothing in the shops. Nothing. Apart from some rather nice Lenin cards, which I still have.
Like Burkina Faso but with bombs, as someone once said.
The churches, which were being repaired, were beautiful; the circus was great fun; the Moscow metro was gorgeous and the people - to the extent we could communicate with them - seemed friendly enough. But what struck me was the poverty. It was a revelation. For all the changes since then I do wonder whether life for ordinary Russians has got significantly better.
In practice it means they tend to have fewer ethical “problems” than Facebook seems to.
Doesn’t stop them having scary power though.