On 09/03/2022 at 14:24, MB wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
>> At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
>> however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
>> represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
>> 43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
>> overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
>
> But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
> large party to ransom.
>
>
>

Sure, that's not great. But a party that gets 45% of the popular vote
but then has an unassailable majority in parliament is not very good or
democratic either.

No system works perfectly. But some forms of PR, particularly those
that don't allow parties with very small percentages of the vote to end
up with an MP, just seem to me to be fairer.

--
Wilf

On 09/03/2022 at 14:51, Woody wrote:
> On Wed 09/03/2022 14:24, MB wrote:
>> On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
>>> At least people know the potential score under PR.  They know that,
>>> however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
>>> represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
>>> 43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
>>> overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
>>
>> But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
>> large party to ransom.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Viz the Greens holding Merkel to ransom with the requirement to close
> down all nuclear power generation - and look where that got them!

Hindsight is great, though. And I still say that that is preferable to
a party in the UK getting 45% of the vote but ending up with a massive
and unassailable majority in parliament.

After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
strong!!!

--
Wilf

On 09/03/2022 at 15:20, Sn!pe wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:
>>> At least people know the potential score under PR. They know that,
>>> however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
>>> represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
>>> 43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
>>> overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
>>
>> But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
>> large party to ransom.
>
> The same holds under FPTP.
> What price* the DUP during May's brief reign?
>
> * Reportedly >£1bn
>

Quite so.

--
Wilf

On 09/03/2022 20:40, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 09/03/2022 20:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> The facts still remain that nearly all of the legislation passing
>> through the UK Parliament is not created by MPs themselves but by the
>> government ...
>
> "Nearly all" leaves the balance as "Some is", a fact that you
> continually try to mask.

Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
around 7k & 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the Commission
which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
not less, than our own system.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/03/2022 22:44, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 20:40, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 09/03/2022 20:10, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> The facts still remain that nearly all of the legislation passing
>>> through the UK Parliament is not created by MPs themselves but by the
>>> government ...
>>
>> "Nearly all" leaves the balance as "Some is", a fact that you
>> continually try to mask.
>
> Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
> amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
> between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
> introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
> around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
> succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
> Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the Commission
> which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
> in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
> parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
> as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
> not less, than our own system.
>

You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong. The fact remains
that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people
elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful
doesn't change that.

Jim

On 09/03/2022 22:27, Wilf wrote:
> After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
> legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
> strong!!!

We see the disadvantages of a one party state here in Scotland that uses
a form of PR. Very different to England.

On 10/03/2022 at 08:26, MB wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 22:27, Wilf wrote:
>> After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
>> legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
>> strong!!!
>
> We see the disadvantages of a one party state here in Scotland that uses
> a form of PR. Very different to England.
>
>

Just underlines my point that no system of democratic voting is in any
way perfect. Each has its own problems. Would FPTP in Scotland make any
difference?

--
Wilf

On 10/03/2022 09:30, Wilf wrote:
>
> On 10/03/2022 at 08:26, MB wrote:
>>>
>>> After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
>>> legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
>>> strong!!!
>>
>> We see the disadvantages of a one party state here in Scotland that uses
>> a form of PR.  Very different to England.

Clearly, most people in Scotland don't see that as a disadvantage,
otherwise they would vote for other parties.

> Just underlines my point that no system of democratic voting is in any
> way perfect.  Each has its own problems. Would FPTP in Scotland make any
> difference?

No, as previously posted within the last 24 hours or so, the SNP would
have a landslide majority, so it's time MB stopped whingeing and
accepted democracy is often going to deliver results that he doesn't like.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 09/03/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
>> amount, a fact that you continually try to mask  -  for the years
>> between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
>> introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
>> around 7k&  10k.  Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
>> succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
>> Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the Commission
>> which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
>> in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
>> parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
>> as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
>> not less, than our own system.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.

My opinion is based on facts, not bigotry.

> The fact remains
> that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people
> elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful
> doesn't change that.

The facts outlined above speak for themselves. The democratically
elected MEPs have as at least as much, arguably more, influence on EU
policy than do MPs here on UK policy. The argument that the EU is
undemocratic has always been a Europhobic lie.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/03/2022 at 10:27, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/03/2022 09:30, Wilf wrote:
>>
>> On 10/03/2022 at 08:26, MB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
>>>> legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
>>>> strong!!!
>>>
>>> We see the disadvantages of a one party state here in Scotland that uses
>>> a form of PR.  Very different to England.
>
> Clearly, most people in Scotland don't see that as a disadvantage,
> otherwise they would vote for other parties.
>
>> Just underlines my point that no system of democratic voting is in any
>> way perfect.  Each has its own problems. Would FPTP in Scotland make any
>> difference?
>
> No, as previously posted within the last 24 hours or so, the SNP would
> have a landslide majority, so it's time MB stopped whingeing and
> accepted democracy is often going to deliver results that he doesn't like.
>

Yes indeed. In any democracy, regardless of the voting system in place,
the result at any time will be displeasing to some.

