Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MPs were right to oppose action in Syria in 2013 and may well

12346»

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    Is he under a lot of pressure? He has just won his election. He is winning in Syria and this latest attack from the US/UK/France is purely symbolic and makes no difference on the ground.

    After all the rhetoric, Putin may feel the need to make a symbolic retaliation but I suspect it will be choreographed through back channels. No escalation.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    His armed forces are as nothing next to the USA. He has no economic leverage over the West, and if they kick Russia off SWIFT and amp up sanctions further, he’ll have real economic problems to deal with.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Barnesian said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    Is he under a lot of pressure? He has just won his election. He is winning in Syria and this latest attack from the US/UK/France is purely symbolic and makes no difference on the ground.

    After all the rhetoric, Putin may feel the need to make a symbolic retaliation but I suspect it will be choreographed through back channels. No escalation.
    Exactly. The whole thing is pure theatre.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    One thing we have learnt from this whole episode: no country thinking of developing, manufacturing or deploying chemical weapons need worry about censure from Jeremy Corbyn.

    As you are, guys.

    You need to qualify that statement.

    “No country thinking of developing, manufacturing or deploying chemical weapons need worry about censure from Jeremy Corbyn unless it is a country he dislikes.”

    Do you think if Israel had been the one gassing little children, Corbyn would have been doing his “Well we can’t be sure who was responsible / we must talk / no hasty action as it might be illegal “ shtick?

    There is a perfectly reasonable case to be made against gesture bombing but Corbyn is not the one to make it because he is not acting in good faith. He will not criticise those countries he supports. Russia and Syria are his friends so he won’t criticise them however much he may dress it up in the language of pacifism and international law. Were different countries the bad actors, I’m willing to bet his reaction would be very different.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/985148124896415745?s=21

    For those interested, “wrong to Leave” is 46:42 ahead. But a fresh referendum is opposed 45:38.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    nielh said:

    Not sure I agree that it was the right thing to do. Was there any legal basis for this attack? I ask out of genuine curiosity. I thought we saw ourselves as guardians of a law based international order.

    Not really tbh - the closest thing will be defending the OCPW. Syria is a signatory to that, which compels it not to stockpile/manufacture and especially not to use chemical weapons. They've broken the latter multiple times - not just the opinion of the west, but the finding of the OCPW mission.

    Ideally the UN Security Council would deal with this, but how can it when Russia vetoes anything that criticises Syria?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    nielh said:
    Putin has been humiliated here. He made all kinds of threats about reprisals and retaliation if there was an attack but Trump called his bluster and went ahead. The Russians claimed that they shot down missiles heading for other targets. Its laughable and shows their impotence. There will be no retaliation because Russia is too weak to make it count and the reprisals would be shattering.

    What Trump has made clear, unlike Obama, is that he is not intimidated by Putin's threats and will proceed whether the UN is blocked by vetoes or not. It is of a piece with the response to Salisbury. The price to be paid for Putin's foreign adventurism, which was negligible in the case of Crimea, the Ukraine and MH17 when Obama was in charge, is increasing and Putin needs to think carefully about how much of this his weak economy can take.

    In my view this justified the current raids on their own. As I said this morning I would have preferred that the raids were targeted on the personal assets of Assad than some "weapons research facility" that will prove to be a barn in the middle of nowhere where something might once have been stored. But the US was right to do this and we were right to stand with them, just as they stood with us.
    Well, we'll have to wait and see what happens next.
    Not sure I agree that it was the right thing to do. Was there any legal basis for this attack? I ask out of genuine curiosity. I thought we saw ourselves as guardians of a law based international order.
    I do agree though, that we effectively had no choice in the matter. Particularly post Salisbury. May probably called it right in terms of our strategic interest.
    To be honest I am not aware of any legal basis for the attacks. I have been through the CWC Convention. It imposes obligations on states in respect of their own actions and in respect of materials that they left behind where they did previously have jurisdiction. It does not authorise any state to take action against another state for breach. There is a UN resolution which condemns ISIL. I understand it to be disputed whether it formed a legal basis for military intervention in Syria but it certainly does not authorise action against the Syrian government. Article 51 allows actions in self defence but I don't really see how even protection of the Conventions against CW amounts to self defence.

