Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Mikey10]

Just when I think this government can't sink any lower, they set themselves up as human traffickers. I'm sure it will never get off the ground, but the fact they think this is an even vaguely suitable solution to what is undeniably a problem that needs solving is beyond belief.

I’m refusing to get worked up about it. It’s so obviously an attempt at distraction, and some red meat for the lunatic elements of their base. Like the 40 new hospitals, and the thousands of policemen, teachers and nurses they were going to recruit, it will never happen.

 

[Rorschach]

Just when I think this government can't sink any lower, they set themselves up as human traffickers. I'm sure it will never get off the ground, but the fact they think this is an even vaguely suitable solution to what is undeniably a problem that needs solving is beyond belief.

As you and @Mikey10 say, this is not a viable proposition. It is not designed to be a serious solution but to titillate the gammons and distract from ongoing scandals. And yes, this is despicable but they can sink lower still.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Where is Scara?

 

[monkeybarry]

Isn't the EU the problem? 61% of the French population are opposed to the EU (compared to 52% of the British). But the neo-liberal leaders like Macron are so wedded to the ideology, they ignore their people and push the moderates to the extremes.

The French are mainly really angry at neo-liberalism and globalisation. It's just a shame Melenchon didn't get through, because that would have given them a much better solution to their woes.

I don't know enough about French politics to know if the EU is/isn't the problem. But Le Pen could be a problem in general.

The result will say a lot. It's easy to make the noises. Voting her in is very different. But it could very easily be a "anyone except Macron" vote.

It just feels more significant if it happens to France.

 

[monkeybarry]

Where is Scara?

Rwanda

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Just when I think this government can't sink any lower, they set themselves up as human traffickers. I'm sure it will never get off the ground, but the fact they think this is an even vaguely suitable solution to what is undeniably a problem that needs solving is beyond belief.

It will act as a deterrent and help stop a cruel trade that is responsible for the deaths of who knows how many. Australia did similar and managed to slow the rate of people risking their life to get there.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Rwanda

What's he doing there? Taking holiday advice from Gooner shirts?

 

[Mikey10]

Where is Scara?

Was also wondering. I’m missing the (sometimes) inflammatory posts! Hope all is okay.

 

[Lost Mango]

It will act as a deterrent and help stop a cruel trade that is responsible for the deaths of who knows how many. Australia did similar and managed to slow the rate of people risking their life to get there.

Not true. Numbers rising by boats increased in the years following the start of offshoring. It was then found that the set up was mainly illegal and after a few years the process was stopped although a couple of hundred families couldn't be resettled so remained in captivity for another 7 years.

there is no way of spinning Australia's efforts as a success politically, economically or humanely.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Not true. Numbers rising by boats increased in the years following the start of offshoring. It was then found that the set up was mainly illegal and after a few years the process was stopped although a couple of hundred families couldn't be resettled so remained in captivity for another 7 years.

there is no way of spinning Australia's efforts as a success politically, economically or humanely.

Trying to stop a cruel trade in humans is always a good thing. People should not be risking their lives by crossing the Channel. The problem we will have is the human rights lawyers no doubt helped by legal aid doing all they can to stop the plans.

The true madness was giving money to the French to stop the dinghies leaving France, as if they ever would.

I admire the Australians and think we are doing the right thing.

 

[Robspur12]

He has quite literally done far more then France and Germany and as someone else further up said probably because he is listening to his military advisers. When he listens to other people he gets close to competent.

I don't believe supplying weapons to Ukraine helps the Ukrainian people in the long run. In fact as I have said previously it feels like Nato are fighting a proxy war against Putin at the expense of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military cannot hope to defeat the Russian military on their own. Unfortunately their country is too strategically important for Putin to leave alone. The weapons supplied will give them the odd success here and there like sinking the warship. But in the end, it just ramps up Russia's assault against them, so now we will see Putin bombing the Western cities in response. It's what he has done in other conflicts.

If Nato really wants to protect Ukraine then either they put boots on the ground and enforce a no fly zone (understandably there is no appetite for this) or try to push for a ceasefire with Putin, something that will probably result in Ukraine ceding the East of it's country to Russia (in a similar way that the Georgians had to cede territory in 2008/9).

So, yes I don't like Boris, but that's not the reason that I don't believe he is doing much for Ukraine despite the noise. I watched the ruined cities, thousands of displaced citizens, and the arm's length attitude towards accepting refugees and I find it difficult to give Boris a pat on the back.

