The UK has already paid £270 million, with the latest £50 million instalment handed over in April. Nobody was deported, although two failed asylum seekers went to Rwanda voluntarily under a separate agreement that saw them offered a £3,000 incentive to go.
Just imagine what useful stuff could have been done with that money.
Got the ball rolling on this, junior doctor strikes, and planning system reform on day one.
The manifesto was fairly unradical and didn't seek to rock the boat too much, but tbh I'm glad it wasn't just filled with unworkable populist stuff that they probably couldn't achieve (cough, Tory, Green, and Reform, cough).
The UK using a bunch of documents, some of which are hundreds of years old and largely invalidated plus a bunch of unwritten arrangements to run a country is imo not ideal to say the least.
Well, not the only one considering that the USA is a thing, but that sort of near-religious treatment of eg a constitution is not normal at least from the perspective of dirty foreigner like me. Franky it's weird and fucking creepy
The entire party is a Russian proxy. Same with the German right wing.
Same goes for the left wing in France and BSW (left wing hardcore SED clone) in Germany.
Fuck extremism! They will run our continent into the wall and just because they profit from it. Both sides are paid by China and Russia to destroy our Unity!
BSW is no SED-Clone. BSW is a personal cult for Sahra Wagenknecht very populistic, pro workers ( which are left positions) but also pro putin and anti migration (which are all but left positions).
Also, Die Linke (left wing party) has no ties to Russia since Wagenknecht and her peers left.
And stop that "BoTh SiDeS" BS. It has no merit and is a false narrative.
Honestly, this is why using only a left-right axis to describe politics is inadequate. If the term wasn't prestressed, BSW would be literally National Socialist (but please don't use that term, because, you know, Hitler, and she's far from that).
Oh and BSW being a SED clone is regarding Wagenknecht being a SED politician and her very close ties into the Kremlin.
That's oversimplifying if I've ever seen oversimplifying. To the point of disinformation. Wagenknecht wasn't allowed to study because she clashed with the regime, was accused of a hunger strike during military training and joined SED *half a year before the Wall fell with the intention of reforming it. And licking Putin's boots is not enough to be an SED clone.
Lol. I never said National Socialist was left, I said BSW is not left. It is not considered left in the german political landscape (except by right wing nutjobs like AfD).
I got my political knowledge straight, you're making stuff up.
BSW has too many positions that are not considered left (their stance towards migration alone is all but left). And where are it's authoritarian positions?
You're throwing around a lot of terms that don't mean what you think they mean.
People like you are why such extremism can root freely. You want to avoid calling them left because you are left yourself and believe they aren't. They absolutely are. And you just don't accept reality.
Bro you just ignore arguments, also both of our arguments is that something is or isn't Left in a political sense. You don't support your claims with arguments either, probably because we are both right depending on who we ask.
The most important takeaway however is that BSW is undeniably a hardcore authoritarian party and mostly a east Germany phenomenon.
If its left or right will be seen next election, depending on where they take seat in the Bundestag, since they are a break away from the Left party, they will probably sit left from the view of the podium. The core problem we are at, is that nither left or right in common use are sufficiently defined to make a perfect point her.
If we'd take the Horseshoe theory again, BSW would be so far down left that its just "center" extremism but radical center is just not what they actually are.
Another takeaway is that they are absolutely a threat to democracy, just as the AFD is, and that they both suck putin dong.
You bring no arguments I could ignore. You only make assumptions and claims.
How do you even come to the conclusion BSW was authoritarian (that describes the use of (or desire to reach) a strong central power the rejection of political plurality) or left wing (which is defined by striving for societal progress and especially equal rights and equal chances for everyone, which BSW denies migrants).
and mostly a east Germany phenomenon.
That is something you never brought up before. What point do you think you make with this phenomenon?
they will probably sit left from the view of the podium.
Where you sit usually concurs with your political positions, but does not define it.
If we'd take the Horseshoe theory again
Why should we, since it's debunked?
Another takeaway is that they are absolutely a threat to democracy,
Again something you claimed but never supported with anything.
BSW is left "conservative", is way stronger in east Germany than west, has ties to Russia (due to Wagenknecht herself)
How do you even come to the conclusion BSW was authoritarian (that describes the use of (or desire to reach) a strong central power the rejection of political plurality) or left wing (which is defined by striving for societal progress and especially equal rights and equal chances for everyone, which BSW denies migrants).
BSW doesn't have a official party program, but from what Wagenknecht herself and most of her followers are standing for, they are for stuff like mass surveillance, chat control... They don't like wrongthink wich might, just might be because Wagenknecht was very involved in the last years of SED, the party that is known for hardcore authoritarian shit. Also who they are funded and allied with speaks volumes, Putin and Xi aren't known to be very libertarian or democratic.
That is something you never brought up before. What point do you think you make with this phenomenon?
As seen in sources for proof of the fact.