    This doesn't really trouble me. International law is a fragile concept which is overridden by real politick consistently. Countries act in their own interests. I think it is evident that this was in our interests for the reasons I have given.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    Weve been round this one a few times. The consensus IIRC was that invading latvia is very unlikely to provoke a NATO response.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/985148124896415745?s=21

    For those interested, “wrong to Leave” is 46:42 ahead. But a fresh referendum is opposed 45:38.

    Still potentially Easter-affected polling. Huge traffic jams on the M5 yesterday as people were heading back home.

    Give it a week. See if it changes any.

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    Weve been round this one a few times. The consensus IIRC was that invading latvia is very unlikely to provoke a NATO response.
    The invasion of a NATO and EU member state wouldn’t provoke a response?

    It’s a view.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Cyclefree said:

    One thing we have learnt from this whole episode: no country thinking of developing, manufacturing or deploying chemical weapons need worry about censure from Jeremy Corbyn.

    As you are, guys.

    You need to qualify that statement.

    “No country thinking of developing, manufacturing or deploying chemical weapons need worry about censure from Jeremy Corbyn unless it is a country he dislikes.”

    Do you think if Israel had been the one gassing little children, Corbyn would have been doing his “Well we can’t be sure who was responsible / we must talk / no hasty action as it might be illegal “ shtick?

    There is a perfectly reasonable case to be made against gesture bombing but Corbyn is not the one to make it because he is not acting in good faith. He will not criticise those countries he supports. Russia and Syria are his friends so he won’t criticise them however much he may dress it up in the language of pacifism and international law. Were different countries the bad actors, I’m willing to bet his reaction would be very different.
    Ms Cyclefree, that is a reasonable - if depressing - caveat.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    Need to cover three horses this afternoon for the family’s annual punt.

    Which three in the 5.15 at Aintree?

    I've gone for Gas Line Boy.

    Total Recall has been mentioned.

    And for the third chose either a name you like or the one with the longest odds.
    Richard - many thanks, and good luck.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    Weve been round this one a few times. The consensus IIRC was that invading latvia is very unlikely to provoke a NATO response.
    The invasion of a NATO and EU member state wouldn’t provoke a response?

    It’s a view.
    Well it would provoke a response, but probably not a War. So Putin would win.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    Weve been round this one a few times. The consensus IIRC was that invading latvia is very unlikely to provoke a NATO response.
    We’ll agree to disagree on that one. IMO invasion of a NATO and EU state will draw a serious international response.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/985148124896415745?s=21

    For those interested, “wrong to Leave” is 46:42 ahead. But a fresh referendum is opposed 45:38.

    Brexit is slowly becoming something grim we just have to learn to live with, something to be endured. The early hope and gaiety of it vanished long ago.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/985148124896415745?s=21

    For those interested, “wrong to Leave” is 46:42 ahead. But a fresh referendum is opposed 45:38.

    The poll I want to see done is 'Do you agree with the statement "I don't want to see any more bloody referendums on bloody anything ever. Not bloody mayors, bloody voting systems, regional independence, and definitely not on bloody Brexit again. Now please go away and let me get on with my life while the people we pay to run the country bloody well run it." '

    Or words to that effect.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,762
    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    Weve been round this one a few times. The consensus IIRC was that invading latvia is very unlikely to provoke a NATO response.
    We’ll agree to disagree on that one. IMO invasion of a NATO and EU state will draw a serious international response.
    Especially now. Putin would have had a better chance of a response he could live with 5 years ago but the trip wires have been tightened. His room for manoeuvre is becoming increasingly restricted.

    Trump appears to be a moral degenerate. He is inconsistent, dishonest and erratic. I remain appalled that the US elected him. But he knows how to negotiate and he knows when someone is bluffing as he has just demonstrated.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Cyclefree said:

    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

    *watches on as the Corbynistas little heads explode figuring that one out...*
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 326
    kle4 said:


    But that power already exists and existed, and has always done so. May taking this decision is not setting a precedent which is dangerous for our democracy, it is standard procedure, she is following plenty of precedent, contrasted against uncommon procedure in some recent cases.

    If any party wants to make it a commitment never the take action without the consent of parliament, and set a firm rule for it or establish a convention, that's fine, but there's nothing dangerous to our democracy about having an executive which has the power to do things without consulting the legislature, that's how our system works. Is this something which should be within the power of the executive? That's a more difficult question on which reasonable people can and indeed are disagreeing, but either way May is not establishing a precedent, so I think there is a mote of hysteria about the significance of her not consulting parliament.

