RayC

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.

Yes, old Seathan is furious! Shame that he's the last of the 100% pure-blood indigenous Brits. Isn't it uncomfortable carrying that enormous chip on your shoulders all day, every day?

Brave men. Without their heroics the world be a much worse place.

And you have missed my point entirely. History - especially recent history - is entirely relevant. There is no reason for the West to take sides in this conflict unless one refers to the historical context. I don't doubt that Ukraine's recent drone attack has made a diplomatic solution more difficult but, as I said previously, it came on the back of Putin all but refusing to engage in serious negotiation. I also don't doubt that unless Russia quickly manages to get Ukraine to accept an unconditional surrender or other things change dramatically then this conflict will escalate. What I do doubt is that the escalation will reach the point of MAD. Again, to repeat, only the insane would allow that to happen, and we are often informed by certain posters on this forum that Putin (and others) are not insane.

Militarily Ukraine was non-aligned in 2014 and had withdrawn its' application to join NATO. There is no reason to think that situation would have changed if Russia had not annexed Crimea. Why should Ukraine not be allowed to join the EU?

Just an excuse. Russia had been offering support to the separatists long before 2014. As I have said previously, imo the root cause of this war is economic I.e. Russia's unwillingness to accept Ukraine's desire to forge closer ties with the EU. A secondary reason is Putin's belief that Ukraine is not a sovereign country and that it should form part of a 'Greater Russia' with Belarus.

Other than nuclear annihilation, it's hard to see how things can get much worse for Ukraine.

The actions came after Putin refused to be involved in any meaningful negotiations. You constantly point to what you perceive as Ukrainian provocation while turning a blind eye seek to the root cause of this conflict - i.e. Russia's refusal to allow Ukraine to pursue closer ties with the EU - and Russian atrocities since the start of this conflict.

I'm sure that it is what Putin would prefer. Far from being history, the issue of right or wrong should be an active concern. Others believe that NATO involvement on the ground would change things See my reply to Impulse So the cause - and ongoing nature of this war - can be attributed to imperialists in the UK and US bankers and arms manufacturers? Agreed Only if you consider Ukraine's right to self-determination to be a proxy war Yes it is a human tragedy and the responsibility for that lays at the feet of Russia. Agreed. An immediate ceasefire and Russian agreement that they will withdraw from Ukraine on condition that measures are put in place to protect and safeguard the interests of any Russian speakers left in Ukraine should do the trick. Only problem is Putin won't agree to that.

It's only a risk if you believe that Putin is insane. He would have to be to risk MAD. Even if Putin is mad enough to contemplate such action, are all the rest of the Russian high command also insane? And what's your alternative? Appease Putin, no matter what? What if he decides he wants more than just Ukraine? The only logical thing would be to give him everything he demands as the alternative is Armageddon as it's already been decided that Putin is insane enough to risk it.

Agreed. There has been a lack of investment in the infrastructure by National Grid since privatisation. The same is true in France, which was one of the reasons why they renationalised EDF. Unfortunately, due to our current financial constraints, it's not really an option for the UK at this time.