--
Wilf

On 08/03/2022 02:00 pm, Wilf wrote:

> On 08/03/2022 at 10:52, MB wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:

>>> Ugh.  How can he be in Europe!  Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
>>> none of his business.
>
>> Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
>
> No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.

Are you sure he wasn't simply saying that the European Union was an
awful system of government?

On 08/03/2022 02:24 pm, Wilf wrote:

> On 08/03/2022 at 14:12, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Wilf wrote:
>>> MB wrote:
>
>>>> Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
>
>>> No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
>
>> I don't remember him disparaging European countries or people, only
>> the EU institutions ...
>
> Whatever.

It's a BIG difference. And you failed to make the distinction.

On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 08/03/2022 14:26, Robin wrote:
>> On 08/03/2022 12:28, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2022 10:52, MB wrote:
>>>> On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
>
>>>>> Ugh.  How can he be in Europe!  Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
>>>>> none of his business.
>
>>> +1
>
>>>> Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
>
>>> Yes, when you've built your political career on lying about how awful
>>> it is, despite it being where your ancestors came from.
>
>> It's public knowledge that 2 of his great-great-grandparents came from
>> Germany but what's your source for the rest of his ancestry?
>
> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not an
> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still makes
> his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?

What "lies" do you mean?

His position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in a
country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to foreign
politicians and I invite you to take the same view".

There are no lies in that and a large number of people - as was
demonstrated back in 2016 - took the same sort of view.

On 08/03/2022 09:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 17:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not
>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
>>> think?
>>
>> You made a a plain statement of fact as to his ancestors which you
>> cannot now back up.
>
> Nonsense, you yourself have admitted them to exist:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Ancestry_and_childhood
>
>> The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
>> obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
>> a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years ago.
>
> A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8, not
> a tiny fraction of his ancestry.

Usually, only one of them would have brought the surname to the table,
so it's 1/16th.

[Yes, I suppose that it's possible for two unrelated Smiths or Joneses
to meet and marry, though I suggest that the likelihood falls away
somewhat for unrelated Farages or Jives.]

>> And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
>> because you don't like his views.

> I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.

You're *still* using that tactic, are you?

>> (Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
>> slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
>> or peoples or the whole continent.)
>
> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
> lying about Europe as well.
>
>> But I do hate hypocrisy.
>
> Don't look in a mirror then.

Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the classroom?

On 09/03/2022 10:27 pm, Wilf wrote:

> On 09/03/2022 at 14:51, Woody wrote:
>> On Wed 09/03/2022 14:24, MB wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2022 11:34, Wilf wrote:

>>>> At least people know the potential score under PR.  They know that,
>>>> however problematical coalition governments may be, they at least get
>>>> represented in parliament according to the proportion of their votes.
>>>> 43.6% of voters voted for the Conservatives last time, yet they have an
>>>> overall majority of 80 in the Commons (over 55% of MPs).
>
>>> But under PR a small party that received few votes can hold virtually a
>>> large party to ransom.
>
>> Viz the Greens holding Merkel to ransom with the requirement to close
>> down all nuclear power generation - and look where that got them!
>
> Hindsight is great, though.  And I still say that that is preferable to
> a party in the UK getting 45% of the vote but ending up with a massive
> and unassailable majority in parliament.

2005: Labour got a massive and unassailable majority in Parliament with
35.2% of the vote.

A large part of the reason was that Parliamentary boundaries had not
been adjusted to reflect movements in population, meaning that inner
city seats (tending to lose population entitled to vote) were
over-represented and suburban seats (tending to gain population entitled
to vote) were under-represented. Labour has flatly resisted every
attempt since 2010 to correct that injustice.

> After all, if you want a powerful government that only has to pass
> legislation put forward by a single party, a one party state is very
> strong!!!

On 10/03/2022 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/03/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
>>> amount, a fact that you continually try to mask - for the years
>>> between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
>>> introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
>>> around 7k& 10k. Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
>>> succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
>>> Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the Commission
>>> which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
>>> in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
>>> parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
>>> as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
>>> not less, than our own system.
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.
>
> My opinion is based on facts, not bigotry.
>
>> The fact remains
>> that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people
>> elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful
>> doesn't change that.
>
> The facts outlined above speak for themselves. The democratically
> elected MEPs have as at least as much, arguably more, influence on EU
> policy

My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.