    And certainly I don't see that the polled approval of the public should be a factor one way or another. I don't blindly trust the government, but you cannot make these kinds of decisions based on polling random people in the street, that strikes me as a terrible basis for making decisions.

    The Royal Prerogative is a far-reaching power and one that's useful to have. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the executive needs to make an urgent decision and one where Parliament is unable to meet. Even if Parliament broadly approves the action, it is and should be for the executive with the armed forces and international partners to decide exactly how to deploy armed forces. However what happened today was not urgent and Parliament was able to meet ahead of time. May just decided that she could ignore the will of Parliament which is getting to be a common position for her.

    At the press conference today (and isn't it disgusting that journalists get to ask the Prime Minister questions about this two days before any MP has the opportunity?) Laura Kuenssburg asked May about the choice not to ask Parliament's approval, May just said it was because she believed she was right. Sorry, but if we accept that, why bother having Parliament at all? This Prime Minister does not seem to believe in the concept of democracy.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    Weve been round this one a few times. The consensus IIRC was that invading latvia is very unlikely to provoke a NATO response.
    We’ll agree to disagree on that one. IMO invasion of a NATO and EU state will draw a serious international response.
    I suspect it would provoke a pretty substantial war. Russia's military must be pretty stretched st the moment, mind, with Syria and the Ukraine bubbling away.
  • https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/985148124896415745?s=21

    For those interested, “wrong to Leave” is 46:42 ahead. But a fresh referendum is opposed 45:38.

    The poll I want to see done is 'Do you agree with the statement "I don't want to see any more bloody referendums on bloody anything ever. Not bloody mayors, bloody voting systems, regional independence, and definitely not on bloody Brexit again. Now please go away and let me get on with my life while the people we pay to run the country bloody well run it." '

    Or words to that effect.
    I could agree with that but maybe without the language
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    DM_Andy said:

    kle4 said:


    But that power already exists and existed, and has always done so. May taking this decision is not setting a precedent which is dangerous for our democracy, it is standard procedure, she is following plenty of precedent, contrasted against uncommon procedure in some recent cases.

    If any party wants to make it a commitment never the take action without the consent of parliament, and set a firm rule for it or establish a convention, that's fine, but there's nothing dangerous to our democracy about having an executive which has the power to do things without consulting the legislature, that's how our system works. Is this something which should be within the power of the executive? That's a more difficult question on which reasonable people can and indeed are disagreeing, but either way May is not establishing a precedent, so I think there is a mote of hysteria about the significance of her not consulting parliament.

    And certainly I don't see that the polled approval of the public should be a factor one way or another. I don't blindly trust the government, but you cannot make these kinds of decisions based on polling random people in the street, that strikes me as a terrible basis for making decisions.

    The Royal Prerogative is a far-reaching power and one that's useful to have. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the executive needs to make an urgent decision and one where Parliament is unable to meet. Even if Parliament broadly approves the action, it is and should be for the executive with the armed forces and international partners to decide exactly how to deploy armed forces. However what happened today was not urgent and Parliament was able to meet ahead of time. May just decided that she could ignore the will of Parliament which is getting to be a common position for her.

    At the press conference today (and isn't it disgusting that journalists get to ask the Prime Minister questions about this two days before any MP has the opportunity?) Laura Kuenssburg asked May about the choice not to ask Parliament's approval, May just said it was because she believed she was right. Sorry, but if we accept that, why bother having Parliament at all? This Prime Minister does not seem to believe in the concept of democracy.

    This is very similar to the bombing of Iraq in 97/8.

    There have been very few votes in Parliament about going to war. The precedent is that if Parliament is a check on government, not the executive body. A couple of dubious votes recently don't change that historic precedent.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

    *watches on as the Corbynistas little heads explode figuring that one out...*
    If previous experience is any guide they won’t answer. Evasion of hard questions is one way Corbyn maintains his air of apparently reasonable moral grandstanding. This applies to many of his supporters.