I think the east, due to the very short democratic time is tending towards extremism, in general. The east was also more supportive of NSDAP and especially Saxony is extreme. I don't know why its like this, what i day here isn't provable, but based on evidence. Afd is btw the strongest party in all of the east basically.
Where you sit usually concurs with your political positions, but does not define it.
In language it kinda does as the left right thing is essentially based on this.
Why should we, since it's debunked?
Well, firstly i just used it as a example and Secondly, who debunked it? Can you give insight, i think its rather more proven than anything. Both sides tend to authoritarian and antidemocratic views thats the key takeaway, and the further down they go their side, the more similar they become, they do however not reach each other, a horseshoe has a finite end and the sides are still apart, it's explicitly not a circle.
Again something you claimed but never supported with anything.
BSW tries to get closer to AFD, they are anti EU and have ties to Russia and China, they want to end all help for Ukraine, want to leave nato and what not to throw the state Germany under the bus. They are a threat to democracy because they would like to deliver Germany to Russia/China on a silver plate.
You are just digging a bigger hole with every comment, adding more inconsequential arguments.
Your original claim was that they are an SED clone. Which is just not true. That would also not make sense, given that we live in a vastly different time than the original Cold War era.
BSW is a party that, for the moment, has way more presence in political talk shows than it does substance. They have a prominent ex-Linke face, they have ex-Linke members, but they also have nationalist and socially regressive views. Calling them left-wing is thus not particularly appropriate either.
And just like CyberEgg, I absolutely don't understand why you bring in all the arguments that don't do anything for your case. E.g: Yes, BSW is popular in Eastern Germany. But that doesn't mean they're an SED clone or left-wing. It just means that a bunch of people in Eastern Germany voted for this weird cult.
And for the record, none of that means that either CyberEgg or I like BSW.
Isn't it weird how all these stridently isolationist voices are taking Russian money? I just can't seem to connect this dot. Putin must really hate woke 🙃
They are. They are redfash. Talking about the horseshoe is one thing, but lets use the political Compass, they are peek Auth left and AFD is peek Auth right, they can work together to destroy democracy, wich is their long therm goal, or rather the goal of the Countries behind both parties. (Russia and China)
BSW is already evaluating their chances at a majority in coalition with AfD and who knows else, but certainly not with any leftist party. To consider them left is showing a fundamental lack of basic understanding of the German political landscape.
I suspect that telling children they are addicted to something, especially when there’s no such “addiction,” is far more damaging than just letting them use their damn phones.
I mean they're not really wrong. If the UK can't refuse migrants arriving by boat on the basis of them coming from France, which is a safe country, then it stands to reason that Ireland can't refuse ones coming from the UK. Thinking one of those is fine but the other isn't is certainly hypocritical.
That said, I do find the political football of boat crossings to be quite tedious. They make up a tiny portion of immigration into the UK, yet it's all the government and media seem to talk about.
What happens if Ireland grants them asylum? Can't they just use the CTA go go back to Britain then, should they so choose? Or do they have to become citizens first?
U.S. conservatives are champing at the bit to see Europe fall to Russia. Action needs to happen now, or the U.S. could have a conservative government that backs Putin. That would be the end of Europe.
We need to join Europe right now in a full-scale defense of Ukraine. Otherwise we are allowing Putin to take Europe simply by threat of nuclear action. We need to strike first, disarm the dictator and repel the Russian invasion. And we need to do it now. The clock is ticking.
We need to destroy Russias ability to threaten the EU and remove Putin and any other similar leader from power in Russia. That should be the goal of the EU and not to go into a full scale war with Russia. Seriously Putin is not winning that war. The Russian civilian economy is shrinking fast, Russias war reserves are depleting, oil income is falling, soldiers are being lost on a massive scale with a demogrophics, which does not allow for that, and Russias weapons reserves from Soviet times are falling. Russia has two or three years of full scale war in it. The only thing we need to do is to keep Ukraine in the fight, while destroying as much of Russia as possible.
The one thing Russia has able to successfully ramp up production on is basic artillery shells. Analysts are putting their production numbers at something like 3x what Europe is putting out. It’s starting to become a problem.
And that little spineless shitfuck Johnson is doing precisely what Putin wants in this scenario. There is a direct causal relationship between Johnson + the GOP refusing to give anything to Ukraine for months and Ukraine’s recent strategic difficulties. I sincerely hope Johnson is able to experience the tender mercies of Russian captivity someday.
China wants to maintain full control of anyone who it views as it’s citizens (importantly distinct from actual citizens), regardless of whether or not they’re in China, and regardless of whether or not they have PRC citizenship or not.
Most nations would object to this, especially if it involves the PRC exerting jurisdiction within the host country’s borders, potentially on the host country’s citizens, and almost certainly on the host country’s legal residents. Orban, evidently, does not.
