Ah, see what you mean. I agree.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Corb Blimey!
Collapse
X
-
Won't put up the link (it's the Mail) but I think Corbyn will survive.
Stasi's 'secret file on Corbyn': Fears Labour leader could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail after he travelled through communist Germany in the 1970s with his then-lover
Comment
-
I see Corbyn still telling allies the UK won't defend them if he Putin attacks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...-nato-11237998
He said: “The NATO charter asks for acts of solidarity and support.
“It is not necessarily military; it can be diplomatic, it can be economic, it can be a lot of things.
“What I want is a dialogue between NATO and Russia.”
By all means call for talks now- though not sure they'll get anywhere. But say you'll defend allies if needed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by E10 Rifle View PostWhat sort of attack on an ally is being envisaged here? In the actual real world? Rather than doing this Gareth Keenan-esque "would you kill a tiger armed only with a biro?" stuff
Comment
-
It doesn't say you've got to enter into a war. It says you'll do what you deem necessary, including force.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Comment
-
Originally posted by E10 Rifle View PostIt'll also be news to Ukraine that the current UK government has ever sent its own troops into their country to fight the Russian occupier
And anyway, the treaty doesn't force any member to go military. But members would generally expect other members not to rule it out. For obvious reasons.
Comment
-
- Jan 2012
- 3291
- Worthing
- The Hammers, until Mark Noble goes.(he's still there, sort of)
- Garibaldi, dipped in tea.
So, war then. (edit, to Tubby a few posts before)
It might not 'go down too well' (with some, but not others), doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be said. I get the 'realpolitik' point you're making, but I don't mind him being vague on this; a big discussion is maybe in order about NATO's expansion,and how it has impacted/is perceived to have impacted on east-west relations. A bit of nuance might be the start of it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by E10 Rifle View PostIn reality, the current government is never going to use force against Putin's Russia in Ukraine. And I'm not sure it would be very popular if they did.
If he wants to lead a case for better engagement with Putin, that's fine. I'll trust him more than Hilarious Boris and those that are worried about losing expat oligarch money.
Comment
-
I didn't introduce Ukraine into this discussion. You did. The point is, monstrous and scum though Putin is, I don't think he poses an existential military threat to the UK or its treaty allies. But he knows how to do the realpolitik posturing and aggrandising. And the response it gets
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnr View PostSo, war then. (edit, to Tubby a few posts before)
It might not 'go down too well' (with some, but not others), doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't be said. I get the 'realpolitik' point you're making, but I don't mind him being vague on this; a big discussion is maybe in order about NATO's expansion,and how it has impacted/is perceived to have impacted on east-west relations. A bit of nuance might be the start of it.
The problem I have is ruling out force, when the treaty strongly suggests that you shouldn't do that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by E10 Rifle View PostI didn't introduce Ukraine into this discussion. You did. The point is, monstrous and scum though Putin is, I don't think he poses an existential military threat to the UK or its treaty allies. But he knows how to do the realpolitik posturing and aggrandising. And the response it gets
Putin was born 3 years after the NATO treaty was signed, so whatever else it is, it isn't a response to him. Trying to change what it's been understood to say could be seen as a response, but I'm not sure it's a very good one.
Comment
-
Another overpromoted Campaign Group Lexit pal. David Drew. He's a shadow agriculture minister. How did that work? Got that particular brief by being MP for Stroud, no doubt.
One of the things I am pushing for within the Labour Party is to make Britain 80% self-sufficient. Why should we worry about exports, why don’t we just concentrate on becoming more food secure and doing some interesting things with our food?Last edited by Tubby Isaacs; 10-10-2017, 18:12.
Comment
-
- Oct 2011
- 26984
- Cambridgeshire
- Ipswich (convert)
- Those chocolate-coated ring-shaped ones you get at Christmas
You know your country's politics are broken when the IMF are to the left of your domestic political/media discourse.
The IMF's previous theme six months ago was investigating the effects of globalisation on employment and inequality - they advocated:
• active labour market policies such as employment protection and minimum wage legislation,
• comprehensive social insurance and income support to protect workers and their families when industries suffer in their country as a result of international trade
• better provision of housing and credit to enable people to move around the country more easily
• active regional policies to revive hard-hit areas
• counter cyclical macro intervention
• higher investment in education and skills, especially lifelong learning
Comment
-
I've become aware of this from the conference. This went out live on the BBC's main politics programme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anRhI2xezgA
Ken Loach starts off by being very dismissive of charges of anti-Semitism in Labour. Then defends questioning the Holocaust, and launches seamlessly into talking about Israel.
Last week he lied about the interview in a letter to the NY Times. And to make it even better, he ties it in with Corbyn and says "here are some Jews who agree with me".
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/1...-semitism.html
How is this acceptable? Because the guy makes films?Last edited by Tubby Isaacs; 18-10-2017, 13:34.
Comment
Comment