Reply With QuoteThey're talking about government actions, not public opinion.Originally Posted by life on mars
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
They're talking about government actions, not public opinion.
Doing nothing are people blind ?? The UK has frozen over 250bn of russian bank assest EU 34bn .
We also provided defensive weapons well before the EU and still are .
We now supplying the sophisticated Starstreak anti-air missiles to Ukraine to fire at Russian aircraft that will cause chaos to Putin's air force we have already supplied 3,500 NLAW anti-tank missiles that have battered Putins tanks .
Why are folk so anti UK
It's strange, anyone being critical of the UK Government’s, not the UK’s,response to the refugee crisis is seen as being unpatriotic in some quarters, despite me not having seen any criticism (apart from an MP on the Farage wing of the Tory party) saying they are doing too much - it’s always to say they should be doing more.
Here’s an example of the sort of thing which gets me annoyed about this Government. Johnson’s claim in PMQs yesterday that “we’ve done more to resettle vulnerable people in the UK than any other European country since 2015” is not a lie, but it is a very political answer designed to distort the reality about our Government’s true record(look at the numbers of people involved in the two charts in this link).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60679290
Agree. The word "boosterism" seems to be attached to Johnson's government. There is nothing wrong with emphasising the achievements of the country or the government but time and again there is this fast and loose approach with claims that are not supported by fact or official statistics. He has been reprimanded a few times recently by the head of the Office for National Statistics for false or dubious claims. I guess it's an extension of Johnson's character that permeates down.
In this instance LoM's claims about the UK freezing nearly £260 billion of Russian assets against a paltry amount in the EU came from a Daily Telegraph article that in turn came from a Jacob Rees-Mogg tweet.
Factcheckeres were unable to verify this and the Foreign Office, which was the source were unable or unwilling to provide any clarifying details. It leaves you with the feeling that the search for a headline that shows the UK in its most glittering light is more important than actually delivering a tangible outcome.
https://fullfact.org/economy/russia-...erg-sanctions/
Still good to see that 7 oligarchs including a couple who passed the FA's fit and proper test for football club ownership have finally been sanctioned.
Yes. More disinformation lapped up by those (if we're being kind) with confirmation bias, or (if we are being less kind) who are totally gullible.
I do accept that in a situation where none of us really know the full facts, there is huge scope for interpreting things in a way which fits our own narrative. Given the 'boosterism' tendency that you have highlighted, it is why people need to engage their own 'reality checks' and stop just parroting claims which appear to support their own views. It makes them look a bit silly.
For me personally, the issue that bugs me is how black and white people are about it. The reality of the situation is that there are numerous ways our country is and should be helping Ukraine;
Economic sanctions on Russia - Okay by all accounts. Hard to verify and monitor the real world impact. Given the importance of London financially, we could probably do less than others and have a bigger impact. Maybe we are weaker on sanctions on people but stronger on raw material sanctions?
Humanitarian support on the ground - I think we are doing well. And it's something the UK is generally good at and our foriegn aid spending is generally well above other nations (even after proposed future cuts). If our families were in this situation this is also the literal life savers on the ground. We should generally be proud.
Military support - pretty good. Better than most. Hands understandably tied by NATO issues etc, but again, OK.
Refugees - Not as good as it could be. Situation is different as the UK is a long way from Ukraine so understandably numbers would be less. Also the situation in Calais and our inability to deal with that properly - many of whom are NOT legitimate refugees, even if you want to think otherwise. And on Hong Kong, we were WAY ahead of other countries - I just get tired of people not recognising things like that
Political support - pretty good by all accounts. Clearly we have clout on the world stage and are using it. Support is in line with all countries in presenting a unified stance.
So overall, I'd say the UK is doing okay. It's fine to wish we were doing better, but it's the way people talk about us, always the negative, always using somewhat hysterical language and never focuses on the good. It just frustrates me because it is not reflective of reality, it's presenting a distorted vision of the truth.
Ireland is even further away, and if you believe what was stated yesterday at PMQ (again, needs verification) they have taken 3 times as many people from Ukraine as us. Also, UK and HK is a special case surely?
I personally believe that we have less clout on the world stage than we had (certainly amongst our European neighbours), but as a nuclear power it is inevitable that the UK's stance will be listened to.
Apart from that I don't disagree with much of what you say.
Ireland is further away, but just see who ends up taking more refugees ultimately.
Also, of course HK is a different matter, but so is Ukraines relationship with eastern and central Europe. Lviv used to be part of Poland, as did much of Ukraine. Moldova and Ukraine were both in the same state until 1991. But yes, I can recognise that Hong Kong has historic links to the UK without labelling Poland or France as pathetic in response to Hong Kong, so why can't others do the same?
There is a good thread here on some of Britains work in Ukraine
https://twitter.com/thatfoxxybloke/s...28163570667525
I read someone label this kind of thing as 'self loathing liberal brain-rot'. Which I dont agree with, mainly because there is nothing liberal about getting hysterical about Britains response to Ukraine. It is tiresomely predictable though and does require the deliberate closing off of information to come to such a non nuanced view that the UK is somehow uniquely awful, which many do.
The Russia collusion hoax is a very fine example of that, and the majority of the populations in the west all fell for it, so you are quite right in saying people should question everything. Another lazyism is accusing people of being far-left/far-right wing supporters or conspiracy theorists, based purely on media narratives.
This
the media have alot to answer for
The Uk government does deserve recognition much more than some of our European neighbours i.e. Germany
perhaps worth a read
https://researchbriefings.files.parl...35/SN07135.pdf
Defence and security links between Ukraine and NATO members and other Western countries, started soon after Ukraine’s independence in 1991. They intensified further when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, but primarily took the form of training and the provision of non-lethal military equipment.
Since Russia’s military operations against Ukraine began on 24 February 2022, a large number of NATO members started supplying or approved supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine, including Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
For some countries such as Germany this was a significant reversal of their previous defence policies, which had ruled out providing offensive weapons.
The European Union announced it would provide a €450 million lethal arms support package through its European Peace Facility (EPF), the first time the bloc had in its history approved the supply of lethal weapons to a third country.
The US announced an additional $350 million of military assistance to Ukraine once Russian military operations began, taking the total security assistance the US had approved for Ukraine to $1 billion over the past year.
The UK Government has said that there is not, and will not, be any prospect of UK or NATO forces providing active military support in Ukraine itself, and no NATO alliance member has proposed putting troops on the ground. It has not provided precise details of what military equipment it is currently supplying to Ukraine for “operational security reasons”.
The UK has also ruled out creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
How much money has Ireland provided in weaponry and training Ukraine armed forces .
Its not just about refugees , Ukrainian leaders would prefer they stayed closer to home so they can return to their homeland .
Ukraine wants air support and weaponry as a first option , not visas or oligarch money
If I was UK i'd pile money into Poland to help create safe havens for them rather than expect them to haul woman , children and elderly and unwell on long journeys though many safe European countries
I did wonder if that was Douglas Murray, as you've quoted him before. But it comes from the Guido Fawkes website. What a surprise.
Ireland - as the issue at hand was the speed of the initial response, the point stands. I'd certainly hope that you're right and the numbers in the UK will end up being higher. And not just absolute, but pro-rata.
Who is David Foxx? That link, taken at face value, gives some useful references to some real positives. I thought you, as the champion of posting with fair-minded balance might have found something a bit more rounded and nuanced though.
We waffle on about bad UK just to score immigration type political points , whilst Ukraine die in hospitals .
Time NATO stood up and went in the create safe haven for injured and needy .
Posting Permissions
