RayC

It's in few countries' national interest - namely Russia and, perhaps, a handful of others - for the Straits to be closed or for further unrest to occur in the region. We are now in 'two wrongs make a right' territory. It was wrong of the US to start this war and it would be wrong for the UK - and other NATO allies to now join in - even if the outcome was that the Straits remained open. The following quotes illustrate well the prevailing sentiment in Europe: Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves remarked it was "a bit rich" for Trump to ask for help from countries he had previously insulted, while Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna questioned the lack of a shared strategic plan, and suggesting that allies cannot be expected to manage a "landing" (the aftermath) when they were excluded from the "take-off" (the decision to start the war). For a small country, Estonia seems to have a number of astute politicians.

"Recent polls indicate that the UK public is not in favour of joining offensive military actions against Iran. A significant majority of voters oppose direct UK involvement in the conflict. Key findings from recent polls (March 2026) by YouGov, Sky News, and Ipsos include: Opposition to Direct Action: Around 70% of the public oppose the UK joining the US in offensive military actions against Iran, while only about 17% support it. Opposition to US Strikes: A majority of Britons (57%) believe the US was wrong to take military action against Iran in the first place. Around 56% of Britons overall disapprove of the US military strikes. Preferred Stance: The most common view among the British public is that the UK's military stance should be purely defensive, focused on protecting UK facilities and civilian areas, rather than engaging in offensive operations. Use of UK Bases: Public opinion is also largely against allowing the US to use UK airbases for strikes on Iran, with roughly half of respondents opposing this, even when the targets were restricted to missile sites. Desire for Diplomacy: A large majority of Britons (63%) support the UK government using diplomacy with all involved parties to de-escalate the situation. Overall, the data from various polling organisations shows a clear public mood of caution and a lack of appetite for further UK military involvement in the Middle East conflict" (Source: Google AI)

If 'he' is Trump then, for once, you are spot on.

Blaming the Tories for 14 years of (largely) misrule - especially setting the scene for the disaster that is Brexit - and accepting that this Labour government have been a crushing disappointment -and achieved little - are not mutually exclusive positions to hold. Unfortunately, it would appear unlikely that Labour will run on a 'Rejoin' platform if Nick Thomas-Symonds is speaking on behalf of this government.

In the words of General Sir Nick Carter, former chief of the UK Defence Staff: "Nato was created as a… defensive alliance. It was not an alliance that was designed for one of the allies to go on a war of choice and then oblige everybody else to follow .... I'm not sure that's the sort of Nato that any of us wanted to belong to."

Or Liz “Dear diary, it’s now been 2 astonishingly successful weeks since I became Trump’s military advisor and told him not to worry what his woke Admirals said about the Strait of Hormuz.”

Where have I supported racist policies and sharia Law? Rhetorical question. That's right, I haven't. Your posts are pitiful.

I would say that it's been lovely passing the time of day with you, Ray, but that would be a lie. I hope that you are able to overcome your bigotry in time but it will clearly take significant effort. Good luck.

The UK government's views on rejoining the EU or a customs union with them are disappointing but not surprising. This government seems to specialise in disappointment. The minister's comments also show how out of touch this government is with public opinion. Nick Thomas-Symonds suggests that there is no public appetite for rejoining the EU when, in fact, the latest opinion poll (conducted this month) suggests that 55% favour rejoining the EU.

Belgium (and Luxembourg) do not "... (bleed) the EU for the generous subsidies ...", they receive monies from the EU for the administrative expenses incurred in housing and running the various EU institutions such as the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, etc: Neither country is in a position whereby they can blackmail Germany or any of the other EU member states. What are they going to do? Blockage the buildings? I have already explained why Belgium did not initially sign off the Canada - EU trade deal and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the receipt of additional subsidies. In what context - and in what way - was Belgium not supportive of the UK's efforts? Luxembourg's financial sector was doing quite nicely while the UK was an EU member. If anything, it was concerned that Brexit might cause a flight of funds to non-European financial hubs such as New York. Macron did not state that there would not be a migrant crisis in the UK if we had remained in the EU. What he said was that having left the EU - and the Dublin Agreement - the UK had no regulatory framework to return illegal migrants to the EU. In any event, I thought that we were promised that it would be easier to deal with illegal migration from outside of the EU. Where is the evidence to suggest that France is aiding and abetting illegal migration into the UK and dumping its' migrant problems on us? All this begs the question, 'If the Withdrawal Agreement was such a bad deal for the UK, why did the UK government sign it'?