Of course the Ukrainian people don't want to accept occupation and want to fight back, most countries would. But supplying weapons imho is delaying the inevitable and in the long run is going to make things worse for the Ukrainian people.

And, as much as I dislike Macron, him trying to negotiate with Putin is probably the best way to stop the conflict. Sarkosy doing the same during the Georgia conflict did, in the end bring about an end to that conflict.

 

[scaramanga]

Rwanda

Close, the USA. Drove past a house with a front porch sofa today, that was an experience.

 

[monkeybarry]

Close, the USA. Drove past a house with a front porch sofa today, that was an experience.

Sounds like LA.
Actually, I can think of lots of places...

 

[monkeybarry]

I don't believe supplying weapons to Ukraine helps the Ukrainian people in the long run. In fact as I have said previously it feels like Nato are fighting a proxy war against Putin at the expense of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military cannot hope to defeat the Russian military on their own. Unfortunately their country is too strategically important for Putin to leave alone. The weapons supplied will give them the odd success here and there like sinking the warship. But in the end, it just ramps up Russia's assault against them, so now we will see Putin bombing the Western cities in response. It's what he has done in other conflicts.

If Nato really wants to protect Ukraine then either they put boots on the ground and enforce a no fly zone (understandably there is no appetite for this) or try to push for a ceasefire with Putin, something that will probably result in Ukraine ceding the East of it's country to Russia (in a similar way that the Georgians had to cede territory in 2008/9).

So, yes I don't like Boris, but that's not the reason that I don't believe he is doing much for Ukraine despite the noise. I watched the ruined cities, thousands of displaced citizens, and the arm's length attitude towards accepting refugees and I find it difficult to give Boris a pat on the back.

Of course the Ukrainian people don't want to accept occupation and want to fight back, most countries would. But supplying weapons imho is delaying the inevitable and in the long run is going to make things worse for the Ukrainian people.

And, as much as I dislike Macron, him trying to negotiate with Putin is probably the best way to stop the conflict. Sarkosy doing the same during the Georgia conflict did, in the end bring about an end to that conflict.

Ukraine has asked for two things:
A no fly zone
Weapons.

Supplying weapons is the right choice. It's not the Mark Thatcher days where situations were created to ensure a supply line, this was a country asking for help. The risk to loss of life is their judgement to make at that point. We should respect that.

No fly zone/boots on the ground. This is the inverse of the above - to do either of these things risks retaliation by Putin outside of Ukraine, so risks the lives of innocent citizens of NATO countries. That is not a position any leader should be taking.

Re,: the French negotiation. It is to be applauded for sure and is an essential part of the process. The UK can't do it because we've supplied weapons, had people murdered on our soil by Russia, allowed Russian influence in politics, have a government that refuses to release the Russia Report etc etc.

But what can the negotiables be? Putin has invaded a sovereign state - there is no position other than "cease and retreat" or a position that Zelensky is at the heart of negotiations for.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I don't believe supplying weapons to Ukraine helps the Ukrainian people in the long run. In fact as I have said previously it feels like Nato are fighting a proxy war against Putin at the expense of Ukraine.

The Ukrainian military cannot hope to defeat the Russian military on their own. Unfortunately their country is too strategically important for Putin to leave alone. The weapons supplied will give them the odd success here and there like sinking the warship. But in the end, it just ramps up Russia's assault against them, so now we will see Putin bombing the Western cities in response. It's what he has done in other conflicts.

If Nato really wants to protect Ukraine then either they put boots on the ground and enforce a no fly zone (understandably there is no appetite for this) or try to push for a ceasefire with Putin, something that will probably result in Ukraine ceding the East of it's country to Russia (in a similar way that the Georgians had to cede territory in 2008/9).

So, yes I don't like Boris, but that's not the reason that I don't believe he is doing much for Ukraine despite the noise. I watched the ruined cities, thousands of displaced citizens, and the arm's length attitude towards accepting refugees and I find it difficult to give Boris a pat on the back.

Of course the Ukrainian people don't want to accept occupation and want to fight back, most countries would. But supplying weapons imho is delaying the inevitable and in the long run is going to make things worse for the Ukrainian people.

And, as much as I dislike Macron, him trying to negotiate with Putin is probably the best way to stop the conflict. Sarkosy doing the same during the Georgia conflict did, in the end bring about an end to that conflict.

