RayC

The US may well have fanned the flames of discontent, but the fire was lit and burning furiously already. I am not sure whether Ukrainians had any great desire to jump into bed with the 'handsome' US, but they undoubtedly were throwing themselves at the 'impossibly attractive' EU. A fact that Putin could not accept. You state ".. however, Ukraine's leaders should have realised the consequences of switching camp to pro Western". And that justifies Putin's actions? It sounds very much like you would deny a sovereign nation (Ukraine) the right to self-determination?

You may well be correct that Russia is concerned about a theoretical threat to its' security along the Eastern Plains, but imo this current conflict has little to do with that. The catalyst for Russian aggression in the Donbass and the invasion of Crimea was the removal of Yanukovych, who had become Moscow's puppet. The desire of the Ukrainian people and politicians for EU membership posed a direct economic threat to Russia and this was something that Putin was not willing to accept. Ukraine's accession to NATO was unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future in 2014 and has effectively been used as a smokescreen by Russia to justify its' actions.

So you agree that there should be limits to free speech?

You need to be more specific. What are you suggesting that there should be absolute free speech? For example, you would be happy for a person of influence to be able to freely state, "Kill all <insert name of group here>", and to be free of all moral and legal accountability and responsibility when someone does just that?

Although constitutions and electoral systems differ throughout Europe, broadly speaking it is governments who propose laws and parliament which pass them. This link explains the process in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament#:~:text=A bill is a proposed,Parliament can introduce a bill. The government does not decide what is misinformation, the veracity of the statement will decide that. For example, @Hotsun stated that you cannot criticise the UK government. That is factually incorrect; it is misinformation to suggest that it is true. If you have any evidence to support your contention that Keir Starmer was the 'toy boy' of Jimmy Saville, then I'm sure that I'm not alone in wishing to see it.

I'm afraid that once again you are the victim of being fed misinformation Criticising the UK government is absolutely allowed. Indeed, one might sometimes think of it as a national sport. If proof is needed, you could look at the websites for any of the following (amongst many others): Daily Telegraph, D. Mail, D. Express, GB News. These sites regularly criticise the UK government, often when there isn't actually anything to criticise. To the best of my knowledge, none of the journalists associated with these sites have been arrested for their criticism.

I'm afraid that you must have landed on one of those misinformation sites then. Your comment is incorrect. A member of the UK public can post whatever they want on social media so long as what is posted does break any laws. That's how things work throughout the rest of Europe as well.

Can you elaborate please?

That may be true? Unfortunately, many parts of the world have never had free elections. Those of us in Western Europe do. Agreed Misplaced, condescending arrogance without a shred of evidence to support it.

You implied that the recent German election was not free and fair, it is therefore up to you to provide evidence to support that contention not for others to disprove it.

Well, there's a simple solution ....

And whose fault was that? The UK seemed to think that it could have all the benefits of the Single Market and Customs Union without any of the obligations and responsibilities associated with it. When the EU, unsurprisingly, said that such 'cherry picking' wasn't acceptable, the UK was at a total loss regarding what its' next step should be.

So your accusations are baseless then.

Disappointing. I'd never previously thought of you as a member of the 'Mindless Ranter' brigade.

(Nearly missed this latest excuse for the Brexit disaster). Over 5 years and 3 presidents - Trump 1 & 2 + Biden - since we left the EU and not a sign of a trade deal with the US - or China or India for that matter - and that's all Lammy's and Starmer's fault for calling Trump some hurty words. Yeah, right.

And that's the nub of it. The accusation of 'EU interference' is a regular occurrence. However, when challenged to provide evidence to support this accusation, nothing of any substance is supplied. The replies usually entail some sort of conspiracy theory.

Policing, Welfare, Health care, the Armed Forces. That's off the top of my head. Most law which originated from the EU is either directly or indirectly related to protecting the integrity of the Single Market and/or Customs Union. In any event, wherever EU law holds primacy, it is only because the Member States agreed (voted) to delegate responsibility to Brussels.

It's a strange sort of authoritarian, (almost) totalitarian institution that allows a member state to leave by simply submitting an Article 50 letter, don't you think? You can hardly blame the EU because you swallowed the 'they need us more than we need them' pill.

And yet - as Brexit proved - each individual member state is perfectly entitled to leave this authoritarian, (almost) totalitarian institution if it wants.

I'd classify national elections as important, wouldn't you?

Where there is a conflict EU law does indeed have primacy over the domestic laws of the EU member states but there are many areas, such as this, which are matters of domestic, not EU, law so your conclusion is incorrect.

I certainly don't have the answers for everything but I have opinions on subjects where I have some knowledge e.g. the EU. I avoid commenting on subjects where I have little knowledge. It works for me. I don't have a patent on it, so feel free to try it out yourself. The President of the European Commission will have previously been a politician in their home country and will therefore have a personal political bias as will members of the European Parliament. And? Really? Any evidence to support those accusations? The links you provide certainly don't. What has that to do with the EU institutions? I'd suggest that depends on the results of May's re-run election. In any event, Romania 2025 is different to Ukraine 2014. Imo you are correct: The US did 'fuel the flames' of the Maïdan révolution but it was exactly that: The fire was already raging. Assuming that the Trump administration has any interest in reducing Russian influence in Romania this time, the US will have to be a lot more direct and active.

😂 Did you deliberately forget to include Kenneth Williams?

No. If they did Hungary and Italy would have different leaders.

No.