What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[BeElBeeBub]

The fact that you have to do an analogy shows the link doesn't say what you want it to say, so as I said, nowhere does it say we WILL join.

"I believe if someone put £10 million in my bank I would be very happy"

Look in bank: not got £10 million.

No, Nigel Farage told you there wasn't £10m in the bank.

Accountants and bank managers told you there was 10m.in the bank and showed you the figures. 

Nigel Farage showed you a bank statement and pointed to a number that want 10m as. Proof

(NF stands in for brexiters in general here) 

[cromwell]

The fact that you have to do an analogy shows the link doesn't say what you want it to say, so as I said, nowhere does it say we WILL join.

"I believe if someone put £10 million in my bank I would be very happy"

Look in bank: not got £10 million.

They eventually got round to asking us and  voted yes to a common market what I and a lot of other people didn't vote for was a European Union,that blot on the landscape Bliar promised a referendum then promptly forgot it.
Then Cameron the run away held one and all we've heard ever since is a lot of moans from people who profess their belief in democracy till the vote doesn't go their way.

[BeElBeeBub]

The fact that you have to do an analogy shows the link doesn't say what you want it to say, so as I said, nowhere does it say we WILL join.

"I believe if someone put £10 million in my bank I would be very happy"

Look in bank: not got £10 million.

You are literally doing the thing I said you would do.

The manifesto says they want to join if given the chance

If a government says they want to increase income taxes if they can and you vote for them you can coma about raising income taxes but you can't complain they didn't warn you they wanted to raise income taxes.

And how do you put aside the referendum after? (when the terms were known and we had been in for a few years) I know you are keen of respecting referendum results.

[Nick]

As I love an analogy:

Wife: I'm going shopping for various things. I think we need a dishwasher, if I can get a good deal
Me: ok

Wife comes home with new dishwasher

Wife: I think this is a good thing. shall we keep it or send it back?
Me: let's keep it.

Older me: I never agreed to getting a dishwasher.

The fact that you have to do an analogy shows the link doesn't say what you want it to say, so as I said, nowhere does it say we WILL join. 

"I believe if someone put £10 million in my bank I would be very happy"

Look in bank: not got £10 million. 

[BeElBeeBub]

As I love an analogy:

Wife: I'm going shopping for various things. I think we need a dishwasher, if I can get a good deal
Me: ok

Wife comes home with new dishwasher

Wife: I think this is a good thing. shall we keep it or send it back? 
Me: let's keep it. 

Older me: I never agreed to getting a dishwasher. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Don't see anything saying we are going to join.

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country


Now you can dance around with "oh they only said the believed it to be in the best interests to join.... Not that they would join"

But we both know that is bullshit.

That passage in the manefesto makes it clear the party wanted to join the EEC and the only impediment would be the terms being acceptable.

It cannot come.as a surprise to anyone that, when offered the chance to join on terms they deemed acceptable they did.

It is also relevant that shortly after joining a referendum was held on whether to remain in the. EEC which resulted in remaining Int he EEC.

The entire point of a representative democracy is to delegate the decision making process to an executive. The democratic input is limited to picking the executive based (amongst other things) their policy platform - often distilled into a manifesto.

The electorate voted the. Conservatives in knowing their position on the EEC (to join if possible) and later voted on remaining in the EEC on the terms the conservatives negotiated.

That is a much "will of the people" as you get in a representative democracy

[Nick]

Yes

Extract from the 1970 Conservative manifesto "a better tomorrow"

<sup>A Stronger Britain in The World

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a  major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.</sup>

It the goes on to outline that there may be short term disadvantages to joining that must be weighed against the long term advantages

Don't see anything saying we are going to join. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Britain was taken into the common market without a say, was it in the 1970 manifesto?

Yes

Extract from the 1970 Conservative manifesto "a better tomorrow" 

<sup>A Stronger Britain in The World

If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a  major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.</sup>

It the goes on to outline that there may be short term disadvantages to joining that must be weighed against the long term advantages 

[Nick]

More rubbish

The UK was never in the very limited remit PESCO and it was and is not obligatory on EU members

The UK was brought into the EEC and later EU as a result of democratic votes in General Elections where the winning party made its plan clear.

Britain was taken into the common market without a say, was it in the 1970 manifesto?