Perhaps now that you have stated that yourself, you might start to think
it might actually be true.

Jim

On 10/03/2022 at 14:28, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/03/2022 02:00 pm, Wilf wrote:
>
>> On 08/03/2022 at 10:52, MB wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2022 10:38, Wilf wrote:
>
>>>> Ugh.  How can he be in Europe!  Except maybe to stir up trouble that's
>>>> none of his business.
>>
>>> Do you now have to swear allegiance to the EU to visit "Europe"?
>>
>> No, but he always claimed what an awful disgusting place it was.
>
> Are you sure he wasn't simply saying that the European Union was an
> awful system of government?

He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".

--
Wilf

On 10/03/2022 14:40, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 08/03/2022 09:52 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 20:59, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> The possible Huguenot origin of the name is irrelevant. It should be
>>> obvious to the meanest intellect that a surname may be inherited from
>>> a person who makes up a tiny fraction of his ancestry from 300 years
>>> ago.
>>
>> A *minimum* of 2 x great great grandparents is 2 / 2^4 which is 1/8,
>> not a tiny fraction of his ancestry.
>
> Usually, only one of them would have brought the surname to the table,
> so it's 1/16th.
>
> [Yes, I suppose that it's possible for two unrelated Smiths or Joneses
> to meet and marry, though I suggest that the likelihood falls away
> somewhat for unrelated Farages or Jives.]

How typical that you come late into the argument spouting rubbish
because you didn't bother to look up the facts, viz: that he has *two*
German ancestors, not one.

>>> And no, I don't agree that it's OK for you to lie about someone just
>>> because you don't like his views.
>>
>> I didn't lie, as you yourself admitted up thread.
>
> You're *still* using that tactic, are you?

You're *still* using that tactic, are you?

>>> (Also, while I am no fan of his, like others that I recall him
>>> slagging of EU institutions, leaders and officials but not countries
>>> or peoples or the whole continent.)
>>
>> The EU is part of Europe, so in lying about the EU, he is inevitably
>> lying about Europe as well.
>>
>>> But I do hate hypocrisy.
>>
>> Don't look in a mirror then.
>
> Is that the playtime bell ringing for you to get back into the classroom?

No, it's for you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not an
>> English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in origin,
>> but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that still
>> makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?
>
> What "lies" do you mean?
>
> His position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in a
> country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to foreign
> politicians and I invite you to take the same view".

Do you really, seriously think that Farage doesn't lie, and hasn't been
doing so about the EU for decades?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seb-dance/nigel-farage-seb-dance_b_14591852.html

Lies 3 to 5.

But of course he's still doing it:

Nigel Farage says Ukraine invasion is result of EU and Nato provoking Putin
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-ukraine-russia-eu-b2022400.html

Oh, so the attack on Ukraine is *our* fault now, is it???!!!

He should have been strangled at birth.

> a large number of people - as was
> demonstrated back in 2016 - took the same sort of view.

Mainly because they were lied to by people like Blowjob and Farage.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/03/2022 19:42, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/03/2022 14:32, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> On 08/03/2022 05:12 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Doubtless you can read Wikipedia as well as me.  His is clearly not
>>> an English name, and has been suggested to be French Huguenot in
>>> origin, but even if it's just the two great-great-grandparents, that
>>> still makes his lying about Europe somewhat hypocritical, don't you
>>> think?
>>
>> What "lies" do you mean?
>>
>> His position on the EU can be boiled down to: "I prefer to live in a
>> country - the United Kingdom - which is not run by or subject to
>> foreign politicians and I invite you to take the same view".
>
> Do you really, seriously think that Farage doesn't lie, and hasn't been
> doing so about the EU for decades?
>
> https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seb-dance/nigel-farage-seb-dance_b_14591852.html
>
> Lies 3 to 5.