That's absurd, what is anybody's source on this claim? America can end this war in a month by just strong arming Ukraine to surrender Crimea. And best of all, if the conspiracy theory is true, we will know immediately, because Russia will have already gotten what they say they want.
It is interesting to see how people seems to think that if Ukraine (the victim) surrender everything will be ok while nobody think that Russia (the aggressor) could just stop.
I've seen somewhere else... let me think... oh yes, in the 1930's, just before WWII...
That’s absurd, what is anybody’s source on this claim?
It's not the same situation. Obviously. Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce. Germany wanted all of Poland, Belgium, and Netherlands. And it's certainly not as if the reason WW2 happened was that Poland surrendered eventually. The sum total of similarities between the two scenarios is: both countries tried to take land.
It's actually a better argument to say that taking Poland and Belgium by force allowed Germany to accelerate their war machine dramatically compared to their future opponents, and had they been surrendered to, might not have been able to pull off the massively complicated military feats that were 100% required to be done in the first few months of the war if they wanted to even have a chance to win it.
If you're trying to stop a steamroller, your best possible course of action is to not let it get started. And there is no steam roller required vs a surrender.
Russia wants one small region that they lost custody of in their divorce.
This is how Czechoslovakia lost the Sudety region just before WW2. Germany also claimed that the German populace there is being mistreated and there is so much Germans living there that it should belong to Germany anyway.
Maybe this sounds a bit more familiar? Back then the West let them have it to maintain peace - funny how Russia and pro-Russians are calling for the same thing now...
There are multiple countries Russia would like to invade too - but they were stopped (or at least slowed down - depends on how it will develop) in Ukraine.
Just because it's not the exact same situation doesn't mean there aren't paralels.
You forgot about Georgia, Moldova, and Afghanistan... all of which Russian troops fully invaded (Georgia & Afghanistan) or at the very least sent core military forces to fight against in a primarily Russian-backed war (Moldova), all in the past 1 to 4 decades. Although in Afghanistan's case, it wasn't to take land or annex it or anything, it was just to overthrow the government. Still a blatant invasion though.
They've also stripped Belarus of most of its autonomy via installing a puppet government a few years after it gained independence, and have now effectively incorporated in into Russia in all but name via the Union State.
Azerbaijan and Armenia would have both likely been candidates for absorption by Russia in the future for various reasons, but that is entirely speculative, and the only ones which constantly are currently facing extreme encroachment on territory or independence by Russia are currently Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia.
When the dictator and military leaders of a larger country are all talking about how the lands of their former domain (located in significantly smaller countries) are rightfully historically theirs and stuff, you know exactly what their goals are... It doesn't matter if it's Hitler, Mussolini, Horthy, Putin, or anyone else, their intentions are clear.
So they've invaded 4 places, all of which directly border them, in 40 years? That doesn't seem very dictator-like or authoritarian to me. Why are we supposed to be inherently against former USSR abortion into Russia? Seems to me like it'd be a good thing for all involved
Bro you have got to be a jester or something, a troll account surely... either that or you drank the entire world supply of stupid juice
You lost all hopes of othere taking you seriously as soon as you implied Putin is a democratic leader, let alone outright saying "yeah, Russia invaded 3 bordering countries part of its former empire that it has historical ideological/nationalistic goals to conquer, took a chunk of their land and put it in the hands of rebels, has been in the process of removing the soveirgnty of a 4th bordering country for 3 decades, and invaded a 5th bordering country to overthrow the government and make it a puppet state of the USSR – BUT this surely isn't at all like when Germany did the same thing with Austria, Slovakia, Czechia, and Poland, or when Italy did the same thing to Albania, Greece, and Ethiopia"
Russia already had Crimea secured from their previous invasion of Ukraine many years prior (which happened after Ukraine deposed of their Russian puppet dictator in a revolution BTW), the outbreak of the more recent stage of the war had little to do with Crimea. They have used the Donbass as a nationalistic war goal towards Ukraine for a long time, to say that it belongs to Russia because there are a lot of ethnic Russians (which is how almost any border region with a much larger country goes), and now that they've started a war with that they've declared full intent to dissolve Ukraine as a soveirgn state and incorporate it into Russia. It is not about some strategically important areas, it is about continuing Russification and making Russia "what it once was" by absorbing neighbour states. After Belarus and Ukraine, Georgia is undoubtedly next – hell, the only reason Russia isn't doing the same thing to Georgia is because they're busy getting their ass handed to them by Ukraine.
Putin gets democratically elected, what other definition of democratic is there?
Why are you just assuming that Russia acquiring Ukraine would even be a bad thing? Ukraine was certainly more powerful as the USSR. The only people who it would be bad for are the current Ukraine govt. But as for the people of Ukraine, why shouldn't they be part of the USSR again?
But please, keep telling me how reunification of USSR is the same thing as fucking WW2.
telegraph.co.uk
Heiß