RayC

A completely separate and different issue to the one which we were discussing. In any event, here are two examples where the UK judiciary have ruled against GCHQ (I have assumed that GCHQ was acting on the UK government's behalf). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/15/government-security-gchq-decisions-can-be-challenged-in-court-judges-rule https://www.channel4.com/news/gchq-nsa-broke-law-surveillance-prism-snowdown Nice to be able to agree on something: Apparently Google and me do know better😉

Somewhat pedantic but replace 'countless' with 'numerous' if you wish. Russia. Btw who founded Louisiana? The New England States, etc?

Interesting analogy. However, one could substitute 'The USA', 'Italy' or countless other existing countries for 'The Confederacy'.

It might have been for the Romanovs, but it wasn't for the vast majority of ordinary Russians.

If James Baker did utter those words then it was not reflective of the US (and European) strategy at the time https://on.ft.com/3ZgBehl

Zelensky won a free and fair election, so how exactly is he, "an illegitimate puppet of the West"? Moreover, given that Zelensky's opponent in the final ballot, Poroshenko, was the incumbent president and was pro-EU and pro-NATO in his outlook, why would the West want to replace him with an unknown quantity?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the current conflict in Eastern Europe.

I read the article a couple of times and still do not understand what is his point. Most (all?) current European nation-states are relatively modern artificial constructs (post-18th century) and are an amalgam of the lands of various ancient tribes. Should we doubt their legitimacy? The question in your final sentence is much easier to understand and answer, and that answer is 'No'.

Over two decades experience of what? Getting angry when someone has the nerve to disagree with one of your pronouncements? Misplaced, self-important arrogance doesn't cut it with me. Maybe you should take your own advice re deep breaths and posting.

Not not that either. And you?

No. Are you?

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Imo Trump is ill-advised and/or ill-informed on this matter.

Where did that one come from? And what has it got to do with anything? I've never mentioned anything about the sources of your income. Semantics. Once again, you cannot possibly know that for a fact. It's good. You're right. It's speculation.

No but you appear to be. As I explained the location is irrelevant to my questions. No. I invented questions, not excuses, which you are unable and/or unwilling to answer. It is hypothetical by definition. Your proposed solution is not currently operational. Meanwhile, my questions about your proposed solution go unanswered. Because you wish something to be true does not make it true.

Are you are a lawyer specialising in constitutional or 'security' law? If so, then your replies might carry a bit more weight than the opinions of a layman like myself. However, even if that is the case, you cannot possibly know that any legal challenge is doomed to fail. As I said, it is pure speculation.

The location of the camps is totally irrelevant to my questions Your solution is a hypothetical so, of course, my questions about it are hypothetical.

I have no doubt that some more money will be spent but I very much doubt whether that will equate to 5% of GDP for each and every NATO member, although I suppose an accounting sleight of hand might make it appear so.

That is pure speculation. You cannot possibly know for a fact.

Even if the National Security Act were to be invoked that does not solve the problem. My issues are with your solution concerning the setting up of camps on the south coast. I have posed questions to you about this potential solution throughout this thread and they remain unanswered. How about addressing my unanswered questions contained throughout this thread before I address any more of yours?

I have neither the time nor inclination to read the National Security Act in its' original form but working on the assumption that AI has produced a good summation of it, I remain unconvinced that it would be the correct mechanism to enact your solution. At the very least, I'd imagine that its' use in this context would be the subject of a legal challenge. I didn't miss that statement i.e. "To protect the UK's democracy, economy, and values from foreign interference", I think that using this clause in the context of 'stopping the boats' would also be subject to a legal challenge. I assume that my other questions posted throughout this thread will remain unanswered?

I think that you might be right, Trans. 'Committing to spending' and actually spending are two different things. Nevertheless, I don't see how this commitment can't be seen as a triumph for Trump.

If the US wants to disengage itself from Europe it is, of course, perfectly entitled to do so. However, it will not be without consequence in the medium/ long term. Europe's ties with China are strained at the moment, if the US is not longer interested in being our BFF maybe China will be. Not good news for US exporters. Incidentally, where and when did Trump say that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was justified?

Look back at our exchange throughout this thread and it is clear that I have answered your questions directly, something that you have completely failed to do with mine. Yes you do have a choice. You can either keep things civil or be aggressive. Seems like you have made your choice. Here's one fact for you. If you reply aggressively, condescendingly or rudely I will reply in kind. So just because I don't offer an easy solution to a complex problem, I'm not entitled to point out what I perceive as flaws in other solutions? Right. See my previous posts for some of my questions about the use of camps on the south coast as a form of deterrent. (I have others but why don't you address the outstanding unanswered ones firstly). Wrt to the use of the National Security Act as an enabler for your solution, there might be a legal problem in doing so. My interpretation of the AI generated text below is that it could only be used if individuals were known to be involved in acts which could threaten the UK. Given that there are no passenger lists for those arriving illegally by boat - i.e. their identities are unknown - from my layman's point of view, it's difficult to see how the National Security Act could be invoked in these circumstances. _-----+++++++++++++ "While the National Security Act could be used in specific cases, it's not typically the primary mechanism for addressing illegal immigration. The UK has specific immigration laws and a Border Security, Asylum, and Immigration Bill focused on controlling and managing borders. The National Security Act primarily deals with threats to national security, such as terrorism, espionage, and serious organized crime, and could be invoked against individuals involved in such activities, regardless of their immigration status".

Typical of you. When challenged about potential flaws in one of your 'cure all' solutions for the problems faced by the UK, you do not address the points raised - presumably because you have no explanations - but instead launch into a personal attack and then top it off with some empty, bombastic rhetoric. No, I don't have a solution to the illegal migration problem. I've said that all along. To admit that, "is allowed, you know" as Nigel Farage might reply. You now have a choice: You can either 1) end this exchange 2) engage in polite discussion. It's possible; see my exchange with Noshowjones or 3) continue exchanging insults. Up to you. I'll go along with what you decide.

I understand why you might think that having read some of the posts on AN, but the UK is not too bad really and probably no more dangerous than Gaza, Kyiv or Tehran on a bad day. Some visitors even occasionally make it back home in one piece. I'm based in London; pop round for tea but make sure you leave under coverage of darkness. You'll never make it during daylight hours. Anyway, bon vacation et bon voyage. See you soon 😉