Rayvin

Corbyn said this: He said: “If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russianegligently lost control of a military-grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies?” Corbyn then asked: “How has she responded to the Russian government’s request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack, to run its own tests?” " "

If states-parties are found to have engaged in prohibited actions that could result in “serious damage” to the convention, the OPCW could recommend collective punitive measures to other states-parties. In cases of “particular gravity,” the OPCW could bring the issue before the UN Security Council and General Assembly. States-parties must take measures to address questions raised about their compliance with the CWC. If they do not, the OPCW may, inter alia, restrict or suspend their CWC-related rights and privileges (such as voting and trade rights). Notice how the international body is supposed to be the one that handles this. So again, why have we jumped the gun?

The Chemical Weapons Convention, apparently. We are supposed to send the sample to the OPCW.

How does this help him in his already bought and paid for domestic election?

So fucking what? We signed up to international agreements for the regulation of this sort of thing. How is it that these agreements are things we can ignore, but for other countries we expect them to comply? We sign up to these things to protect an admittedly largely illusory notion of international accountability. Especially when we know the US is effectively being run by a guy bought and paid for by the guy who has allegedly just attacked us, and the EU is pissed as hell at us, you would think complying with legally agreed frameworks would be advantageous. Where do you think this will end up, out of interest? My guess is it rumbles on for a while as the list of non-damaging diplomatic actions is exhausted, and then gets forgotten - and the Tories have jumped the gun purely because actually, they don't consider it to be a very big a deal... and they may as well make some political capital out of it.

So why expel their diplomats beforehand?

Well, fair enough. I expect that to be the first thing on May's list then, given how 'outrageous' this is.

It sounds like the standard procedure is to present evidence to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Something we apparently signed up to. Why aren't we doing that? Presumably, just so the Tories can look strong. This is a farce being played out for political points. It's well conceived on that basis, but I have no fucking time for it personally. We can't do anything to Russia of any significance, and in a few weeks it'll all be forgotten about unless the Tories actually declare war.

If it is, why aren't we following the standard procedure? And how do we even know that it is...?

So why not do that? I mean look, we're going to get into a game of tit for tat bullshit now - we'll expel their diplomats, they'll take ours out back and have them shot, we'll complain to the EU for greater sanctions, they'll tell the EU that if this happens, the oil is going to be cut off, and then we'll eventually we'll talk about freezing their assets, and then the Tories will complain that this will financially hurt the Tori--I mean the City of London.

Also, can someone explain to me why the notion that we should be following the process that we signed up to with whichever treaty it is that regulates this stuff, shouldn't be followed in this case? That seems to be the crux of what Corbyn is saying, and honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why we wouldn't do this.

Has it? Is that actually categorically known yet? I can't even start to get my head around why Russia would do it, but even if they did, what exactly does all of our MPs giving them a telling off do? This is where we are in the world now CT, thanks in part to Brexit. We can do jack shit about this.

I seem to recall Labour MP, after Labour MP, after Labour MP, trying to unseat him a year ago or so ago. All that matters is how the people who actually voted for him perceive this. The press look like a busted flush when it comes to Corbyn so I'm tempted to think he can say what he likes now.

Tbh even if he was wrong, how many diplomatically fuckheaded statements have the Tories come out with in the past couple of years? This whole fiasco is going to be a problem for the right wing anyway - the 'culture war' right wingers are actually very pro-Russia.

Yawn. It isn't like that has happened before or anything. Looks to me like he stuck to his principles. I am kinda curious about this though - why aren't we sharing evidence with the Russians? What is the actual benefit to us of doing that?

Nah I wholeheartedly agree on that tbh

RIP

"Space force" is probably the dumbest, least cool thing he could call it. It should be an extension of the navy...

Aye, agree on a draw being best. Although if we beat Huddersfield, relegation worries will more or less cease for me. We'll find another 5 points across the remaining 7 games fairly easily IMO.

He's the Chief Global Strategist of an Investment Firm. Do those sorts of companies often put nutters in key roles? I'm curious though, in what way is he a nutter? Keeping in mind that the current cabinet contains one Boris Johnson.

Has anyone mentioned that John Redwood (Tory MP) has claimed that austerity was unnecessary in his blog last week? This is the pro-Brexit guy who is also the head of some manner of investment firm which recommended to its clients that they should move their money out of the UK following the referendum - so while he's a cynical bastard, he is at least clued up on finance. His own words: I have not been worried about the state deficit for sometime, ever since Mr Brown found out that the UK state can literally print money to pay its bills. Mr Osborne, originally a critic of this in opposition, then discovered its charms in office as well. It turned out to have no adverse consequences on shop price inflation, though of course it caused massive price inflation in government bonds, because it was accompanied by severe pressure against bank lending to the private sector to avoid an inflationary blow off. I always adjust the outstanding debt by the £435 bn the state has bought up, as this is in no sense a debt we owe. So our government borrowing level (excluding future state pensions which some here worry about and which have always been pay as you go out of taxation) is modest by world standards at around 65% of GDP, and at current interest rates is affordable. Most of the state debt we owe to each other anyway. The government owes it to taxpayers who own the debt in their pension funds and insurance policies. The state can always raise enough money to pay the domestic bills backed by the huge powers to tax, and as we have just seen when credit expansion and inflation are low it can also use liquidity created by the monetary authorities. Austerity was an unnecessary action, a cover merely for stripping back the state to adhere to Thatcherite dogma, and the Tories pursuing it has brought us to the brink of ruin with Brexit (which would never, ever have happened without it), sent the Labour party to the left in a search for answers, and dismantled centrism. So there you go CT. The Tories fucked your newly beloved centrism to within an inch of its life, with something that many of us told you repeatedly, was an outright lie. Article goes on to say, about Redwood: He has admitted there is no need for a government to balance its books. He has admitted QE cancels debt. He has then admitted the whole ‘passing debt to the next generation’ phobia is wrong. And he has admitted as a result that there was no reason for austerity, the imposition of which served no economic purpose. As a result he has, in two paragraphs, shredded the whole economic rationale on which he has been elected to Parliament. And in so doing he has driven coach and horses through all those who still say that austerity must continue, because what he has done is make clear that if this is economically unnecessary then it can only be driven by incompetence, or a hatred of government, or class warfare, or all three. He is right on this. Deficits do not matter if there is less than full employment. And governments can cancel debt, at will. Debt, in fact, only exists as a favour to financial markets, who desperately need it but have no hold over government as a result. What does matter is that people like him do not want to use this knowledge for the good of people in this country and elsewhere. It is time others did. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/06/john-redwood-admits-it-there-never-was-a-reason-for-austerity/

Cat memes are probably the apex of civlisation as far as humanity is concerned, so he's probably right tbh.

Does anyone know why he was sacked, officially...?

Guilty

CT, I would have said the same thing as Corbyn. Apparently half of this board would have. Sorry that this depresses you, but these questions have to be asked.