RayC

And you consider this post to be evidence in support of what exactly?

Sweden asked the UK to extradite Assange to Sweden to face charges of rape and sexual assault. Perfectly legitimate behaviour between two countries who both believe in the rule of law. Assange made a conscious decision not to take the opportunity to clear his name but, instead to go on the run and play the victim (as he seemingly continues to do).

I doubt that Nawalny felt safe in Germany given Putin's propensity to assassinate opponents outside of Russia. Perhaps, Nawalny reasoned that he would be safer in full view i.e. in Russia?

This idea that the MSM is left-leaning is hardly supported by the evidence. In the UK, the Sun, Express, Mail and Telegraph are all right-of-centre with only the Mirror and Guardian on the left. I can't claim to know to know that much about newspapers in Europe as a whole but I do not from my time in Belgium that, at least, two of the major dailies are centre-right , namely 'Le Soir' and 'La Libre Belgique'. Wrt the inconsistency in labelling of 'far-right' and 'far-left', it appears that some posters are suffering from selective memory loss. It wasn't that long ago when Corbyn was Labour leader, and there wasn't a day that went by without there being a warning about him being a 'far-left, Marxist radical' who was a danger to society.

For once we agree on something: You do have to look at the bigger picture. Since Putin assumed power in 2000, he has continual/ continuously interfered in the affairs of Ukraine (and other neighbouring states). I doubt that scenario formed part of any NATO/ Russia agreements discussed in the '90s. The whole analysis is flawed for that reason alone.

Navalny was 47; married; 2 kids. Very few people in that position have any great desire to be imprisoned, tortured and murdered.

So nothing to see here? We should consider it perfectly normal for a State to murder its' citizens?

You have highlighted yet another problem with the FPTP system. Not only does it return a government which fails to win a majority of the votes cast, many (most?) of the individual MPs have the support of less than 50% of their constituants: The system is inherently flawed and undemocratic. Had the election been run under PR, the UK would probably now have a coalition government comprising of Labour, Lib-Dems and the Greens. No way of knowing, of course, but I doubt that the Winter Fuel cut (and subsequent debacle) would have happened in those circumstances.

There you go: https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-far-left-european-parliament-miss-out-million-bureaucracy-esn-ela/

😂 Thanks for pointing that out. No idea how I could have missed it. I thought that the current crop of politicians on the European side of the pond were bad, but compared with the US we are seemingly blessed with political geniuses.

The Greater Russia stuff comes straight from the horse's mouth http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Ukraine became a sovereign country in 1991. Sovereign countries should be free to take their own decisions. It really is as simple as that.

Generally speaking, I'm not in favour of referendums: Imo governments are elected to govern and that's what they should do. Having said that, if we are ever to rejoin the EU, then a 'Join' vote in a referendum would probably be a pre-requisite for doing so, if we are to avoid civil unrest. If the result was to stay out, I doubt that the issue would be raised again until 2050 at least. By that time, I will either be too old to care or be pushing up the daisies.

It is indeed a long and interesting piece, but it does not - as you claim - prove "beyond the (sic) measure of a doubt" that promises were made that NATO would NEVER expand eastwards, and there is no formal agreement to this effect in any of the accords. In any event, imo the NATO element is nothing but a smokescreen for the 'raison d'être' for Putin's actions. Firstly, Putin has always believed that Ukraine should form part of a Greater Russia. Secondly, Putin has always been opposed to Ukraine joining the EU. He warned Ukraine against doing so, and backed up these warnings with sanctions e.g. banning exports of certain goods to Ukraine. Putin's fear - probably justified - was that Ukraine's accession to the EU would negatively affect the Russian economy, and that it may cause the Russian public to look on enviously at their Ukrainian neighbours, thus possibly undermining his authority. Neither event could be allowed to happen and we are where we are.

You're right: I hadn't figured that out. I assumed that the underlined text was for emphasis not a link. Most other posters use a descriptive link. Maybe you try doing so in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion.

Actually if those figures are accurate, rejoin would win. 8% would not vote therefore - in the unlikely event that all 11% of 'Don't knows' voted "Leave" - there would still be a majority in favour of rejoining: (48/92)*100 = 52.2% (Wouldn't that be a coincidence!)

For once we agree. However, my point is that Cameron put self before anything else. The only reason he promised a referendum was to attempt to strengthen his position as leader of the Conservative Parliamentary party. Farage was - and remains - an effective politician, but there was no great public clamber for a Brexit referendum in the early 2010s. Cameron opened a Pandora's Box and we are where we are now: A fractious country. I dislike Johnson but have nothing other than complete contempt for Cameron.

The parallel with 1939 is that trying to appease an expansionist, tyrannical dictator is doomed to failure. The rest of your post is absolute tosh as usual.

And you consider these non-contextualised snippets to be sufficient proof of what exactly? Rhetorical question: They say and prove absolutely nothing.

You keep crossing your fingers, closing your eyes tight and wishing really, really hard and you never know your luck😁

Is it any wonder that the UK is in the state it is, having suffered from the mismanagement of these arrogant, egoistical, inept fools over the past 14 years. Is there no end to the amount of incriminating evidence?

Governments are there to govern. They should act in the country's best interests. Unfortunately,it was a tenet that Cameron forgot.

To our American cousins: 'ave 'im. Our gift to you. Please note that we operate a 'No returns'policy.

Those opposed to the EU are always complaining that it needs to do more to uncover and prosecute those guilty of corruption; however, when it does precisely that, the same people complain that such investigations are nothing more than a political witchhunt. Hypocrisy much?

I guess that you don't see the irony in complaining about the BBC's use of the term 'far-right', while at the same time, labelling anyone who is not a supporter of FPO, AfD, National Rally, Fidesz, etc as being left-wing😂 How did " ... democracy prevail over the EU's undemocratic, failing Federalist left wing project"? The EU were fully supportive of this national election as they are of those in all member states.

You are, of course, completely correct. I got as far as Kennedy "explaining" that Gorbachev bargained German unification for Baker's assurance of no eastwards NATO expansion, before giving up: Complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, Baker was not in a position to give such assurances. Secondly, Gorbachev had no real say in the matter wrt East Germany. It was not a question of what Russia wanted to do with East Germany, rather would West Germany accept reunification, on what terms and would West Germany's allies in the EU, notably France and the UK, be supportive of reunification (initially at least, both Mitterrand and Thatcher had reservations and were lukewarm in their support). Oh, by the way Ted. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, not 1991 as you stated. How can anyone take seriously a man who can't even get the basic facts regarding dates correct?