Alarich II Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Putin has in the past threatened double agents with death. And not only him, but other Russian politicians have played the "he had it coming" / " we will get them" card. So how is it surprising that Russia gets blamed when: - On the subject of Russian double agents Putin said this in public (look it up on YouTube): "Traitors will kick the bucket, trust me. These people betrayed their friends, their brothers in arms [that includes Putin himself]. Whatever they got in exchange for it, those thirty pieces silver they were given, they will choke on them.” - Then one of these traitors he threatened is killed with chemical agents that was developed by the Russians - and the last killing - also an ex Agent, with Polonium, - left a provable trail not only to the Russian doorstep but right into Moscow. But hey, let's follow that Mafia trail or whatever. I mean seriously: the Russian president threatens to kill these agents, one was killed with Polonium, that was traced back to Moscow, now one gets attacke with substances developed by the Russian state. At some point, you have to ask yourself what is more likely: a) The Russian President - an ex-Agent himself, and therefore one of the betrayed brothers in arms - with the means and the proclaimed will to settle these scores actually carries out his threat in a manner that sends a public message. or b ) some sort of shadow organisation has - for yet unknown reasons - attacked the guy, using a rare and very hard to get banned substance that is very likely to draw attention to the case, to plant a false trail to the Russian for reasons we also don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 19 minutes ago, Alarich II said: b ) some sort of shadow organisation has - for yet unknown reasons - attacked the guy, using a rare and very hard to get banned substance that is very likely to draw attention to the case, to plant a false trail to the Russian for reasons we also don't know. It also relies on the idea that the Russian mafia and the Russian government/secret service aren't very much tied together, which by many educated accounts they really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 1 hour ago, polishgenius said: It also relies on the idea that the Russian mafia and the Russian government/secret service aren't very much tied together, which by many educated accounts they really are. A good point. It's hard to say where the Russian government ends, and where the Russian mafia begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 19 hours ago, Werthead said: The Irish border problem is a massive issue. The DUP being hardline on it is one factor, but not the only one. Without them, May might be freer to leave Northern Ireland aligned with the rest of the EU, but that would still be massively unpopular with the rest of her party and the hard Brexiteers in particular. Any kind of hard border, or even a soft border with security cameras, becomes a possible target for paramilitary action, so there simply can't be one. That leaves the possibility of either leaving Northern Ireland in the customs union, which introduces a barrier between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK which could speed up Northern Ireland's departure from the union (based on current demographic trends this may be inevitable, but not likely to be an issue for another generation or so), or having the entirety of the UK remain in the customs union, which then raises the problem of why the hell we're leaving in the first place. The problem here is that when it comes to maintaining the Good Friday Agreement and preventing any kind of resumption of violence or Northern Ireland seceding, all of that matters a lot more than Brexit, and if the two are put into opposition Brexit has to lose, because it's not going to get people killed (although it may increase Nigel Farage's therapy bill). Yeah, blaming this on the DUP is basically starting from the assumption that people in NI don't get to be part of the UK. They have to go through a real border to get to the rest of their supposed "nation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Owen Smith fired for not toeing the Corbyn line on Brexit (ie - full steam ahead): Quote The shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Smith, has been sacked by Jeremy Corbyn after advocating a public referendum over the final Brexit deal. Smith, who challenged Corbyn for the party leadership in 2016, wrote an article in the Guardian urging his party to reopen the question of whether Brexit was the right thing for Britain. Sources close to the Labour leader said Smith was not a team player and had repeatedly breached shadow cabinet collective responsibility on Brexit by advocating single market membership. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/23/owen-smith-sacked-from-labour-party-frontbench It's endlessly amusing to me how Corbyn went from rebel to taskmaster the second he got some power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 More like a sign that Brexit has finally hit the Labour Party, too. Thus far people have only played attention to the center stage with the Tory psycho drama, now the focus has shifted a bit towards Labour, that is until JRM, Johnson or Davis say something stupid and make May look weak again. So a week at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isis Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 So now it's going to have to be anyone but Tories OR Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankytoes Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 13 hours ago, Shryke said: Owen Smith fired for not toeing the Corbyn line on Brexit (ie - full steam ahead): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/23/owen-smith-sacked-from-labour-party-frontbench It's endlessly amusing to me how Corbyn went from rebel to taskmaster the second he got some power. I don’t really see that, Corbyn was always a back bencher, he never expected to be in the shadow cabinet. You can’t have it both ways. As someone who partly voted Labour last time because I trusted Corbyn over Brexit, I’m very happy with this sacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 7 hours ago, mankytoes said: I don’t really see that, Corbyn was always a back bencher, he never expected to be in the shadow cabinet. You can’t have it both ways. As someone who partly voted Labour last time because I trusted Corbyn over Brexit, I’m very happy with this sacking. I know you don't because you don't think too hard about what the issues here. Corbyn spent his whole political career being the guy who dissented and once he's in power he brooks no dissent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 21 minutes ago, Shryke said: I know you don't because you don't think too hard about what the issues here. Corbyn spent his whole political career being the guy who dissented and once he's in power he brooks no dissent. You are confusing being in the shadow cabinet (where one has to toe the line) with being a backbencher (where one has much more freedom). Corbyn sacked Smith from the shadow cabinet - and if Corbyn had ever been in the shadow cabinet (inconceivable before 2015), he would have been in the same situation. But he wasn't. Smith can say whatever he likes (within reason) from the backbenches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankytoes Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Shryke said: I know you don't because you don't think too hard about what the issues here. Corbyn spent his whole political career being the guy who dissented and once he's in power he brooks no dissent. I know you like calling other people idiots, but the difference between a shadow cabinet member and a backbencher is not a complex one. Maybe self reflect instead of insulting others for a bit. Corbyn has made it clear that a major Labour policy is not to pursue a second referendum. If Smith wants to be a part of the shadow cabinet, he shouldn't repeatedly, publically contradict that. It's absolutely in line with standard political practise to fire someone in these circumstances. It's a shame to see these ridiculous attempts by media and politicians to paint Corbyn as some tyrant (Peter Hain actually called the sacking of Smith "Stalinist") are paying off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 A shadow cabinet isn't a hive-mind. They can have their own ideas. It's not like there hasn't been grumblings from his shadow cabinet before. The problem is, just as with the 3-line whipped Article 50 vote, Corbyn has made it clear no one is allowed to even entertain the idea of not driving the UK off this Brexit cliff while he's in charge of Labour. This is a red line for Corbyn and no one is allowed to blink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankytoes Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Shryke said: A shadow cabinet isn't a hive-mind. They can have their own ideas. It's not like there hasn't been grumblings from his shadow cabinet before. The problem is, just as with the 3-line whipped Article 50 vote, Corbyn has made it clear no one is allowed to even entertain the idea of not driving the UK off this Brexit cliff while he's in charge of Labour. This is a red line for Corbyn and no one is allowed to blink. No one is saying they can't. The right thing to do would be to privately express your opinion and try to pursuade the leader and the majority. If you lose, on what I think we all agree is a major issue, either quit the shadow cabinet, or be prepared to say "I disagree, but I will back my party". You can't have every member of a team running off in their own direction. It isn't like Corbyn isn't a "team player" in the same way. We all know he is a eurosceptic at heart, yet he was willing to put his official backing to the leave campaign, in line with the party. He also made it very clear he, and his party, would respect the result. People are angry at a politician for keeping his word. As you say, it was a red line. You understand that, apparantly Owen Smith doesn't, he thinks he can cross his leader's red line and stay in the shadow cabinet. These are past arguements. This has been done. Brexit is in the process of happening. It was agreed to by the electorate and passed by parliament. There are many battles left to be fought, both around and outside of Brexit. This isn't one of them. That door closed at the last election, when the Lib Dems made it central to their campaign, and actually lost votes (including mine). All this talk is just political point scoring, they know it won't actually happen. To give a comparison, I don't agree with faith schools, but I don't bang on about it, because I know it isn't realistically going to happen in the near future. Or Corbyn, he's a republican, but he knows we aren't going to abolish the monarchy anytime soon, so he doesn't put that in his speeches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 On 3/24/2018 at 4:46 PM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: You are confusing being in the shadow cabinet (where one has to toe the line) with being a backbencher (where one has much more freedom). Corbyn sacked Smith from the shadow cabinet - and if Corbyn had ever been in the shadow cabinet (inconceivable before 2015), he would have been in the same situation. But he wasn't. Smith can say whatever he likes (within reason) from the backbenches. You're asking the wrong question. The question isn't: did Jeremy Corbyn, as a backbencher, have different responsibilities than Owen Jones, as a member of the Shadow Cabinet? The question is: was Jeremy Corbyn critical of past leaders for not permitting dissent in the Shadow Cabinet, and did he promise to take a more lenient line as leader, allowing Shadow Cabinet members to express differing points of view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Wait a minute. The Republicans in y'alls country want to abolish the monarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 41 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: Wait a minute. The Republicans in y'alls country want to abolish the monarchy? Yes, they want to create a Republic, with an elected head of state like the United States. I think this latter part may have come in for some rethinking in the last year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 21 minutes ago, Werthead said: Yes, they want to create a Republic, with an elected head of state like the United States. I think this latter part may have come in for some rethinking in the last year or so. I have no voice in your politics, but I find that a worthy goal. In my country Republicans want a dissociative oligarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankytoes Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: I have no voice in your politics, but I find that a worthy goal. In my country Republicans want a dissociative oligarchy. I feel sorry for British republicans, because a lot of British people agree, at least on principle, but few people really care. Whereas only a minority are really interested in the monarchy, but many of them are obsessively supportive. The monarchy will be around for a few more decades at least. There's no real link with your republicans. It's also worth noting Irish republicans are, again, totally separate- the people who want a united, independant Ireland. That's a more prominant movement- British people are probably more likely to think of the IRA (or crazy bible bashing Yanks) than abolishing the monarchy when they hear the word "republican". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Well... Irish Republicans are still, of course, anti-monarchy. They are specifically in favour of a united Ireland that is a Republic. The Queen is still Queen of a bit of Ireland. So philosophically, Irish Republicans are in agreement with small-r UK republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, mormont said: Well... Irish Republicans are still, of course, anti-monarchy. They are specifically in favour of a united Ireland that is a Republic. The Queen is still Queen of a bit of Ireland. So philosophically, Irish Republicans are in agreement with small-r UK republicans. I'm moving to Ireland and joining the IRA! Only half decent gang to learn to make nail bombs from with the Taliban out of sorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.