RayC

Now that IS 'whataboutism'! How can recent Tory governments be absolved of accountability and responsibility for its' failure? Simples. We just label the failed policies 'left wing'. I'm downplaying nothing. Which part of "97 rapes is 97 too many" is unclear? I have stated nothing that could remotely be construed as suggesting that the unfortunate women in question were "lying (sic) for attention". And along comes the sly innuendo for good measure. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of immigrants (and native-born Muslims) are law abiding. At least, you now appear to have dropped your previous pretence that, "I'm not against immigration", and are now showing your true colours: Your most recent rants make no distinction between legal and illegal migrants when it comes to assigning blame.

Then perhaps you too could explain how Russia will finance the rebuilding of its' own infrastructure and - should it win the war - that of Crimea and the Donbass.

👍 Thanks. Cut and paste is so useful: "This was only to be expected when someone is unable to offer points to directly counter an argument." The author wasn't commenting on Russia's ability to built the physical structures but questioning how it will be financed. But then I suspect you know that and choose to defect rather than answer the question. You seem to know a lot about Dr. Foucart's conditions of employment. So there has been no physical damage to Russian infrastructure- or that in the Crimea and Donbass - as a result of this war? Nice rant. Lifted from RT or Rossiyskaya Gazeta?

Nice bit of cherry picking again with a dose of deflection and a falsehood thrown in for good measure. The average worldwide defence spend by nations is around 3.5% of their GDP, significantly - not minimally - below Russia's 10%. Saudi Arabia is not a war economy. Presumably, it spends a relatively large 7% of its' GDP on defence as it perceives a threat from Iran (and perhaps, Israel?). Its' economy is built on petroleum exports. It runs a budget surplus of +/-3% GDP: It can afford to finance its' defence spending in the medium/ long term. Russia can't. I know little about Algeria and, frankly, have neither the time nor interest to research it further. (Apologies to any Algerians reading. No insult is intended). However, I don't know what point you think Algeria's relative high defence spend proves? You have posted The Economist article so many times in so many different places that imo all that needs to be said about it has been said. By way of a change, perhaps you could offer a more detailed analysis of the attached article by "a beautician", and explain how Russia will be able to afford to rebuild its' own infrastructure (and that of the Crimea and Donbass should it gain control of those regions)? https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completely-driven-by-the-war-in-ukraine-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-but-nor-can-it-afford-to-win-221333

This was only to be expected when someone is unable to offer points to directly counter an argument. Rather than critique the pieces written by Dr. Foucart - who holds a PhD in Economics and lectures at the University of Lancaster - you adopt a patronising tone and dismiss him insultingly as "a beautician". Sad really. I thought that you were better than that. (Note to any beauticians reading: In no way am I insulting your profession. You have your skill set but I doubt that it extends to an economic analysis of a war-torn economy). I have read the Economist article. It is much more nuanced than you suggest with your cherry picking of sections. It can be summarised as stating that the Russian economy has been surprisingly resilient, but it questions whether this resilency can be sustained in the medium/long term. Incredible how some people can become so blinded by their own prejudice.

The real reason for Russia's "stellar economic performance" appears to be China. How long before Russia becomes Europe's Sri Lanka? https://theconversation.com/russia-has-become-so-economically-isolated-that-china-could-order-the-end-of-war-in-ukraine-232951

You conveniently forgot to post this extract from The Economist article: "How long can the party last? Much depends on the war. A continued slump in the rouble would raise inflation; more military recruitment would worsen labour shortages. At some point, people may get angry about the cost of living. And Mr Putin cannot run budget deficits for ever: at current rates, Russia’s reserves will be gone in five years or so. But the economy has also shown its resilience in recent years. So, for now, the party continues."

Hardly " .. a contributing factor of small magnitude". "Russia’s public spending is at unprecedented levels, and around 40% of the government budget is spent on the war. Total military spending is expected to reach more than 10% of GDP for the year 2023 (the UK figure is 2.3%)." (Source: https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completely-driven-by-the-war-in-ukraine-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-but-nor-can-it-afford-to-win-221333)

Marin is no longer PM in Finland. She hasn't been since June 2023.

We've been down this road before https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-ukraine-war-moscow-military-spending-inflation-worker-shortage-2024-2

And I thought that you were in favour of personal sovereignty above all else? You now seem to be advocating for an authoritarian state in which the police can stop innocent citizens at random without any just cause. Or maybe this rule should only be applied to certain members of society? The non-white ones perhaps? The contents of your post is all supposition and inneundo. Drugs and weapons being thrown out of the window. There is no evidence to suggest that happened. It's complete and utter nonsense. I'm surprised that you didn't accuse Dos Santos and Williams of people trafficking: Surely there must be a strong possibility that they were hiding a family of 10 Somalians in the boot of their car.

