RayC

Year the first Brexit benefit appears? If so, you are clearly more optimistic than Jacob Rees-Moog; he reckons that it was will take 70 years for the benefits to become obvious.

The direction of travel will be (largely) dictated by the cost. Maybe all will become clearer after the budget

I disagree completely. Where are these many proven examples? Where is the evidence that the Single Market has had a negative effect on flexibility(?), energy production and technology within the EU? Far from being a disaster, the Single Market has been an overwhelming success. The free movement of goods, services, capital and human resources have all stimulated economic growth. In addition, the combined value of the Single Market means that the EU has a far superior position compared to the UK when it comes to negotiating external trade deals. The EU model was not predicated on a "United States of Europe", and the very fact that it operates outside of this model proves that federalism is not a necessary condition for its' existence However, you do have a point wrt the ECB. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as to say that the ECB is "a dead flogged horse", it is certainly far from a Derby winner. The ECB has been largely successful in controlling inflation throughout its' existence, but it was almost completely ineffective when it came to regulatory matters for the first 15 years of irs' existence. It is now more proactive in this regard. The elephant in the ECB's room is not so much its' lack of fiscal tools but the single currency itself. The introduction and implementation of the Euro was completely blotched. Whether the fiscal and monetary rules governing the implementation of the Euro would have been sufficient to allow to be a success is highly debatable. What is incontestable is that having developed rules to then disregard them completely was an act of wanton irresponsibility, and the member states continue to pay the price today. ? You supply no evidence to support the rhetoric. Where and how has the UK economy diversified since Brexit? The UK is still reliant on services, in particular the Financial Services sector. Whilst it is true that some banks are re-locating their HQs back to the UK, during the period 2018 and 2021, there was an 18% decrease in financial services exports to the EU, with only a 4% increase in exports to non-EU countries to offset it. This is in addition to the exodus of capital in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Wrt goods. There has been no significant upturn in manufacturing in the UK, and the much promised trade deals with the US, China, India, etc - which were supposedly going to be so simple to conclude outside of the EU - remain nothing more than a figment of a Brexiter's imagination. If this is success then the sooner the Labour government scupper it, the better.

What is ludicrous is the casual manner in which you imply that Russia's historical attitude to Ukraine has no bearing on Russian foreign policy when, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. The article is extremely balanced. It acknowledges "The West's" involvement in Ukraine, however what it doesn't do - as you imply in the section which you quote - is that the current conflict is the fault of "The West". The following paragraph is more relevant of the overall tone of the article: "There can be little doubt that NATO expansion irritated Russia and that Putin’s approach to democracy, to Ukraine and to the West did not help, but they cannot have been the root causes of the tension that was present from the moment of Ukraine’s independence. This was rooted more fundamentally in Russia’s conception of its national identity, its borders, and its role in the region." Based on the evidence presented throughout the article, the authors logically conclude that: " .... Russia’s desire to limit Ukraine’s independence and to retake control of at least some part of Crimea did not emerge during the Putin era. Rather they were there from the very beginning. Second, the example set by the Orange Revolution was seen as threatening to Russia because such a revolution might be replicated in Russia. Democracy in Ukraine would undermine the claim that democracy could not work in Russia and would undermine Russia’s geopolitical position. The first point is significant because it undermines two arguments about the source of the 2014 conflict that are made both by critics of the West and by critics of Putin. Critics of the West assert that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was the West’s fault. The central support for this is that NATO enlargement (beginning in 1997) and NATO support for Ukrainian membership (enunciated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit) left Russia little choice but to respond. There is room for considerable debate concerning the wisdom of US, European and NATO policy after 1991, but it cannot be the source of Russia’s designs on Ukraine, which very clearly predated any of the policies that critics point to."

There you go. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/26/russia-west-ukraine-triangle-of-competition-1991-2013/

Imo Assange is an egotistical narcissist. He used every trick in the book - both legal illegal - to avoid extradition to face the charges of rape and sexual assault in Sweden. The Wikipedia entry about the case is damning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#:~:text=On 18 November 2010%2C Marianne,Arrest Warrant to execute it.

I agree with your conclusion, and I'd like to believe your premise that Corbyn's election as leader of the Labour Party was part of some underhand Tory strategy. Unfortunately I think that this act of destruction was self-imposed and no outside influence was at play. Fortunately for Labour, the Tories decided to import this type of political masochism themselves.

Again, we agree: We Yes, we have been through this before and no, it was not until after 2008 that Putin began to target Ukraine. While the attached link offers a very condensed timeline, it makes clear that Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs started before 2008. Also note Putin's remark to Bush at the NATO summit in 2008, "Ukraine is not even a nation-state". https://www.cfr.org/timeline/ukraines-struggle-independence-russias-shadow

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.