RayC

At least you are not shy about displaying your homophobia, although whether that is a good thing is another matter. Please don't attribute false statements to me. Point out where I "advocated celebrating sodomy as part of human dignity"? A sad state of affairs when you have to lie to make a point I'm completely indifferent to 'Pride' events until they disrupt my schedule. In such cases, I'd probably be pretty cheesed off about things and all in favour of banning it. However, I would be equally as cheesed off about any event which disrupts my routine as I'm basically a miserable sod. And yet studies have shown that paedophiles are more heterosexually orientated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/06/29/pedophilia-and-homosexuality/b385cfb3-8b58-449d-8af9-0cfdcd278978/ No one is asking you to celebrate 'Pride'. You can ignore it as I do. There is sometimes a need to protect minorities against the bigotry of the majority.

Your comments are becoming increasingly bizarre.

An event for homosexuals in Hungary mandates colonialism and groupthink via a detour to Tehran and socialism. Yep, that makes sense!

No, I don't want to "celebrate sodomy", but if two individuals of the same gender want to engage in consensual sex with each other then that is up to them. I don't understand why anyone else should be bothered about it. I have no idea how you make the leap from homosexuality to beastiality? Again. Where is the connection between homosexual sex between consenting adults and paedophilia? That's right, there isn't one. A belief in human dignity and being homosexual are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who believes otherwise is nothing but a bigot. (Btw: I'm heterosexual in case you were wondering).

Isn't the Presidency of Ireland basically a ceremonial role? If so, McGregor - or anyone else for that matter - wont be able to effect political change.

I am astonished to learn that a Department of Education currently exists in the US. ..... (It's a joke ..... Where's your sense of humour?)

If Orban feels that his views are so inconsistent with those of the other Member States that a working relationship is impossible, he is perfectly entitled to enact whatever necessary measures are needed to enable Hungary to leave the EU. He won't, of course, because he knows that will be the end of his political career. Firstly, the majority of the Hungarian population favour membership (59% vs. 39%; Source: Pew Research Centre) and secondly, because withdrawal would be an economic catastrophe for Hungary. An alternative would be for Orban to resign but that is not going to happen either. So the EU are left with having accommodate a pro-Russian sympathiser bent on causing disruption, who does not share any of the fundamental values of the organisation.

Thanks for that. Very insightful.

If you mean why doesn't the EU expel Hungary? Then the answer is that it can't: There is no mechanism to do so. The link, which you posted, discusses possible ways in which Hungary might be sanctioned.

In order to apply for membership of the EU a country has to respect a set of common values such as human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. This obligation does not cease once membership is granted and It is becoming increasingly apparent that Hungary is failing on a number of these counts. Orban said that, “The corruption network that rules the entire Western world of politics and media must be eliminated." Noble sentiments. However, perhaps he should start at home. https://transparency.hu/en/news/cpi-2023-results-annual-report/

You consider Ukraine's desire to join the EU to be " .. poking Russia in the eye with a pointy stick"? Not so hot due to the ineffective support of the West. I agree that our views are immaterial but I was trying to get a feel for your individual standpoint, by asking whether you feel that Russia's aggressive actions in response to Ukraine's desire for EU membership is justified. You appear to believe that Russia's nuclear capability gives it 'carte blanche' to act as it likes.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that nations do not have self-determination. However, if you mean a neutral state in a military sense e.g. a DMZ then imo it's a practical solution worth exploring. From an economic perspective, I would question why Ukraine shouldn't be able to pursue its' desire to become a member of the EU.

I will give you credit for your direct reply, and not trying to hide behind a convoluted conspiracy theory. In essence, you are justifying Russian imperialism. Ukraine is forever to be viewed as nothing more than a Russian satellite state. You appear to find that acceptable; the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians and the free world do not.

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.