[Unlucky4Sum]

No I don't.  NATO and the EU are both military alliances, so they go together in this point.

Ukraine was forced to accept a new government in 2014.  This was NOT democratic process, and so not only was the government forced to change, but the population gave no democratic consent, and the removed president had been voted in on a "neutral military" policy.  The new government were pro NATO and pro EU, and as you well know, they now want to be in both.

The UK was brought into the EU, and subsequently a military alliance (PESCO), as a result of changes in the EEC / EU.  It was not a result of the UK's democratic choice.  Indeed, we chose to leave the EU in 2016, PESCO was first initiated in 2017, before we actually left, and therefore it was against the UK's democratic will to be initiated into PESCO.

More rubbish

The UK was never in the very limited remit PESCO and it was and is not obligatory on EU members

The UK was brought into the EEC and later EU as a result of democratic votes in General Elections where the winning party made its plan clear.

[BeElBeeBub]

Wikipedia: in Jan 2010:

"The Ukrainian people don't currently support Ukraine's entry to NATO and this corresponds to the status that we currently have. We don't want to join any military bloc".

In 2010 and in fact in 2014 Ukraine didn't want to join NATO (why would it need to? It had a guarentee of territorial integrity from Russia) and NATO didn't want it to join.

Neither was joining the EU on the cards - the EU certainly didn't want Ukraine to join.

Both UKR and the EU were keen on closer ties though an association agreement. Such an agreement might be the first step towards membership but membership is not inevitable or immediate (as witnessed by Turkey who has been an associate of the EU/EEC for over 60 years) and the association agreement did not bind Ukr to participate in PESCO (it is unlikely the UKR forces in 2014 would be allowed to participate in PESCO or NATO as they were widely seen to be corrupt outdated relics of the Soviet era - which proved to be true.)

[BeElBeeBub]

I'll just repeat what I already told you.

'Protesters' occupied government buildings.  21st February 2014, revolutionaries took control of Central Kiev because the police abandoned it.  That was a coup.  He fled Ukraine.  22nd February, parliament voted to remove Yanukovich.

So he was voted out by a parliament under threat during a revolution.  That's not really democratic, is it?

Let's pretend the entire revolution was conducted by CIA agents, thry also kidnapped VY and dumped him in Russia before threatening the UKR parliament to remove him. (for the avoidance of doubt and because you are a bad faith debate - this is not what happened - this is a hypothetical scenario to illustrate how absurd you position is) 

(let's put aside the parliament and VY had been for the EU deal since 2010 and the protests only happened when he  u turned and didn't sign the agreement).

There was still a democratic (and internationally observed) presidential and parliamentary election held a few months after. And that president and Parliament was (as the previous ones were) pro EU.

Do you want to contrast that process with what happened in Donbas and Crimea at the same time?

[Nick]

I'll just repeat what I already told you.

'Protesters' occupied government buildings.  21st February 2014, revolutionaries took control of Central Kiev because the police abandoned it.  That was a coup.  He fled Ukraine.  22nd February, parliament voted to remove Yanukovich.

So he was voted out by a parliament under threat during a revolution.  That's not really democratic, is it?

So how was NATO or the CIA responsible for this? And what business is it of Russia's what happens in another sovereign country?

[Scott777]

2010 Yanukovich elected president saying Ukraine integration with EU is a stratigic aim.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because your first claim misrepresents what happened, and I'm not wasting my time.

Wikipedia: in Jan 2010:

"The Ukrainian people don't currently support Ukraine's entry to NATO and this corresponds to the status that we currently have. We don't want to join any military bloc".


PESCO was written into the Treaty of Lisbon of 2009.  That was a step towards EU military integration.  Therefore, Yanukovich already made it clear during the campaign that he ruled out full integration with the EU.  So when you say "integration with EU is a stratigic aim", that needs to be taken into context with the aim to balance such integration with good relations with Russia.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120515211754/http://www.interfax.com.ua/eng/main/29568/

[Scott777]

He was pro-Russia and was democratically voted out.

I'll just repeat what I already told you.

'Protesters' occupied government buildings.  21st February 2014, revolutionaries took control of Central Kiev because the police abandoned it.  That was a coup.  He fled Ukraine.  22nd February, parliament voted to remove Yanukovich.

So he was voted out by a parliament under threat during a revolution.  That's not really democratic, is it?