RayC

Right. Then there was a general election and a deal brokered by the current UK administration was agreed. Whose fault is it that the same UK administration is unable and/or unwilling to implement that agreement? Actually, that's a rhetorical question. I know the answer: Anyone but us. I wonder if Balatelli has any of those 'Why always me?' T-shirts left? He could send a few to the UK cabinet.

This is exactly what I meant about a lack of accountability and responsibility on the part of Brexiters. It's always someone else's fault. No doubt that the absence of any trade deal with the US will be the fault of the Irish influence in the US senate.

It might be argued that the EU could be more flexible in the implementation of some border controls e.g. have a list of 'trusted traders' where there were minimal controls. However, the fact that the UK government has regnated on commitments and threatened to break international law means that trust in short supply. Given that, the EU chooses to implement the letter of the law. Who can blame them? The UK government left the EU. The EU did not leave the UK. It's about time that the UK government (and Brexiters in general) took some responsibility and accountability for this decision, rather than pointing the finger at others.

I was simply disagreeing with your assertion that the effects of Brexit could not be predicted. Moreover, as @Kinnock infers any discussion of Johnson's future must surely take into account his past record as PM (bolding unintentional).

Agreed but there is little short-term evidence to suggest that there are/ will be any benefits to Brexit, in fact, the opposite https://www.ft.com/content/c6ee4ce2-95b3-4d92-858f-c50566529b5e Likewise there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that the current UK government is any less incompetent than the EU authorities. Any evidence/ sources that provide projections to support this wishful thinking? That there are federalists in Brussels and the EU is undeniable, but unless the individual member states vote for a federal Europe (which they won't) then it will not happen. Unelected technocrats in Brussels - I assume that you mean the Commission? - do not pass laws. EU legislation is passed by the European Council - which is comprised of the 27 member states' heads of government - and the European parliament, whose members are directly elected by the voters in EU member states. In a similar way to the unelected mandarins in Whitehall, the unelected technocrats in Brussels take their policy direction from their political masters (the UK government and the European Council respectively). One added value for member states is that they can direct the Commission to work on policy areas where they may lack the necessary time, resources or expertise to do so themselves. Between 1999 and 2016, the UK was forced to enact +/-2% of EU legislation with which it disagreed. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/ I don't believe that all the economic, political and social chaos caused by Brexit is worth it in order to reclaim 2% of sovereignty but clearly others disagree.

Many of the effects of the Brexit deal were not difficult to predict. For example, as a result of leaving the EU Customs Union, there has been an increase in the amount of bureaucracy for UK exporters and the introduction of border checks has increased delivery times. Both factors have contributed to increased costs for UK exporters. Both of these events could be foreseen but not planned for in any meaningful sense by the UK government. The DUP warned throughout the Brexit negotiations that they would not support a border down the middle of the Irish Sea. Johnson chose to ignore this statement. Again, the political impasse that has subsequently occurred in NI was not hard to predict.

The UK may have formally left the EU but the deal that Johnson brokered was hardly 'oven-ready' as he claimed.

Result was never in doubt but the margin of victory was a disaster for Johnson. Now a question of when he goes. Bookies have him 1/2 not to lead Tories into next election.

Spot on. An overwhelmingly win e.g. +/- 80%-20% and Johnson could have justifiably claimed that he had the backing of the Tory PP and dealt with the dissenters. The fact that 40% believe he should go now plus - almost certainly - those lacking the courage to stick their heads above the parapet at this moment, plus some in the cabinet honour bound (haha) to vote for him, means that his position is untenable. Question of 'when' not 'if' he goes. Imo the longer he hangs on the better for the opposition. However, as another poster inferred, the sooner he goes the better will be best for the country.

That old chestnut again. https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/

If the Brexit deal is unilaterally scrapped by the UK, it will effectively put pay to any lingering hopes of a UK-US free trade deal for the foreseeable future. The UK will then have effectively alienated its' 3 biggest trading partners (The EU, the US and China). Doesn't seem like much of a Brexit bonus to me. In any event, it is not as though this problem could not be foreseen. The DUP warned throughout the Brexit negotiations that a border down the North Sea was unacceptable to them but the UK government chose to ignore this warning. The problem is of the UK government's own making. Sadly, it is another example of it not taking responsibility and accountability for its' actions.

You question the validity of the poll without giving any evidence to support your position. This seems to be a trend. If the instances you quote are anything to go by then they are spectacularly poor at doing so! Clinton and 'Remain' were ahead on (almost) all polls. I assume that you are inferring that BBC and CNN are unreliable sources of information? Who would you have us trust for 'the facts'? Pravda? I don't but as I stated above you provide no evidence to the contrary. At any rate, all this is tangential. I notice that you make no attempt to address my main points i.e. whether nations have the right to self-determination and how the Russian invasion can be justified. You seem to believe that because the West/ NATO might have intervened in previous conflicts without justification then it has no business intervening in any future conflicts. Incidentally, what's your view on Finland applying for NATO membership? Should it be allowed or is it another example of a country being seduced by NATO and which needs saving from itself?

As opposed to whom? Russian observers? And your point is? Why? Do you not believe that sovereign nations have the right to self-determination? The opposite. Ukraine was trying to seduce NATO which - until this war -has shown little enthusiasm for giving it membership Where is your evidence to support this statement? Opinion polls do not necessarily tell the whole truth but can be a gauge of public opinion. It appears that despite events, there is little antipathy towards ordinary Russians by Ukrainians. https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/ukrainians-want-to-stay-and-fight-but-dont-see-russian-people-as-the-enemy-a-remarkable-poll-from-kyiv/ Ukraine was carved into two pieces by the illegal annexation of the Crimea by Russia in 2014. The truth - as in this case - does not always have to be complicated. The simple fact is that Russia - under the leadership of a dictator - does not recognise the right of Ukraine to exist as a sovereign nation but rather, sees it as merely a constituent of a 'Greater Russia'. That is the reason for the invasion.

You may have a point about the West meddling in Korea, etc but that is irrelevant and not the case when it comes to Ukraine. Ukraine has been an independent country since 1991. Her people have decided that their future lies with the West. Their bigger neighbour doesn't accept this decision and invades. Morally wrong and against international law. That may be a simplistic argument but that's because it really is that simple.