How on earth are the contributions made to the EU budget by France, Germany and the Netherlands respectively, the CAP, and the refugee crisis in the Channel interrelated?

All EU member states - including the UK when it was a member - seek to use the EU to further their national interest. Why should that be a surprise? The Belgium "attitude" is determined by their constitution. Major reforms such as trade deals require all 5 Belgian regions to agree to the proposal. Wrt the Canada - EU deal, 4 of the Belgian regional governments approved the deal but Wallonia did not and the Belgian federal government therefore could not sign off on the deal. It was not an attempt by the Belgium government to get higher subsidies as you suggest. The ideas that Belgium, Luxembourg and France are bullying their fellow EU member states and that Belgium are attempting to poison other members against the UK are, frankly, nonsense. Where is there any evidence to support these hypotheses? It is similarly nonsensical to suggest that these countries and the EU are extorting the UK. Again, where is there any evidence to support this proposition. Luxembourg has benefitted from some companies relocating their operations from London post-Brexit. Why shouldn't they? To state the blindingly obvious, Brexit was a self-inflicted wound. It would be naive to think that there is no 'dirty' money circulating in Luxembourg, but I doubt that the Luxembourgish could teach the shadier institutions in the City of London much about money laundering.

I am white. I do not loath myself nor am a masochist, so it would be bizarre if I held anti-white racist views. On the other hand, you make little attempt to disguise your own odious racist views. No, I can't speak for my fellow Brits but you - with your extremely limited understanding of the UK - most certainly aren't a spokesman for us either.

You - and your like - don't own patriotism. I don't seek to destroy my country but hopefully, in some small way, to improve it. I am so glad that the overwhelming majority of British people don't share your narrow-minded, bigoted worldview.

I'd imagine that the indigenous people of the US would agree with you.

You clearly know more about self-loading than me, Ray, but then bigotry is nothing to be proud of, is it.

I guess that helps explain the heterogeneity in the US then.

Update and correction. Apparently, the war isn't won and President Trump now has no idea when it might be, "Asked again how long he thinks the war will last, he said, "I can't tell you that"." (Source: BBC website), however, the President later confirmed on Fox News that, " ... I can change my mind in seconds". I can't help thinking that may be part of the problem.

I agree that such an initiative would go some way to breaking the party system in the Lords, but such a system presents major problems in its' own right. Firstly, there is obviously the question of getting individuals to stand for election. Secondly, there is the problem of getting the public to vote in such elections, especially if they are held at a different time to a GE. Thirdly, how are people expected to be able to make an informed choice, especially if they are voting for a large number of candidates? I wouldn't have known anything about Martin Rees or Sue Black (two cross bench peers) until 10 minutes ago, and personally, I would find it very difficult to choose between the two in any election. Imo the existing overly partisan system needs reform. However, perhaps a non-partisan Upper House, voted for by an engaged electorate, is a pipe dream of mine. If so, then an alternative based on the one used to appoint Supreme Court judges might be employed.

Your bigotry becomes plainer with every post, Ray. I might start taking advice from you seriously, if and when you manage to sort out your own very serious moral deficiencies.

But unless non-politicians can be encouraged to stand for election, an echo chamber full of former MPs is exactly what the Upper House will become. The one thing to be said for the current system is that there are, at least some - albeit too few - non-partisan individuals present (cross benchers) who have some achievement to their name other than being a professional politician. We just need more of them.

You're right of course, but when have facts got in the way of bigotry.

I agree with your sentiments but still foresee problems. Imo ideally, the upper chamber would be filled by non-partisan individuals who came from outside of the political arena e.g. eminent economists, industrialists, scientists, etc. However, whether 1) such individuals could be encouraged to put themselves forward in sufficient numbers and 2) the public would vote in sufficient numbers to afford any election validity is debatable.

It's only taken 700 years . Better late than never I suppose.

You continually and continuously prove that you know virtually nothing about the UK. As I implied earlier, the simpletons are those who think that they can solve a nation's problems by "eradicating" those who look and/or think differently to them.