UK Politics: The Beast From The East

[polishgenius]

5 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

Of course it is. When used by a prominent politician, talking about a serious political matter, especially given the current geopolitical climate, it absolutely is. Say Hitler, and Auschwitz, extermination policies, and genocidal total war instantly pop up as primary associations in public consciousness. I am really not clear on why you pretend otherwise. 

He's really not. There have been many, many dictators, autocrats and totalitarian leaders that we have to be careful to compare to Hitler as some kind of shorthand. Even going back to WW2 era, was Mussolini like Hitler? How about Franco? Petain or Quisling? Shall we talk about Saddam Hitler, Assad Hitler, and countless other little Hitlers (maybe current Saudi leadership wrt Yemen)? Pinochet Hitler, Salazar Hitler, Calero Hitler and Chamorro Hitler, and on and on and on. It's silly, counterproductive and ultimately meaningless.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about what should  be the case, and you might even be right- although I think you're stretching the point past absurdity- but that doesn't change what is. It's not a mystery what association Austin and Boris were going for here because they made that association explicitly clear. Adding anything on to that is reaching.

[HexMachina]

5 hours ago, Lord Mord said:

Lots of people been saying that the Tories are in bed with Russsians who've given them money.  I've no problem believing it, per se, but here's the part I don't get.  There's no honor among thieves -- or among the corrupt.  You pay me to get an edge in my country's local politics, and that's all very well, but you'd better damn well be sure I won't suffer you to muscle in on my personal strength, i.e. with my countrymen.  If I'm part of the government, and you embarrass us and threaten us on the world stage, you'd better be goddamn sure I'm keeping your money and using it to run for a re-election for the purpose of shitting all over you and your country and embarrassing the fuck out of all of you.  So, why isn't that the Tories' position?  Taking the money from the Russians should make them more pissed, more likely to hit back, and not less.  So ... what am I missing?  What is their problem?

Because admitting they accepted Russian money or having that exposed by said Russian’s would be a sure fire way to lose their position at the least

[mormont]

11 hours ago, Maltaran said:

You mean the constitution that was dead already because the French and Dutch had both voted No in their referendums, thus making it pointless for us to have one?

Off-topic note: apparently a question will be answered this weekend that could actually result in you having to change your signature...

Anyway, without commenting on the validity of the comparison, I would point out that Boris Johnson is the Foreign Secretary. A fundamental part of his responsibilities is to be aware of what impact his public comments may have in diplomatic terms. In comparing Putin to Hitler, he either knew what he was doing or should have known. 

Oh, and in a predictable move, our ultra-British blue passports will be made in France.

[Jo498]

"Oh, and in a predictable move, our ultra-British blue passports will be made in France."

Sometimes it is not only difficult not to write a satire, but it is also unnecessary because reporting the facts is sufficient.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

"Oh, and in a predictable move, our ultra-British blue passports will be made in France."

Sometimes it is not only difficult not to write a satire, but it is also unnecessary because reporting the facts is sufficient.

And people thought Brexiting would stop us trading with the continent...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Not trying to make the UK thread about US politics, but how are Tweets like this playing in Europe, considering the joint statement condemning Russia just a few days ago:

 

[Jo498]

The joint statement was a disgrace because there simply is not enough evidence. (The toxine might have come from Russia but from some mafia not from the goverment, it is not likely that Putin would do something like that right before his election and in the soccer WC year. Think of him what you want, he is certainly smarter than May and Trump together.) And as long as this is the case one should not commit to anything like that (May can do what she pleases but that the other European leaders follow suit is embarrassing). And even if there was enough evidence? Should we seriously start a war for some ex-double agent who had it coming?

That getting along with Russia is a good thing is about the only thing where Trump is correct (if maybe for the wrong reasons).

[Hereward]

You’re right, it’s undoubtedly better to let a proven nationalist, expansionist, imperialistic aggressor with no regard for international or humanitarian norms do whatever he likes in the hope we don’t make him angry. And if that means ignoring a banned chemical attack on an alleged ally that has spent decades and billions in defending Western Europe, well so be it, amirite?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

And even if there was enough evidence? Should we seriously start a war for some ex-double agent who had it coming?

