RayC

You've become a EUrophile. I'm delighted.

Probably a wise decision. Most of the Parisians have returned from their summer break. Paris is much better visited in July and August when the Parisians aren't there😉

More wishful thinking, methinks. I wonder what are the odds for a double of 1) Starmer not lasting 4 years as PM and 2) the sunny uplands of Brexit being viewed within the next 4 years? Upwards of 10,000-1 would be my estimate.

You're right of course: Such people will almost certainly benefit the existing EU member states. I don't know why I was being so negative previously, so many thanks for helping me view enlargement in a more positive light.

What this opinion piece fails to do is explain either (1) why the EU's survival is dependent upon its' enlargement or, (2) how the security of the existing EU member states will be enhanced by enlargement? Imo a case can be made that the security of existing members will be compromised by admitting the likes of Albania and Serbia. Throw in the likely large financial costs to existing members in admitting some of the Balkan countries and the case for enlargement - at least, at this point in time - doesn't sound very convincing to me.

Ah yes ... the promised sunny uplands. Maybe they will come into view immediately after the next total solar eclipse occurs in the UK? However, given that I have a positive nature, I might be overly optimistic about the delivery date.

I'm unsure whether you are being flippant, but taking your comment at face value, imo the suggestion has merit although the chances of it happening are very slim. As you say, India is a huge market with great potential. There would be many issues to work through; for example, free movement would have its' disadvantages and well as its' advantages but the potential rewards of an Indian accession to the EU are enormous.

I doubt that many SMEs in the UK who export to the EU share your view about Brexit. Still, there are always winners and losers, and so many others have gained so much from our decision to leave ... Oh, wait ... Btw: I thought that the EU was meant to have fallen apart already given that 'they need us more than we need them'?

I think that you are moving into trolling territory. However, one last time. When Hitler came to power in Germany, he quickly set about dismantling the German constitution. Hitler did not believe in democracy. Surely even you will concede that? Ergo the idea that Hitler would have allowed the UK to remain a democracy and hold a fair and fair general election is absurd. Pushing the absurdity even further, if such elections were, in fact, held the prospect that Hitler would have permitted Atlee - a socialist - or Churchill - his avowed enemy - to form a government is patently ridiculous.

There is nothing in the article to support any of the statements which are made. It is merely Marxist rhetoric. I would suggest that a pertinent question is, 'What use is an Empire if you cannot control it?'. The idea that if Churchill had signed a peace accord with Hitler in 1940, then the UK would have been left with complete autonomy to manage its' - and the Empire's - affairs is imo, at best naive and deluded.

Churchill was an imperialist; no one is denying that. However, he did not view maintaining the Empire as an end in itself. Churchill's prime objective was to maintain the security and sovereignity of the UK. Churchill correctly identified the threat posed by Hitler as early as 1932 and realised - again correctly - that defeating Hitler was of upmost priority. Everything else was tangential to that.

I am struggling to know what point you are trying to make. Whatever it is, your argument appears to rest on the assumption that Churchill's prime objective was to maintain the Empire. Playing devil's advocate and accepting this assumption, there is enough evidence to suggest that Hitler could not be trusted and that entering into a peace treaty with him would not have ensured the security of the UK or the Empire.

I am but that is not the point. The point is that whether by luck, judgement or moral fortitude, Churchill made the correct decision in 1940. Before you object and say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, I really don't understand how - even allowing for the overwhelming desire of Europeans at the time to avoid another war so soon after WW1 - a British politician could ignore what was happening in Germany and think that a Nazi-led Europe would be in any way beneficial.

You are both spot on. While the 'Final Solution' may not have been developed until 1941, enough was known about Nazi aims and the treatment of Jews in 1940. Irrespective of whether it would have in the UK's best interests to sign a peace treaty with Hitler (it wouldn't), Churchill was morally correct in his stance towards Germany.

Let's not beat around the bush. Are supportive of the Nazi party's aims and actions up until June 1940 given what we think was known at that time?

The existence of death camps might not have been known in 1940 but the persecution of Jews started almost as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933 and was well documented. By 1939, the philosophy and aims of the Nazis were common knowledge.