    It’s why I would like there to be Parliamentary debate and the question put directly to him.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    Make no mistake: this airstrike is one in the eye for Vlad. Theresa loves England. She represents Maidenhead, the archetypal English market town, while she herself is practically the Platonic ideal of the reserved, dignified English lady. So Vlad's reckless use of chemicals on England's streets would have enraged her. She craved vengeance. And neither the treasonous Corbyn nor the motley crew of crackpots and Putin worshippers would have deflected her from her mission.

    Trump is claiming 'job done, mission accomplished'. No one wants to do anything else. It is just an isolated show of strength.

    But as for Putin. I predict: retaliation and escalation. That's what happened over the diplomatic expulsions. He will keep escalating the situation, because he thinks his (and Russia's) resolve is greater. And, on that point alone, he is probably right.



    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    I think Putin's response might be to supply the latest S-300 missile systems to Syria. Syria is currently relying on old Soviet systems.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/14/russia-calls-for-un-meeting-on-syria-mulls-supplies-of-s-300-systems.html
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

    *watches on as the Corbynistas little heads explode figuring that one out...*
    If previous experience is any guide they won’t answer. Evasion of hard questions is one way Corbyn maintains his air of apparently reasonable moral grandstanding. This applies to many of his supporters.

    It’s why I would like there to be Parliamentary debate and the question put directly to him.
    Maybe the problem is that these 'Corbynistas' you are addressing exist only in your head.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 326
    Cyclefree said:

    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

    Here's my take on the Corbyn position.

    1. There was at least evidence of a chemical weapons attack on Douma on Saturday 7th April.
    2. There is dispute on who caused it and the best people to make a determination is the OPCW.
    3. There were two UN Security Council motions on it, the main difference being that Russia's version wanted the OPCW to take a position on who caused it and the US/UK/France position was they wanted OPCW to produce a fact-finding report and the UNSC to decide who was guilty.
    3a. This is where I'm more hawkish than Corbyn, his position is that the OPCW would make a fair decision so is in line with the Russian position. I think that any OPCW report would be weighted with caveats and "balance of probabilities" to make the whole thing cloudy and an excuse to let everything slide.
    4. Because neither UNSC draft resolution was adopted no progress is made.
    5. Parliament should be recalled to discuss possible use of force.
    5a. It isn't clear what the Labour whip would be in a Parliamentary recall, remember that 2015 (under Corbyn) was a free vote, 2013 (under Miliband) was a three line whip.
    6. Because May has authorised the use of force and risked loss of life, without recalling Parliament that is the focus of Corbyn's statements this morning.

    Cyclefree said:

    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

    *watches on as the Corbynistas little heads explode figuring that one out...*
    And I managed that without my head exploding because it's all logical.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    DM_Andy said:

    kle4 said:


    But that power already exists and existed, and has always done so. May taking this decision is not setting a precedent which is dangerous for our democracy, it is standard procedure, she is following plenty of precedent, contrasted against uncommon procedure in some recent cases.

    If any party wants to make it a commitment never the take action without the consent of parliament, and set a firm rule for it or establish a convention, that's fine, but there's nothing dangerous to our democracy about having an executive which has the power to do things without consulting the legislature, that's how our system works. Is this something which should be within the power of the executive? That's a more difficult question on which reasonable people can and indeed are disagreeing, but either way May is not establishing a precedent, so I think there is a mote of hysteria about the significance of her not consulting parliament.

    And certainly I don't see that the polled approval of the public should be a factor one way or another. I don't blindly trust the government, but you cannot make these kinds of decisions based on polling random people in the street, that strikes me as a terrible basis for making decisions.

    The Royal Prerogative is a far-reaching power and one that's useful to have. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the executive needs to make an urgent decision and one where Parliament is unable to meet. Even if Parliament broadly approves the action, it is and should be for the executive with the armed forces and international partners to decide exactly how to deploy armed forces. However what happened today was not urgent and Parliament was able to meet ahead of time. May just decided that she could ignore the will of Parliament which is getting to be a common position for her.

    At the press conference today (and isn't it disgusting that journalists get to ask the Prime Minister questions about this two days before any MP has the opportunity?) Laura Kuenssburg asked May about the choice not to ask Parliament's approval, May just said it was because she believed she was right. Sorry, but if we accept that, why bother having Parliament at all? This Prime Minister does not seem to believe in the concept of democracy.

