RayC

😂 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?

None of which has any bearing on whether Starmer will be PM this time next year. You are letting your personal dislike towards Starmer affect your reasoning.

It is nonsense to suggest that Johnson was ousted for less. Johnson was removed because his own MPs (eventually) grew tired of his continual lies to parliament: Starmer has not lied to parliament. To repeat for the umpteenth time: 'Never say never', but in the absence of a bombshell revelation Starmer isn't going anywhere soon. It is currently simply wishing thinking on the part of Labour's opponents to believe that he will be removed from office. Your condescending parody of Rayner is probably indicative of how those in Conservative Central Office view their former 'Red Wall' supporters. Therefore, it was hardly a surprise that this group of voters turned their collective back on the Tories at the last election. The next couple of years may well be problematic for those of us in the UK. It is naive and unrealistic to think that the legacy of 14 years of Tory (largely) mismanagement can be undone overnight.

I have brought into nothing. The facts speak for themselves: Russia invaded Ukraine. QED. The implication that Russia was goaded into this war by 'The West'/the US/ the EU/ NATO - add/delete as necessary to fit the circumstances - is nothing but a conspiratorial fallacy concocted by those who seek to excuse Putin's actions. I have no idea whether this is true and I suspect that you don't either. Whatever the reason, it is a fact. Your comment is superfluous and irrelevant. What was that you were saying about propaganda?

That'll be the EU's fault🤷

Muslim asylum seekers: They are responsible for all other crimes known to man, so why not this one?

There are +/-120 Ministers who owe their position to Starmer plus, no doubt, numerous ambitious back-benchers attempting to court favour with him. Do you really think that any of them are going to risk their political careers three months into a new parliament on the almost imperceptible chance that Starmer can be overthrown now? Notwithstanding that, any member of the Commons or Lords is covered by parliamentary privilege, so MPs and Lords can stand up in the Houses of Parliament and accuse Starmer of being the Anti-Christ without fear of prosecution. None have done so, because you believe that they are holding information back until the "most ruinous time" (whenever that may be). I'll play devil's advocate and give that theory the credit it doesn't deserve. However, if these rumours are true and the contents of this super injunction are so widely known, why haven't the overseas media released the details, and why aren't there numerous articles on the web about it? My theory: It's all a lot of nonsense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

But the inappropriately named 'Freedom Party' didn't get a majority. They got 29.2% of the vote, so they have no democratic mandate.

How has the "full force of NATO ... been thrown at Russia ..", when Ukraine is not allowed to use NATO manufactured weapons to strike at targets inside Russia? If only NATO's full force has been deployed at the outset, then this war might be over and the despot in the Kremlin deposed.