So we should throw a parade for Putin and the FSB higher ups, in honour of their killing on foreign soil? Is that the idea.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

That getting along with Russia is a good thing is about the only thing where Trump is correct (if maybe for the wrong reasons).

I know I run the risk of going full Godwin on this one, but a policy of appeasement has been such huge success in the past, that we should do a re-run. Or at least wait till he annexes Poland, and not just the Cz Ukraine. So we should give it some time. On second thought, with the current regime in Poland, they seem to be into authotarian leaderships anyway.

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

The joint statement was a disgrace because there simply is not enough evidence.

The better working assumption is, there's sufficient evidence, just that it's classified. You know, sources within Russia who would be put at risk if all the evidence went public.

 

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

it is not likely that Putin would do something like that right before his election and in the soccer WC year.

Ah, ok, then his crimea/eastern Ukraine adventures didn't happen before the winter olympics in Russia.

 

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

 Should we seriously start a war for some ex-double agent who had it coming?

This is a nice touch, too. Perhaps you could also tell the families of the Dutch citizens who were murdered by the Russians when they shot down the airliner, that they should be quiet, too, so Putin doesn't get cross. 

[Mr Fixit]

53 minutes ago, Hereward said:

You’re right, it’s undoubtedly better to let a proven nationalist, expansionist, imperialistic aggressor with no regard for international or humanitarian norms do whatever he likes in the hope we don’t make him angry.

Indeed. I vote for immediate sanctions on the United States. 

[Mr Fixit]

37 minutes ago, Notone said:

Ah, ok, then his crimea/eastern Ukraine adventures didn't happen before the winter olympics in Russia.

Well... actually they didn't.

(Don't construe this as me saying Russia isn't behind the Skripal murder attempt as they may well have been.)

[BigFatCoward]

41 minutes ago, Hereward said:

This is a nice touch, too. Perhaps you could also tell the families of the Dutch citizens who were murdered by the Russians when they shot down the airliner, that they should be quiet, too, so Putin doesn't get cross. 

Or the other people who were affected by the poison/collateral damage . 

[williamjm]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not trying to make the UK thread about US politics, but how are Tweets like this playing in Europe, considering the joint statement condemning Russia just a few days ago:

 

I doubt anyone was expecting Trump to do anything different.

[mormont]

The 'Russian mafia' idea suffers from obvious flaws, including but not limited to the absurdity of the notion that the Russian mafia would or could do something like this without Putin's approval.

The other main flaw is that it's based on the argument that Putin's motive isn't credible enough. So this leads to the conclusion that it must have been the Russian mafia, whose motive (in this theory) we don't even know. If that's your argument, you need a new argument.

[Werthead]

6 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Or the other people who were affected by the poison/collateral damage . 

Emerging story that the Russian agent and his daughter may survive, but both will have life-altering brain damage, the severity of which is unclear. That could have affected a lot more people if they'd been in the vicinity at the time.

[Werthead]

Nick Clegg presenting a reasonable analysis of the Northern Irish border question and how it is likely unsolvable.

[mankytoes]

46 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Nick Clegg presenting a reasonable analysis of the Northern Irish border question and how it is likely unsolvable.

I wish people, politicians in particular, would stop using "courageous" to mean "doing what I want".

It's the DUP really fucking this up. If it wasn't for the last general election, I think we could work something out.

courageous

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/nick-clegg-brexiters-take-back-control-lose-peace-ireland/" to mea

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Jo498 said:

That getting along with Russia is a good thing is about the only thing where Trump is correct (if maybe for the wrong reasons).

The US and UK getting along with Russia in a vacuum is a good thing. However, you fundamentally cannot get along with a bad actor, and that's exactly what Putin. There will not be an armistice between the West and Russia until Putin is out of office and has lost his control over the country. 

2 hours ago, williamjm said:

I doubt anyone was expecting Trump to do anything different.

That's fair, but you got to admit the turn around was quick. It's seems fairly obvious at this point that Putin has something on him, and now that affects your country too. What a selfish git. 

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I wish people, politicians in particular, would stop using "courageous" to mean "doing what I want".

It's the DUP really fucking this up. If it wasn't for the last general election, I think we could work something out.

courageous

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).