As I said before. There is good regulation and there is bad regulation. Individuals can make up their own minds which category this particular regulation falls into https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests/deforestation/regulation-deforestation-free-products_en I wouldn't disagree about the EU bureaucracy being bloated.

There can be over-regulation. There can be under-regulation. There can be 'good' regulation. They can be 'bad' regulation. You offer an example of what appears to be over (bad) regulation by the EU. However, there are also numerous examples of 'good' EU regulation, particularly in the field of phytosanitary affairs, animal welfare, etc. BRICS is little more than an acronym: I don't think that China has won too many hearts and minds in Sri Lanka and various African states with its' business practices.

Imo there's two types of opinion: 'Informed' and 'uninformed'. Your's fall squarely into the second category.

Hardly whataboutism. You claim that immigration is a 'leftist' plot. I pointed out the obvious flaw in your contention (rant). Wrt rapes in Paris. Maybe a bit of context is needed. 97 rapes were reported in a year in a city of 6m. Now 97 is 97 too many, but it hardly conjures up an image of a lawless city where immigrants run amok raping and pillaging the locals. Secondly, of those 97 rapes, 28 out of 36 solved cases were proven to have been committed by foreign nationals. Again, that is 36 too many rapes but the 28 is not 77% of the total as you imply.

Of course divisions in society have always existed - and differences in opinion make for a dynamic society - but the confrontational rhetoric used by the likes of Le Pen, Farage, etc is not constructive and fuels "the atomisation of society". I'd suggest that the vision laid out by The Treaty of Rome is still relevan and contains 'big ideas' worth aiming for, although I accept that Europe seems to have lost its' direction somewhat. It is untrue that the US public rally around Trump; +/-50% might but the other 50% are appalled by him. It's a similar story for the likes of Farage, Le Pen, etc. Far from being unifying figures, they bring more division.

Immigration to the UK increased under the 'leftist' Conservative party. If those figures are correct then 97.8% of immigrants to the UK are law abiding.

And replace with whom? Mélenchon, Weidel, Le Pen, Farage, etc.? Individuals who sole objective appears to be to sow division within society.

Where in that clip is there any evidence that Dos Santos was driving erratically and/or too fast? What evidence is there to suggest that the couple were in possession of drugs and weapons as the officers stated? When the couple are stopped, where is there any evidence of Williams' accusing the officers of racism as you suggest? All it shows is a justifiably, confused, clearly scared young woman who is worried about her 3-month old baby. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing that suggests that Williams is self-entitled and self-important as you state. I can only imagine how outraged you would be if the police stopped and searched a couple of white skinheads for no apparent reason. It seems like your concern about 'two tier' policing only stretches so far.

Dare I suggest that Ms. Duffield might not be the most unbiased of sources.

I would broadly agree with that. It supports my contention that there was never a plan for Brexit. Cameron, May, Johnson: None of them had the faintest idea what they wanted from Brexit, let alone how to get there.

The Chancellor and Home Secretary are both women as are many of the cabinet. There goes that theory.

An excellent post. I'm just bumping it as I'd be interested in direct answers to the questions you raise. To date, there don't appear to be any.

And you think my argument spurious😂

It is an opinion piece, nothing more. I've re-read the original Telegraph article and there is little hard evidence offered. For example, Frost casually states, "Similarly, it’s far from clear why we need a food and veterinary agreement." Perhaps, he should have delved a bit more deeply into the subject. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/veterinary-agreements/#:~:text=A recent study estimates a,in 2023 was £150bn. I don't doubt that there are numerous other instances where hard evidence can be supplied to oppose his view. Frost also states that, "It’s crucial at the early stage of any negotiation to have a clear idea of what is really in your interest and what you might be prepared to give to get it." For once, I am in total agreement with him. Unfortunately, Teresa May and David Davis apparently had no idea of what they wanted and how to get it. Of course, Frost can't be blamed for this but it does beg the question, was the eventual TCA indicative of his clear thinking on the matter? You state that, "The TCA was relatively rushed but Frost was under pressure from Johnson to "get Brexit done"." Agreed but why the rush? Johnson had rid the CPP of Remainer MPs and he had a 80-seat majority. Unlike May, Johnson was in a position to get any negotiated Agreement through Parliament. No doubt the EU would have been mighty cheesed off if Johnson had gone to Brussels and effectively said, 'Forget the past 2+ years of negotiations, let's start again'. Nevertheless, as you correctly point out, good faith was in pretty short supply at the time. What is the worse that could have happened? The EU could have refused to negotiate further and 'No Deal' would have been the outcome. While imo this would have been even more of a disaster for the UK than the current TCA, it could have been a political bonus for Johnson. He could've taken the moral high ground by blaming the EU for the breakdown in negotiations, whilst at the same time giving the Flat Earthers (ERG) exactly what they wanted.