It would have made absolutely no difference. Do you really think that the UK would have been independent? Do you think that Hitler would have allowed Churchill free reign when it came to decisions on defence? The UK would have become a vassal state. It's as simple as that.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think that utter nonsense - do you really believe Jews would have been allowed to live freely in the UK? Their experience in Vichy France suggests otherwise - you do realise that by signing a peace accord with Hitler, the UK would have been tacitly supporting Nazism? You think that would have been morally correct?

Oh my giddy aunt🤦

The UK may have had its' problems post-WW2 but it beggars belief that anyone can seriously suggest that we would have been better served by being nothing more than a Nazi vassal state.

You have not shown any qualms about making lengthy posts in the past, so why start now? The article which you link to concludes that far-right groups were present at the Maidan protests. Imo this is undeniable. However, the link in no way supports your contention that " ... at least 3000 heavily armed far rightists (were) directing the pushback against the authorities." Imo the Maidan Revolt cannot be ignored when it comes to any discussion about the causes of this war. I have explained on numerous occasions why I think that the revolt was justified and legitimate i.e. because Yanukovych refused to enact his mandate. If you think otherwise you should make a counter argument. To date, you have not. (Note: I will read or watch anything you post within reason: Please do not post 30-minute videos or 50 page articles and expect me to read/ watch them)

And no one should kid themselves that this is a "friendship of equals". China is one dictating the terms of this relationship. As a business associate once said to me, "Anything for a friend for a fee".

If, as you appear to suggest, Russia is incapable of winning this war why doesn't Putin withdraw Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. Once that is done, decisions can be made about the price Russia should pay for starting this unnecessary war.

I am unsure what points you are trying to make but there is nothing in your reply that addresses my post, and it certainly doesn't in any way negate my contention that the responsibility for this war lies firmly with Russia (Putin). You attempt to paint Zelensky as a failure and imply that he is being anti-democratic by not holding an election. In normal, peaceful times you might have a point and the Ukrainian people might agree with you. However, of course, these are not normal times for Ukraine and attempting to hold an election now would be ridiculous. The Maidan Uprising WAS a mass revolt. You are being disingenuous and economical with the facts in attempting to portray it as anything else. It may have started out with a protest march of +/-20,000 people in Kyiv, but over the course of five days the numbers involved swelled to 800,000. There were also sizeable protests in other Ukrainian cities. There may well have been " .. a nasty undercurrent of far right forces fomenting unrest for their own ends ..", but the overwhelming majority of protesters were ordinary Ukrainian citizens and the only "echoes of January 6th" were to be found in the tiny number of far right agitators. You attempt to draw a parallel between Chechnya and Ukraine when none exists. Chechnya is part of Russia; Ukraine is - or would be were it not for Russia - an independent, sovereign nation. You imply that Yanukovych's action was justified as it was an attempt to avoid (armed?) conflict with Russia and build "cordial relations" with her, but the obvious conclusion is that the terms of this 'cordial relationship' would be dictated by Russia. What independent, sovereign nation would accept such conditions? What happens post-war depends upon many factors. There will inevitably be those who become wealthy (wealthier) on the back of any reconstruction. And ... ? Would you prefer that Ukraine remains nothing more than a very large demolition site?

I note that throughout our exchanges you make no attempt to address my points directly. I am not being at all facetious. I did not claim that Poland was a great power akin to Russia or the US. You are (deliberately?) misrepresenting what I wrote (in order to avoid answering the question?). You justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the premise that NATO (and the EU) are impinging on Russia's 'sphere of influence' by inviting Ukraine to join their respective organisations. Poland shares a border with Belarus (a puppet state of Russia) and developments there i.e. the increase in Russia's military presence prior to 2022 might be considered within Poland's - and by extension the EU/NATO's - 'area of interest'. By your line of argument, Poland - with the aid of NATO - would have been justified in reacting militarily against this provacation. Or perhaps you may hold an alternative view i.e. that Poland (and the Baltic States) should never have joined NATO (or the EU for that matter) in the first place? I am continually amazed that some people cannot see - or refuse to accept - Putin for what he is: A Cold War warrior who refuses to accept the fact that, with the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia is no longer the second great power on the world stage. It appears that Putin is determined to correct what he perceives as an injustice even if it risks starting another Europe-wide conflict.