Agree with all the above, Finglas. And the "nothing" was not intended to be literal, but figurative. It's one of those phrases of morality, like "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire) which should underpin our society.
At the risk of entering a ridiculous argument, your original point, to which I responded, was "if not for the UK and USA, who could have liberated Europe in 1945". Unless you didn't mean liberated from Hitler but something else, clearly the USSR played an enormous role and sacrificed more than any other country. It's not about the moral high ground, Stalin was a complete ****, it's about facts.
Well, we're getting down to semanitics. The role played by the Russian military in defeating Hitler was great - but in terms of liberating Europe, given that it enslaved Eastern Europe, I would give it no credit
As Quite Possibly Raving said earlier, I fear we're now just talking at each other instead of to each other. However, I'm of the opinion that FPTP will give a positive result far more often than any kind of PR or AV system will. PR serves to shift a disproportionate amount of power from the parties with most support to the parties with least support, because it brings them into play as Kingmakers in any election. AV might be a workable solution, but it will only impact the really marginal seats (those where an additional 500 votes will change the result), and there are so few of those that it would never really alter anything in the long run. And AV was specifically voted against by referendum a few years back, so it's clear the population does not want that. In this country, a positive majority result will always lead to more effective government than a coalition, because it releases the party in power from the shackles of a partnership of convenience. Coalitions are often made simply to keep the other main party out of office. And the balance of power in those cases always rests with the minority partner. I'd be sad to see us move to a voting system that makes that scenario the norm instead of the exception.
Stalin only fought the Germans after Hitler attacked them, tearing up their non-aggression pact in the process. Had Hitler not been stupid enough to invade the Soviet Union, the non-aggression pact would have stood, it's quite possible that Germany would have won the war, and we'd all be speaking in clipped tones now. But Hitler DID invade, and Stalin had to respond. It's good for the world that he did, but should he have signed the non-aggression pact with a clearly megalomaniac dictator in the first place? That shows Stalin's own power and land aspirations for what they were. It's good that he had to make the deal with the Allies and not with the Germans. IMO, Stalin was a terrible man who did some really horrific stuff, and his moral compass during the first few years of the war was warped. He would likely have sold Europe and Democracy for his slice of the continent. Circumstances forced his hand in another direction, and thankfully for the West it did, because the combined efforts of the entire Allied forces defeated the Axis powers, not just one or two nations.
WTF? Has this turned into a GCSE history lesson? Not disputing what a horrible **** Stalin was, or the course of the course or aftermath of the war etc etc. Just pointing out an omission from a political point that Goldie was making. I can't even remember what the point was now, or why he was making it.
I was agreeing with both of you. Stalin was a nasty bloke, but at least he was OUR nasty bloke at the time we needed him...
Boris has admitted that this will be a once and for all vote, there will be no second chance in the event of a no vote. Bad news for Brexit as some of the undecided voters may have gone for out in the expectation that it would not be final. In the meantime Farage is spending his time plotting against his party's only MP, when you may have thought that he would be more interested in the event that his whole political life has been focussed on. Odd. The Brexit campaign (or more accurately campaigns, there are at least 3 groupings) is a shrill, disorganised shambles. The Stay campaign is a ponderous, sloth like leviathan. I have heard nothing from either to help me make an informed decision, just sound bites.
It's mad to approach the referendum on the basis that if we vote OUT, the EU will offer something better. However I do think Michael Howard is a realist when he says, based on precedent, that if we voted out, the EU would do all it could to change our minds and make some more variations that would have go to a second UK vote - if only because we're the second largest financial contributor to the EU. I just don't buy into the Merkel and Hollande "flouncing off insulted" suggestion I'm off to the match - it's cold out there and to keep warm, I'm hoping to be jumping up out of my seat at regular intervals when goals are scored - preferably our own
Actually our net contribution after the UK 'correction' is applied is significantly less than Germany, France and Italy. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm My understanding is that if we vote out Article 50, the never yet used process for withdrawal from the EU, will apply. There will be a maximum of two years for the UK to disengage itself from the EU, and we will NOT be represented on the committee/group which will make the decisions on how this happens. It was deliberately designed, and we signed up to it, to make exit unpleasant and difficult. Howard's comments are clueless, there is no precedent for a country leaving. But I agree, I don't think there will be any spite involved, we will have to get on and because of 40 plus years of membership, our economy is pretty well integrated into the EU, no one will want to make life more difficult for the people who actually make things and deliver services and pay the taxes which pay for politicians to **** around. I sincerely hope you are nice and warm at the game today.
Pretty explicitly Boris vs George, with Theresa May surprisingly quiet, probably hoping to be the compromise candidate. If the US, China, the rest of the G20, IMF, etc want us to stay in, as Georgie says, you can almost guarantee we will vote out through sheer stubborn bloody mindedness. The big beast Tory Brexit supporters have to get their act together, Farage is the go to person for slightly rabid quotes on everything so far. Cast your vote yet Fingy?
In/Out campaign - what''s that then? Find it hard to believe Tory leaders manage anything more strenuos than a fart while bending over to serve the soup.
I didn't mean on here mate, I meant in the Irish election (though now I think polling day may have been yesterday). Some of us Brits do know there is a world over the sea where things not directly related to us happen.
Yes, I voted yesterday. The counting starts today. The first results should start coming through soon but the final result won't be known till tomorrow at the earliest. The exit polls are showing that we will have some sort of change in government possibly even the unthinkable Fine Gael/Fianna Fail coalition. That is like labour and the tories going into coalition together over your way. The shinners seem to have done well too and independents.