    I don't think you understand the background to this. The royal prerogative isn't a backstop in case parliament can't meet in good time, it is the default. Having a parliamentary debate about it was merely a ruse dreamt up by the revolting T Blair to add verisimilitude to his revolting lies.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Ishmael_Z said:

    DM_Andy said:

    kle4 said:


    But that power already exists and existed, and has always done so. May taking this decision is not setting a precedent which is dangerous for our democracy, it is standard procedure, she is following plenty of precedent, contrasted against uncommon procedure in some recent cases.

    If any party wants to make it a commitment never the take action without the consent of parliament, and set a firm rule for it or establish a convention, that's fine, but there's nothing dangerous to our democracy about having an executive which has the power to do things without consulting the legislature, that's how our system works. Is this something which should be within the power of the executive? That's a more difficult question on which reasonable people can and indeed are disagreeing, but either way May is not establishing a precedent, so I think there is a mote of hysteria about the significance of her not consulting parliament.

    And certainly I don't see that the polled approval of the public should be a factor one way or another. I don't blindly trust the government, but you cannot make these kinds of decisions based on polling random people in the street, that strikes me as a terrible basis for making decisions.

    The Royal Prerogative is a far-reaching power and one that's useful to have. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the executive needs to make an urgent decision and one where Parliament is unable to meet. Even if Parliament broadly approves the action, it is and should be for the executive with the armed forces and international partners to decide exactly how to deploy armed forces. However what happened today was not urgent and Parliament was able to meet ahead of time. May just decided that she could ignore the will of Parliament which is getting to be a common position for her.

    At the press conference today (and isn't it disgusting that journalists get to ask the Prime Minister questions about this two days before any MP has the opportunity?) Laura Kuenssburg asked May about the choice not to ask Parliament's approval, May just said it was because she believed she was right. Sorry, but if we accept that, why bother having Parliament at all? This Prime Minister does not seem to believe in the concept of democracy.

    I don't think you understand the background to this. The royal prerogative isn't a backstop in case parliament can't meet in good time, it is the default. Having a parliamentary debate about it was merely a ruse dreamt up by the revolting T Blair to add verisimilitude to his revolting lies.
    Nah. It's all a ruse to distract from the audacity of company formation specialists forming....err...companies. From an office!

    :)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    edited April 2018
    Cyclefree said:

    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

    "An attempt to stave off a military confrontation in Syria failed in the UN security council on Tuesday evening, with Russia and western allies unable to compromise on a concerted international response to the use of chemical weapons.

    Each side voted against the other’s proposals for setting up a body dedicated to investigating repeated poison gas use in Syria. "

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/10/russia-hits-back-over-syria-chemical-attack-with-call-for-un-inquiry

    So there could be an investigation but the apportionment of responsibility would be left to the Security Council who no doubt would be unable to agree.

    "A Russian counter-proposal, establishing an investigative mechanism but leaving final decisions on whom to blame for chemical weapons to the security council, failed to win enough votes in the council."
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 326
    Mortimer said:



    This is very similar to the bombing of Iraq in 97/8.

    There have been very few votes in Parliament about going to war. The precedent is that if Parliament is a check on government, not the executive body. A couple of dubious votes recently don't change that historic precedent.

    Very few votes but very many debates in Parliament. Indeed before the bombing of December 1998 started Hague said this in Parliament. (HC Deb 16 December 1998 vol 322 cc958)
    In the light of the fact that Saddam Hussein is still failing to comply with UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction, and bearing in mind the Prime Minister's assurance last month that nothing less than complete compliance was acceptable, may I assure the Prime Minister of the full support of the Opposition for the use of military action in the days ahead, provided that action has clear and achievable objectives?
    There could have been a vote, but it was absolutely clear it would have passed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    Sandpit said:

    nielh said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    nielh said:

    .
    He can keep esalating until economics dictate otherwise. The West still has lots of options in terms of upping the pressure on Russia.

    The rouble has weakened quite a lot in the last week. It can go a lot further.
    Yeah but to my mind, that makes escalation more likely. He is under a lot of pressure, heavily armed, and running out of options. The problems need to blamed on someone else.

    The question is what exactly does Putin do by way of escalation?

