RayC

Unfortunately, You are almost certainly correct. You aren't cheering for Putin and/or celebrating the deaths of ordinary Ukrainian civilians but that is more than can be said for certain other posters.

How many dead Ukrainians does it take to satisfy you?

Could you explain why she is unsuitable for the role? Lack of ability? Skeletons in the closet?

For now I'll point out just one potential problem with your solution: What happens if France refuses to allow the RN to escort the dinghies back into French waters? Do we declare war on France?

Yeah, strangely enough I am bit 'touchy' about people posting lies - either directly or inferred - about me. I doubt that I'm alone in that regard. The final paragraph of your original post infers that I have changed my mind which is not the case. "You agree then They arrive illegally in Europe, and are also illegal when they they land in the UK. Took a while, but we got there in the end."

What took a while? Agree with what? Where have I stated or suggested that there are no illegal immigrants arriving either in mainland Europe or the UK? Maybe you should make sure that you are addressing your replies to the correct poster before hitting the 'Send' button in future.

So what is this easy solution to stop the boats? What is this globalist agenda and how does illegal mitigation fit into it?

The illegal immigrants do not land in France, they land (mainly) in Greece and Italy and arrive overland via Turkey. Most illegal arrivals do not want to remain in those countries and set off for other European countries. Are you suggesting that they be returned to Greece, Italy and Turkey and that they are left to deal with the problem? I'm pretty sure that these countries wouldn't be over keen on that solution. Can these 3 countries do more to tighten their borders? I don't know but even if they can, it's effectively a sticking plaster solution.

That's what Reform claimed at the time and you can continue to believe that if you want, but there is no evidence that the person in question, Andrew Parker, was paid to act in the video or that the views he expressed were not genuine. Channel 4 stated that were filming undercover and Parker was not known to them prior to filming. Reform's complaints to Ofcom and the Electoral Commission were rejected. In any event that is all tangential unless you are claiming that NO Reform member is - or has been - racist, in which case you are wrong. https://news.sky.com/story/reform-uk-drops-three-candidates-as-racism-row-constinues-to-engulf-party-13160889

It was a genuine video and it has never been denied that he was a Reform supporter (and canvasser). His profession is irrelevant.

Where's the difference? Is there something that magically turns a Labour candidate from a person who cares about the country into one who hates the country the moment s/he becomes a MP? Of course there isn't. It's ridiculous. I would call it science-fiction but that would be an insult to science. Your logic is flawed. You are being completely irrational. Labour may appeal to the Metropolitan Liberal elite but, it also appears to appeal to the working man in Doncaster given that the city returned all (4) MPs from Labour at the last election.

What absolute nonsense. You quote one tweet from the loathsome Emily Thornberry and therefore conclude that the majority of Labour MPs hate Britain. It's absurd reasoning A Reform canvasser was caught making racist comments during last year's GE campaign. By your rationale, we should therefore conclude that the majority of Reform members are racists.

Your knowledge of Brexit seems to be severely lacking if you believe that support for the EU was limited to left wing socialists. Most of the Conservative government ministers at the time - including the PM, David Cameron - were Remainers. Left-wing socialists were probably more likely to be Brexiters.

I was actually giving you a free 'Get out of jail' card - you could have stated that you were using hyperbole - but you decided to double down, so I'll take you at your word that you believe this Labour administration hates the UK and actively wants to weaken it. And why would it do that? Self loathing? Masochism? There are 403 Labour MPs and 22 cabinet ministers. Do you suppose that they are all self-loathing? I'd say that it's fairly short odds that at least a few of them might be arrogant narcissists. And why would this collective of 403 souls actively try to weaken the UK? Given that it's unlikely that they are all self-loathing and/or masochist, the only logical conclusion can be that they are fifth columnists. Again, the odds that 403 Labour MPs, including 22 cabinet ministers, all fit into this category must be very slim: However, if that is the case, then I must profess some grudging admiration for the foreign power that is managing the operation, while at the same time, wondering why they simply don't complete the job of destroying the UK immediately, given how easy it is to infiltrate the UK political establishment. Given the above, I'd suggest that the most rational conclusion for anyone who feels that this government is failing would be that it is due to their incompetence, and not anything more sinister. Of course, that doesn't fit in so easily with your narrative whereby anyone who doesn't ascribe to your biased and bigoted view of the UK is considered an enemy.

To argue that government policies are having a negative effect on the country is one thing, but it is bias, irrational nonsense to infer that any of the major parties in the UK hates the country and that a Labour government would deliberately try to weaken it.

I tend to agree with you. I don't think that either Putin, Trump, Macron or Starmer is insane, however, there are posters who believe otherwise, and there are certainly those who will excuse Putin for anything.

There are any number of POSSIBLE reasons, e.g as this article suggests to test NATO's resolve. Is it likely to happen? Hopefully not - and nowhere I have suggested that it will - but if it were to happen, I am convinced that some on this forum would seek to justify Putin's actions.

Hopefully things won't escalate further, but no doubt if Russia does attack a NATO country, the Putin apologists will tell us that Russia's reaction is fully justified and that Estonia, Finland, Latvia, etc brought it on themselves.

So in your list of 'freebies' supposedly provided by the state, you weren't comparing the treatment of illegal immigrants in Italy and Greece with the UK but, in fact, with another unnamed country? I'm not the one avoiding the question. You inferred - and have done so again - that the UK treats illegal immigrants better than any other country. I asked you to provide evidence to support that premise, something that you have failed to do.

You've obviously conducted a detailed comparison of the ways in which illegal immigrants are treated in the various individual European countries and come to the conclusion that the UK is by far the most generous. Perhaps, you could share the full details of your survey here.

So a Somalian illegally entering Italy who has no desire to stay in Italy but is en route to the UK is not a British problem, not even an Italian one but an EU one. Right. Under your scenario where the UK washes its' hands of all responsibility, why shouldn't they? Italy doesn't want the problem. The EU doesn't want the problem. The illegal migrant doesn't want to be in an EU state. Let the individual make their way unhindered to the UK. Problem solved from the Italian/EU perspective. And you think that means that each and every illegal migrant trying to reach the UK should therefore be intercepted before they are able to do so? The Normandy coast is 640km long, the departure points vary and these people don't have a regular schedule for crossings like the ferries but that's all irrelevant? Agreed. France, Italy, Greece and the rest of Europe would prefer that they weren't there. But they are and they need to be dealt with. I don't often agree with Lee Anderson but he is correct when he says that the UK needs to strengthen its' own border controls and to improve the processing of refugees/ illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, even doing that won't solve the problem. Illegal economic immigrants need to be stopped from embarking on their journeys. I can't think of an easy solution but I firmly believe that it will need a coordinated European response. However, I imagine that you would be against any form of co-operation with the EU.

The vast majority of illegal migrants first port of European call is Greece or Italy. Is the rest of Europe meant to shrug its' shoulders and say, 'Your problem'? What do you suggest the Greek and Italian authorities do to those who seek to cross their borders: Force them to stay?

This is not meant as a compliment but at least your racism is undisguised.

And you fail to mention the involvement of the GRU and SVR in Ukraine or Russian support for the separatists in Donbass (including right-wing Russians fighting in the region). So, CIA involvement and the denazification of Ukraine justifies the annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of Ukraine? No, I don't think so.

That makes no sense at all. What are you actually saying? Because Ukraine has escalated the situation with its' drone attack then nuclear conflict is now inevitable? "The West has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted ..." whereas, of course, the Kremlin is always true to its' word.