It is actually quite simple. If you negotiate with dictators you embolden them. He would not stop.

The mass graves with children being tied up and shot in the head says your view is not only wrong but dangerous.

 

[Robspur12]

​

Ukraine has asked for two things:
A no fly zone
Weapons.

Supplying weapons is the right choice. It's not the Mark Thatcher days where situations were created to ensure a supply line, this was a country asking for help. The risk to loss of life is their judgement to make at that point. We should respect that.

No fly zone/boots on the ground. This is the inverse of the above - to do either of these things risks retaliation by Putin outside of Ukraine, so risks the lives of innocent citizens of NATO countries. That is not a position any leader should be taking.

Re,: the French negotiation. It is to be applauded for sure and is an essential part of the process. The UK can't do it because we've supplied weapons, had people murdered on our soil by Russia, allowed Russian influence in politics, have a government that refuses to release the Russia Report etc etc.

But what can the negotiables be? Putin has invaded a sovereign state - there is no position other than "cease and retreat" or a position that Zelensky is at the heart of negotiations for.

The situation in Ukraine has played out before, in Georgia, in 2008. The Georgians asked for help just like the Ukrainian s are, the USA provided arms and training. But in the end it was not enough. Georgia was overwhelmed and the French helped broker a ceasefire which led to some territory being ceded.

As for the "negotiables," it depends on how many lives Zelensky is willing to sacrifice and how much of his country he wants left to rebuild. Zelensky knows the supply of weapons alone won't save his country. He is hoping on convincing NATO to eventually provide more military support be that no fly zones or boots on the ground. It was the same for Saakashvili in Georgia. He hoped for more until he realised it was not coming.

Ukraine is even more strategically important to Putin than Georgia. All his gas pipelines run through there for a start. I don't see this ending well and I don't think providing more and more weapons is in the best long term interests of Ukraine. The ceasefire is much more important.

In terms of Boris, you're right he wouldnt be the right leader to influence the ceasefire given our history with Russia. But what really angers me is he is exploiting the Ukraine situation to gain as much political capital as possible and as a shield from resigning. He is not leading the world as the saviour of Ukraine.

 

[Robspur12]

It is actually quite simple. If you negotiate with dictators you embolden them. He would not stop.

The mass graves with children being tied up and shot in the head says your view is not only wrong but dangerous.

Putin has the military might to do as he pleases. To stop the slaughter, if that's what concerns us, negotiating is crucial, negotiations happens in every conflict I can think of. Even where some parties to the negotiations are unpalatable like Putin.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

It is actually quite simple. If you negotiate with dictators you embolden them. He would not stop.

The mass graves with children being tied up and shot in the head says your view is not only wrong but dangerous.

Goodness. it’s not every day I agree with you 100% over @Robspur12 on matters of politics.

This has to end with regime change in Moscow, not with negotiation. And when economic sanctions leave nothing left to be stolen from the Russian people, Putin will have no supporters to protect him. In the meantime, give Ukraine absolutely all the kit it wants.

 

[Robspur12]

Goodness. it’s not every day I agree with you 100% over @Robspur12 on matters of politics.

This has to end with regime change in Moscow, not with negotiation. And when economic sanctions leave nothing left to be stolen from the Russian people, Putin will have no supporters to protect him. In the meantime, give Ukraine absolutely all the kit it wants.

There are only 2 ways that Putin is stopped, as you say regime change in Moscow or NATO goes all out war with Russia. I don't think, at this point either is likely, even as sanctions bite, the Russian people have endured so much hardship throughout their history. So as unpalatable as it seems, negotiation is a way to save lives and prevent the complete destruction of the country.

In some ways this reminds me of the IS hostage situation. The US and Britain took the stance that we do not negotiate with terrorists and the families of Daniel Foley and Alan Henning watched as the terrorist scum beheaded their love ones. The French, on other hand negotiated and secured the release of their hostages.

Now I can see the argument against negotiating with terrorists, in many ways I agree, but I know that if it were my loved ones I'd want us to negotiate.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Goodness. it’s not every day I agree with you 100% over @Robspur12 on matters of politics.

This has to end with regime change in Moscow, not with negotiation. And when economic sanctions leave nothing left to be stolen from the Russian people, Putin will have no supporters to protect him. In the meantime, give Ukraine absolutely all the kit it wants.

It is not like it is a one off, the is a history of behaviour with Putin