Oh, of course, and how could I forget:

Video evidence emerges of Nigel Farage pledging EU millions for NHS
weeks before Brexit vote. The Ukip leader distanced himself from the
pledge just hours after EU referendum results became known
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/03/2022 16:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 10/03/2022 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 09/03/2022 23:31, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wrt deciding which system is more democratic, it is not a significant
>>>> amount, a fact that you continually try to mask  -  for the years
>>>> between 1983 and 2019 they averaged just under 10pa, whereas government
>>>> introduced bills for two of those years selected pseudo randomly, were
>>>> around 7k&   10k.  Further, most of the Private Member's Bills that
>>>> succeed appear to originate in the less democratic chamber, the Lords.
>>>> Put all this against the fact that nearly all requests to the
>>>> Commission
>>>> which are carried by a majority in the European Parliament will result
>>>> in action by the Commission, and that in the UK the major political
>>>> parties frequently apply a three line whip to ensure their own MPs vote
>>>> as the leadership wishes, and the EU begins to look *MORE* democratic,
>>>> not less, than our own system.
>>>
>>> You are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.
>>
>> My opinion is based on facts, not bigotry.
>>
>>> The fact remains
>>> that the executive function in the EU is never performed by the people
>>> elected by the voters. The fact that the lobbyists are mostly successful
>>> doesn't change that.
>>
>> The facts outlined above speak for themselves.  The democratically
>> elected MEPs have as at least as much, arguably more, influence on EU
>> policy
>
> My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.
>
> Perhaps now that you have stated that yourself, you might start to think
> it might actually be true.

I never stated that they are elected lobbyists, that is your fiction and
yours alone. I can see that, just like Climate Change denialist fake
news, Lab-Leak fake news (BTW completely debunked in the most recent
Science In Action), and the shape of agricultural drainage ditches, you
are determined to ignore any facts put before you. For my part, I will
continue to stick to those actual facts, which show that the EU is at
least as democratic as UK government, arguably more so.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:

> Nigel Farage says Ukraine invasion is result of EU and Nato provoking Putin
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-ukraine-russia-eu-b2022400.html
>
> Oh, so the attack on Ukraine is *our* fault now, is it???!!!

From Putin's PoV, yes the B9/V4 countries having "encroached" on Russia
together with Ukraine pondering EU membership and trying to force "anti-Russian"
changes in the Donbas region back in 2014 is the long drawn-out reason *as* *he*
*sees* *it*, it doesn't justify invading though.

Surely, you don't think anything in that part of the world is black and white?

On 10/03/2022 20:16, Andy Burns wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> Nigel Farage says Ukraine invasion is result of EU and Nato provoking
>> Putin
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-ukraine-russia-eu-b2022400.html
>>
>> Oh, so the attack on Ukraine is *our* fault now, is it???!!!
>
> From Putin's PoV, yes the B9/V4 countries having "encroached" on Russia
> together with Ukraine pondering EU membership and trying to force
> "anti-Russian" changes in the Donbas region back in 2014 is the long
> drawn-out reason *as* *he* *sees* *it*

But that doesn't mean that Putin's PoV is in fact correct or even
rational. Those countries were *supposedly* independent countries while
they were part of the Soviet bloc, and they left the bloc over 30 years
ago, and have been truly independent countries since. Further, they're
*different* countries from the one now invaded, so there's no real
justification in invading Ukraine to be found in pointing fingers at the
B9/V4.

> it doesn't justify invading though.

No indeed, it's like Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia or Poland, and
similarly may yet lead to an escalating conflict.

> Surely, you don't think anything in that part of the world is black and
> white?

No, but I rather think the arsehole Farage does, or else is going by the
principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" wrt to the EU. Either way,
he's talking out of his arse, so nothing unusual there.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Java Jive wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> From Putin's PoV, yes the B9/V4 countries having "encroached" on Russia
>> together with Ukraine pondering EU membership and trying to force
>> "anti-Russian" changes in the Donbas region back in 2014 is the long drawn-out
>> reason *as* *he* *sees* *it*
>
> But that doesn't mean that Putin's PoV is in fact correct or even rational.

True, but we have to deal with what he does see/imagine, rather than what we
think he ought to see/imagine, i.e. it *is* his PoV that matters.

> No indeed, it's like Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia or Poland, and
> similarly may yet lead to an escalating conflict.

As harsh as it is on the Ukrainians, I don't think we can step-in any more than
we're doing already (provide weaponry, intell, funding, training, refuge)
because it will give Putin the excuse he's waiting for. But we should
absolutely continue to turn the financial screw on Russia as hard as we can, for
as long as we need to, excluding them from a Western lifestyle until someone
removes Putin from power, somehow.

Russia has enough oil/gas that they won't freeze to death and enough wheat that
they won't starve, the people there don't deserve to suffer either, but having
their calendar turned back 30 years is nothing compared what Ukraine is suffering.

On 10/03/2022 16:45, Wilf wrote:

>
> He never distinguished the EU from "Europe".
>

This is simply untrue.

Bill