RayC

Unless the world's leading banks decide to jettison SWIFT, then any BRICS initiative will have virtually zero effect on the world's banking transactions: Incidentally the Bank of China is a member of the Board of Directors of SWIFT. On a global scale Thailand joining BRICS is meaningless. With the exception of China, the US economy dwarfs all others. Perhaps, China (and India?) may one day overtake the US in terms of economic power but - barring an economic catastrophe - that day will probably be well into the second half of this century, and it certainly won't be in a few years time.

I'm not at all confused. I am well aware that Labour were overwhelmingly elected at the last UK general election. I am also well aware that this particularly policy originated from the last Tory administration. If - as appears to be the case here - the current Labour government believes that some policies initiated by the previous Tory administration are worth continuing with, why shouldn't they do so? That seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic course of action. Indeed, to ditch policies for no other reason that the other party thought of it first would be childish and worthy of criticism. I suspect that the reason that 'The Telegraph and you now decide to criticise the policy is - as you correctly point out - simply because a Labour Administration is now in government. Whether it is good policy or not is immaterial. If you are so against this policy, why weren't you more vocal with your criticism of it last November?

The West may be in decline and the 21st century may (eventually) prove to be the 'Asian century', but the chances of the Real, Ruble, Rupee, Yuan or Rand - or the 'Brics' - supplanting the dollar as the world's reserve currency in 3 - 5 years is about as likely as Mikel Areta asking me if I fancy a game of football for Arsenal this evening.

So 'The Torygraph' are criticising the Labour government for espousing a policy initiated by the previous Tory government? Pathetic. Perhaps 'The Telegraph' should turn its' attention to the UK's position as a permanent member of the Security Council which is coming under increasing scrutiny now that we are no longer a member of the EU, and - unlike France - cannot automatically call on the support of 26+ other European nations to support our position.

Spain has always been vocal about its' claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar and that predates its' membership of the EC/EU. However, my point is that the voices from Madrid may become louder as a result of Brexit. Spain may find more support from Brussels and/or other EU member states now that the UK is outside the bloc. Indeed, it started to happen during the negotiations themselves. Your Wikipedia link states that, " ... the EU does not consider Gibraltar to be part of the United Kingdom". Such a statement would not only have been unnecessary prior to the referendum, but would have been inconceivable.

Agreed it is sad. But on the positive side, it's basically only two or three misogynists replying to each other confirming their bias.

Imo US foreign policy since WW2 has left a lot to be desired but let's not pretend Russia's aka the Soviet Union was any better. The Soviet Union was directly responsible for the 'Cold War' in Europe amongst other things.

Apologies my mistake. The link was posted by KhunLa on P1. My reply is on P2.

Nothing more than pedantry, as replacing 'EU' with 'EEC' has absolutely no effect on my argument. However, if it makes you happy: You're right. The EU did not exist in 1991, so I should have stated, " ...would West Germany's allies in the EEC ... The article was linked to on page 2 of this thread and I replied to it there. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but to imply that those who share that opinion, " ... can look at reality and judge it on its merits ... (while those who hold to an alternative viewpoint) .... have to invent a wholly imaginary narrative", is imo diametrically opposite to the truth.

That may well be the case, but that doesn't change my opinion that Spain will be more inclined to raise the issue of Gibraltar's sovereignity once again now that the UK is outside the EU.

Posters should be more sympathetic. Mr Seagal clearly took too many blows to the head while filming his 'blockbusters'. Very sad.

And that will be because I made no reference to Gibraltar's sovereignity, other than to say that imo it is easier for Spain to raise it as an issue now that the UK has left the EU.

Where have I suggested that the views of the people of Gibraltar should be ignored?

Johnson's attitude to the EU antagonised the member states and it is intuitively obvious that it is a lot easier for Spain to raise the question of Gibraltar's sovereign with the UK outside, rather than within, the EU. However, I agree with the rest of your post. Moreover, one has to question Starmer's nous if he thinks the timing of the announcements of the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance closely followed by the ceding of sovereignty of the Chaos Island was good politics

Seems to be hit and miss with DWP. Some people - like me - have no problems whatsoever; others - like you - experience problems and delays. Luck of the draw, I guess🤷

I can't answer that because I don't accept the assumption that Russia has been lied to for 34 years. There is no point us discussing this particular issue any further. An irrational fear ... ... but playing 'Devils Advocate' and accepting that NATO forces would occupy Russia, what is worse 1) almost certain annihilation as a result of nuclear war, or 2) living under NATO occupation? Surely the only rational choice is 2)?

I understand exactly what I am saying. I don't doubt that it is an escalation, but if NATO states that it's troops will not venture into Russian territory why would Russia feel that their sovereignty is threatened and initiate a 'first strike' nuclear attack? You did, in fact, answer my original question - "So (from a Russian perspective) better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia?" - was 'Yes'. There was no need for me to probe further. I should have been more attentive. My apologies.

NATO could simply give a deadline for Russia to withdrew her troops from within Ukraine's internationally recognised borders. If that deadline wasn't met then NATO could state that they will put troops on the ground in order to forcibly push back Russian troops to their side of the border, but that NATO troops would not themselves cross the border into Russian territory. Why would Russia feel that she had backed into a corner by such a scenario? How would it justify Russia initiating a 'first strike' nuclear conflict?

In that case, no reason why NATO shouldn't increase its' support in the field for Ukraine.

So better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia? Yep, that makes sense.

Not that my individual experience proves anything one way or the other, but I have crossed that border twice (once in each direction). If I remember correctly, it was in 2011, and it was about as complicated as crossing the border between Belgium and France i.e. it was pretty much seamless. I wonder if that is still - and will remain - the case? Yes, ultimately it will be the UK government's decision whether to relinquish ownership of Gibraltar. I was pointing out that 1) Spain is more likely to raise questions about Gibraltar's sovereignty now that the UK is outside of the EU and 2) imo adopting a cordial, co-operative attitude with the EU is likely to prove more productive than the hostile, confrontational attitude employed by Johnson. You might disagree but good luck in trying to find any evidence to support the idea that Johnston's approach proved beneficial to the UK.

MAD, that's the theory isn't it? Therefore, neither side will be willing to use nuclear weapons. You're not suggesting that the Blessed Vlad would be mad enough to initiate a first strike nuclear attack are you?

I wonder what approach is best for the UK and more likely to be successful? Starmer's attempts to forge a peaceful, friendly, constructive relationship with the EU, or Johnson's hostile, confrontational, isolationist stance? Hummmm .... There was never a problem crossing between Gibraltar and Spain whilst the UK was a member of the EU. Moreover, any discussions about Gibraltar's sovereignty were effectively off the table while we were an EU member. The Commission remained impartial on the matter and no other EU member state was going to take sides. Now, who knows? As I said, another Brexit "benefit".

So the MSM such as the BBC, CNN, etc with all its' resources is unable to verify and validate its' articles, and is thus unable to produce "the truth", while the alternative media e.g. the one man behind "Buster's blog", has immediate access to verifiable and validity data and is therefore able to publish unquestionable facts. Quite the conundrum.