Baracouda

Maybe we wont, maybe the EU would have gone in a different direction should 'remain' would have won. Personally, I thought 'remain' was going to win by a good 20-25 points, and whilst being a third party to other conversations in the office, it was clear many didn't really know what they were voting on. Personally, I thought the whole process was a joke, there was no real clear this is what you are voting on, and this is what your getting if you leave. But hey that's modern day Politicians. Bit like the first Scottish vote, but you get to keep the pound just with no fiscal or monetary controls on it. So all good then.

I dont think it is disingenuous, I thought it was the most natural direction of the EU on whatever timescales. When was the next realistic 'referendum'. So, as one leave voter, the joint army and direction of becoming a single state with no future prospects of a referendum. It felt the right choice.

we did and left

That was true, he was unelectable purely on the grounds he would give up nuclear weapons. But nevertheless, he stood for what he believed in. You should blame the labour party for giving him the platform.

Maybe he would, but at least Corbyn will always have my respect for standing on what he believed. As opposed to 90% of politicians, who stand on what they think gets them elected. Then start back tracking on every promise over the course of their term.

I was merely expressing my opinion at the time, I was pro free movement of people & goods, but I was opposed to the direction it was heading in terms of a state.

I dont mean literally, but if you come out with a pro-EU policy... and did it well and had the charisma to charm people. It would be fine especially when you all he has to do, is just point at the conservatives. I wouldn't vote for him and will abstain again, but in a democracy it should be fine for someone to stand on a policy they believe in.

I voted leave on the sovereignty issues, I like most Brits would have been happy with the traditional free movement of people & goods, but when it started becoming a de-facto state, a single currency and speculation of a joint army. Along with the courts etc. You really have to wonder what it was becoming. Think it's perfectly fine for Starmer to come out and effectively call anyone who voted leave an 'idiot', if so many people in the country have changed their mind he would win by a landslide. But his problems go way beyond his policies. Whilst Corbyn wasn't the most popular in that, he didn't win the election. At least most people could articulate what Corbyn stood for and there was a believe Corbyn believed in his policies. Starmer on the other hand, doesn't appear to have any inherit values and says whatever he thinks will gain political traction. Starmer he also appears to lack any charism and considering, the Johnson government any competent opposition leader should be in a 15-20 point poll lead by now.

Yes absolutely, but that's the consequences of signing a 'security guarantee' with Ukraine. If we were not willing to go to war then we should have found a peaceful comprise before Russia invaded and avoided the war.

Yes, I agree that was its purpose. But if we cared so much about a document we signed. Then the United Kingdom and United States, should have gone to war with Russia. Or put our armies in Ukraine stating we have guaranteed the survival of the Ukraine state.

This whole concept is laughable. Not sure, how anyone can state by doing a 'false flag' 4 months into a war, justifies your action 4 months earlier... secondly, if you are at war. Then Ukraine is morally and militarily justified in targeting any part of Russia it sees fit.

It was not a legal document, it was merely a memorandum. If it was a legal document i.e a Treaty both the United Kingdom and United States as joint signatures were duty bound to declare war on Russia. As a political realist, it is a well held view; is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasizes the role of the nation-state and makes a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by national interests, or, at best, national interests disguised as moral concerns. I/You might not like what Russia considers to be their 'national interests' but it doesn't mean they are not acting in what they perceive to be their national interests.

No, I don't believe the Hungarians or Poles did, but nevertheless they took land that was seen as important for various reasons, improving defence lines etc. All clear context, that the world knew what was going on and preparation for it. Unlike Iraq, Ukraine does have significant benefits to Putin/Russia in terms of national defence. That doesn't make it morally correct, but when you consider national security concerns they rarely care about moral concerns. Like America with Cuba. It would have been a huge mistake to let the Soviets put nukes there. When you see the declassified documents and the plans the Americans where thinking about (including bombing Miami), to blame on Cuba to justify starting a war they have no moral justification but equally from a US national security stand point, removing them at any cost was justified. Russia has no moral justification and if you focus on the excuses governments make when they do something then you will never understand why. I still believe... that Russia believes (for whatever reason) that is was the only choice for their national security reasons and hence the wider context of the America/China collusion course and potentially Russia sees or knows that a larger military conflict is likely. Moscow is close to Ukraine.

Hungary and Poland also took a 'chunk' from Czechoslovakia. Not sure I ignored that fact or have disputed that fact. But equally, I don't dispute the fact the West also invades 'Sovereign' nations under false pretext like Iraq. I was clearly making a point there is far more going on than just Ukraine, China are supporting the conflict increasing their trade with Russia as is India. Whilst China and America are on a collusion course, the American hegemony is clearly being challenged and will continue to be challenged over the coming years. The Ukraine conflict is the first of many dominoes.