    We made good use of the deconfliction channels to make a targeted strike on chemical facilities. Any direct attack on allied targets in the region (or on Israel) is going to be met with a very serious response indeed - and it appears that half the US Navy are heading to the Eastern Med right now.
    Invade latvia?
    Bloody hope not, for everyone’s sake!
    Putin likes to show his strength, but he isn’t an idiot and won’t do anything that might provoke a full NATO response.

    There’s also a big gap between his theoretical capability and actual capability, note his “state-of-the-art” missile defence system that was completely ineffective last night.
    Weve been round this one a few times. The consensus IIRC was that invading latvia is very unlikely to provoke a NATO response.
    We’ll agree to disagree on that one. IMO invasion of a NATO and EU state will draw a serious international response.
    I suspect it would provoke a pretty substantial war. Russia's military must be pretty stretched st the moment, mind, with Syria and the Ukraine bubbling away.
    I think Russia’s military is exceedingly stretched already. There’s a big difference between having lots of men and machines parading across Red Square, and having those same men and machines ready for battle.

    I can’t imagine anyone dares to tell Putin that of the 100 fancy new fighter planes he saw lined up last month, only a dozen are serviceable and they don’t have enough fuel or spares to adequately train the crews how to use them effectively.

    A war between Russia and NATO in the air or sea wouldn’t last too long, a ground war would be more difficult and take longer.

    The difference is that the Eastern nations generally place a lower price on human life, compared to the Western nations. What does for the West is the weekly parade of coffins through Wooton Basset.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 326
    Ishmael_Z said:


    I don't think you understand the background to this. The royal prerogative isn't a backstop in case parliament can't meet in good time, it is the default. Having a parliamentary debate about it was merely a ruse dreamt up by the revolting T Blair to add verisimilitude to his revolting lies.

    Once upon a time, we had Kings did the ruling. One day the nobility decided that the Kings shouldn't be able to do absolutely anything, we had the Barons' War and Magna Carta. Then the gentry wanted the Kings not to raise taxes without Parliament's approval, we had the Civil War and eventually the Bill of Rights. Gradually the Royal Prerogative has been disminished and all of those steps were new at one time. We don't normally go backwards with the Royal Prerogative and grant the executive more power than they were elected to have.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Mortimer said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    DM_Andy said:

    kle4 said:


    The Royal Prerogative is a far-reaching power and one that's useful to have. It is easy to imagine a scenario where the executive needs to make an urgent decision and one where Parliament is unable to meet. Even if Parliament broadly approves the action, it is and should be for the executive with the armed forces and international partners to decide exactly how to deploy armed forces. However what happened today was not urgent and Parliament was able to meet ahead of time. May just decided that she could ignore the will of Parliament which is getting to be a common position for her.

    At the press conference today (and isn't it disgusting that journalists get to ask the Prime Minister questions about this two days before any MP has the opportunity?) Laura Kuenssburg asked May about the choice not to ask Parliament's approval, May just said it was because she believed she was right. Sorry, but if we accept that, why bother having Parliament at all? This Prime Minister does not seem to believe in the concept of democracy.

    I don't think you understand the background to this. The royal prerogative isn't a backstop in case parliament can't meet in good time, it is the default. Having a parliamentary debate about it was merely a ruse dreamt up by the revolting T Blair to add verisimilitude to his revolting lies.
    Nah. It's all a ruse to distract from the audacity of company formation specialists forming....err...companies. From an office!

    :)
    Or from an American perspective:

    “I’m not saying that the strikes were an attempt to distract everyone from Trump’s domestic problems, but they did call it Operation Desert Stormy” - Bill Maher.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I would like to ask a question of the Corbyn supporters on here.

    Asking the UN to instigate an investigation is fine. But if Russia vetoes this - as I understand it has stated it will - what then?

    Is Corbyn’s position that, if there can be no investigation because of a Russian veto, there can be no investigation and therefore no apportionment of responsibility and no action taken? Is that it? Or is he envisaging some other action and, if so, what?

    *watches on as the Corbynistas little heads explode figuring that one out...*
    If previous experience is any guide they won’t answer. Evasion of hard questions is one way Corbyn maintains his air of apparently reasonable moral grandstanding. This applies to many of his supporters.

    It’s why I would like there to be Parliamentary debate and the question put directly to him.
    I wonder how many of his 6 questions he will use on Syria at PMQs.....
This discussion has been closed.