Whilst there is clear propaganda from all sources for the current conflict. Everyone is focussing on their own talking points and we will have a much clearer picture in 10-20 years when documents start getting declassified on what really happened and what is being said behind closed doors. Very similar to how the narrative in Iraq with WMDs has changed in the last 20 years. If anyone thinks the western media or governments are telling the whole truth, how the Western leaders are championing how much they are doing/supplying to Ukraine, when in reality most of these are empty pledges without any real substance or to be delivered in 9 months. Hindsight is 20-20, which is why historical dilettantes of various stripes have numerous opinions as to when World War II “really” began—Others say that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, finalized in 1919, assured that an aggrieved Germany would inevitably resume the “War to End All Wars.” Some say the first act of World War II was Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria in blatant defiance of the League of Nations, while similar claims are made of Italy’s 1935 invasion of Ethiopia. Some might cite 1936 for Adolf Hitler’s risky but successful occupation of the Rhineland combined with the Spanish Civil War, while others might bring up Japan’s 1937 invasion of China. So in answer to your question, the clear difference with Sudetenland was that the 'West' gave it to Germany, without even consulting the Czech's. But other than that, it is quite clear it is one of many flash points going on in the world similarly to the 1930s, with many threats and counter threats being made. We have the US threatening china if it builds a base in the Soloman Islands, this would be a clear threat and crossing red lines and would lead to war. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/usa-threats-china-solomon-islands-military-b2065742.html). Americans response to Soloman Islands, is very similar to the Russia's with regard to Ukraine prior to military action. “We have respect for the Solomon Islands’ sovereignty. But we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence... then we would have significant concerns, and we would very naturally respond to those concerns.” At the same time, we have China continuing to threaten the US over Taiwan and their involvement in the breakaway region. Japan/US replying that if China invades Taiwan it will go to war. China replying that Taiwan is a part of china etc... We have the nuclear deals with Iran, and subsequently the issues this is having with America and the rest of the middle east. Its clear threats to the Saudis. At the same time, Iran is now joining BRICS along with Argentina, both Russia and China are pushing this to a rival to the Western economic system. Talks of creating a BRICS reserve currency in direct challenge to the dollar.

Turkey was always going to agree, if Sweden and Finland agreed to what he wanted. Sweden and Finland have agreed to full cooperation with Turkey in the fight against the Kurdistan Workers' Party and the lifting of the embargo on the supply of Turkish defence industry products. The Nordic states also confirmed that the PKK is "a proscribed terrorist organisation".

I can see the appeal for Scots... but when you try to and consider the implications of a vote it fast becomes quite scary and mind boggling the impact it would have. It is beyond my comprehension just how many national organisations would be impacted. Every aspect of society/governance appears to be regional organisations overseen by national organisations. * Policing, regional policing and joint task forces with Mi5 and counter-terrorism units and national bodies overseeing the national threats. * National security with border and military. What do they look like. I haven't checked their recent comments, from memory the SNP didn't seem pro-military. * Education, regional with a national structure for the universities and employers to understand. I assume that any student would have to apply as a foreign student post divorce. * Health, regional hospitals underpinned by national specialist hospitals. And that's just the easy to think of examples. I suspect that most if not all of the national organisation/Specialists are based in England primarily London. I suspect that there would be a massive decline in trade across the border and the opportunities south of the border for the Scots would be limited particularly with work/education or at least lots of hoops to jump through, whilst it works both ways their trade and job opportunities within the EU would naturally improve, assuming they get membership immediately.

I am sure Johnson, is hell bent on being the 'last prime minster' at this stage. When you talk about a serious government, I have stopped voting and largely consider this to a pointless exercise with no confidence in Westminster. I find it laughable that we live in a 'true' democracy, when it appears that every party lie openly, plays word-gymnastic over any question and transparency/truth are in short supply, Westminster spends most of its time trying to control public opinion, instead of listening to it. Democracy seems to exist like a leap-year and the only time they are concerned with the electorate. I wouldn't want the Scots to leave, nor do I believe there is real benefit in them leaving other than them re-joining the EU (and Escaping Westminster) but it is their choice. I have serious concerns about what it would look like post-divorce. With every aspect of society being closely woven together and needing to be unpicked and if the divorce was messy from the EU. England/Scotland divorce would be more far reaching. Inevitably their wont be any agreements pre-vote, and 5 years arguing about it.

My understanding of the ruling was, it is not a ban on abortions but moreover a legal clamity. The supreme court ruled that it was not within the constitution. Therefore, it cant be ruled at the federal level and must be enforced at the state level.

The whole point of me originally posting, was to clearly show just how dangerous the situation is. Whether people can see Russia's views or not. The situation with Nato effectively, being at war with Russia. In real terms, we are supplying arms, equipment, training to Ukraine to defeat Russia. Which makes it a 'proxy' war. If any troops were to actively take part in a military exercise it becomes a real war. But the mere fact, that we are in a proxy war with Russia. Russia is in a position that it wont back down and can't lose (its view point) and a Russian victory would be a defeat for Nato (i.e we failed to stop Russia). The risks are very high, if this war goes on for months and possibly years. Which is the likely impact of our weapons and equipment its going to extend the war if not create a stalemate. With no possible peace deal on the table or any conceivable circumstances where peace can be agreed. Then one side needs to win and one lose. The risk of drawing America, UK or Polish troops into the battle are significantly possible at a later stage. The risks of nuclear war grows each day.

from a political view point Crimea makes perfect sense. It was the southern fleet of Russia... So whether it should have it or not. Russia was unwilling to accept not having a home for its southern fleet. Now, thats not me saying they were right. That is me commenting that was Russia strategic goal.

no, I said that is the only terms that I can see a peace deal to happen. Again, I said I don't believe any peace deal will happen. Russia wont give up land without something in return and Ukraine wont give it land. So, there is no option of peace. I am not insisting anything should happen. But I am stating that is the only terms Russia will accept at this stage.

and to do that, you will need to send Nato troops. Russia is slowly pushing forward, very slowly but still its moving forward.

Russia feels its justified. But I am not Russia or Russian. You understand the difference.

quote where i said they were justified