Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message


On 25 Feb 2014 at 9:52am Knoxon Cutts wrote:
Isn't it heartening that Chancellor Osborne is offering a blank cheque to whichever "corrupt ruthless dictator" takes over from the current "corrupt ruthless dictator" in the Ukraine. We can't afford flood defences or social services in Britain but we've got to cough up for some cause we know nothing about. The US spent $5 billion destabilising the the Ukraine now we've got to do our bit. So where will the UK taxpayers get the money to donate to the latest beacon of freedom? Borrow it from the bank of course,at interest!!! Forget about cutting the deficit,living within our means and all that rubbish, support your banker and top up his bonus. Austerity? Fleece the taxpayers,they havn't got a clue!
On 25 Feb 2014 at 1:24pm Ed Can Do wrote:
The reason the government are chucking money at the Ukraine is that it sits on top of huge reserves of oil, gas and coal. Obviously as burning these for energy has no adverse effect on our climate or environment it's important to secure future supplies at any cost, rather than investing the money on the domestic renewables market.

Like I said in the other thread you started, if you don't agree with climate change then you have no grounds for complaint when vast sums of money are spent to secure future access to fossil fuels, because that is the sole reason any western governments care who is running the Ukraine. See also military adventures in the Middle East, the only saliant argument put forward against Scottish independance and our politicians' love of fracking for more things that an eternal quest for fossil fuels create.
On 25 Feb 2014 at 10:06pm that one wrote:
It's "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine".
On 26 Feb 2014 at 12:06pm Knoxon Cutts wrote:
No it's not, it's UK rain and I've had enough of it! The odd thing is,I don't dispute climate change, I just don't think it's as simple as it's being made out to be. What annoys me is that tax payers money is used to fund corporate business which pays minimal tax. If those with the money want to invest in Ukraine so be it. Expecting the taxpayer to borrow the money from them,at interest of course,and then give it to them to invest is too much for me. They got away with it with the bank bailouts and saddled us with an unpayable debt burden and this is just more of the same.
On 26 Feb 2014 at 3:01pm Harald wrote:
KC, check your gramophone, I think your record might be stuck...
On 26 Feb 2014 at 5:51pm Sussex Jim wrote:
I'had enough of pedants on this forum; posting just to correct a former poster's grammar. Like when I accidentally wrote "ivest" instead of "invest" recently.
This can be a very good forum when posters stick to worthwhile relevant subjects.
On 26 Feb 2014 at 5:55pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Sorry: I meant- I've had enough...
On 26 Feb 2014 at 8:59pm Ed Can Do wrote:
But if you leave those who wish to invest in the Ukraine (It sounds better that way, I don't care if it's gramatically wrong) to do so with their own money then there's no guarantee they'll let the UK have all the oil and gas at a reduced rate. If it's government sanctioned intervention we get first dibs on the fossil fuels.

Investing in infrastructure in Ukraine is going to work out a lot cheaper than invading Iran.
On 27 Feb 2014 at 10:28am Knoxon Cutts wrote:
Don't read this Harald, I have no wish to test your patience any further. You're right Ed, before we made Iraq safe for democracy the oil concessions had all been sorted out. Although these huge corporations are nominally based in a country I don't think they feel any allegiance or duty to anyone but their shareholders. I feel that countries don't really exist any more except as an excuse to go to war for corporate interests.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 3:47am Oh Ed. Really? wrote:
Ed? You're usually interesting and occasionally factual, but even a cursory glance at Wikipedia would demonstrate the following.
Ukraine imports 75% of its gas. Oil not much better.
The only natural resources worth mentioning are in a pipeline from Russia and Asia to the West.
Both sides have no desire to disrupt this arrangement.
No "contracts" to be handed out. No conspiracy.
Ukraine, because of decades of corruption and no obvious economy apart from grain, IT and spacecraft is a financial basket case.
It used to be the agricultural breadbasket of the East, often raided by Stalin while it's own people starved.
Then the Eastern and Southern part ( ummm.. The bit likely to cede to Russia) became industrialised.
The Western bit ( the EU's ) has almost nothing going for it apart from being the traditional seat of government.
Swallow your it's all a global oil company conspiracy crap for once. This ain't one of them.
F**king "huge oil and gas reserves", my ar se.
Is it now true that if you shout something loud and long enough it becomes truth?
On 28 Feb 2014 at 4:00am Really mark 2 wrote:
Seriously. The Internet has turned "opinions" into facts.
I can understand how tempting it must be to state categorically that Prince Philip is an illuminati and see how far round the world it will go.
But as the reader, at least check the odd detail.
Oh. I'm sorry. Wikipedia is a Masonic device. Of course.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 4:02am Jes us wrote:
Christ. So angry, I want to spit. Thank god I'll die reasonably soon.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 10:18am Bum wrote:
On 28 Feb 2014 at 11:47am Knoxon Cutts wrote:
Every country in the world is a financial basket case,ever tried to figure out why?
On 28 Feb 2014 at 5:08pm Oh dear wrote:
Yes Klaxon. Norway, Canada and Australia are queuing up to agree with your sensible informed guff.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 5:17pm Ed Can Do wrote:
If we're using wikipedia for evidence then a cursory glance will tell you that "Significant natural resources in Ukraine include: iron ore, coal, manganese, natural gas, oil, salt, sulfur, graphite, titanium, magnesium, kaolin, nickel, mercury, timber, and arable land." so yeah, I was wrong about the coal.

Even were it not for Ukraine's natural resources, the pipeline you mentioned is a pretty significant strategic point. Sure there's a happy status quo at present but if you control the pipeline you control the ability to switch off the flow of resources from east to west. If Ukraine operates as a puppet state to Russia, Russia can play silly games with the pipeline and pretend it's nothing to do with them.

Whatever the reason though, I can guarantee that the UK government is not chucking cash at Ukraine because they feel bad for the people living there. It might look like charity but it's definitely investment in a power base and I feel anyone thinking otherwise is being a touch naive.
On 28 Feb 2014 at 6:05pm Really? wrote:
Ed? But significant is not huge is it? And these are minerals. You were talking energy. Cornwall has significant mineral resources - ie tin. Is it mined anymore? Not really.
Ukraine is a net exporter of energy, because of the Soviet nuclear plants. Yet it's nuclear fuel comes from Russia.
Wiki - Natural gas is Ukraine’s biggest import at present and is the main cause of the country’s structural trade deficit.[7]
Shell started fracking in 2012.
Where is your conspiracy now?
The bailout to Ukraine will come from the IMF. Our exposure will be £600 million as we are obliged to do.
Re: Greece, Ireland ( ah yes, we unilaterally gave more ) Portugal etc.
How is this chucking money at a special case? It would have happened anyway.
The only thing I don't disagree about is that there is an element of tiny cock waving between the EU and Putin about their influence in this historically and culturally important country.
Don't forget though that Putin unzipped his fly first.

20 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Southover Grange and Gardens 108:132
Southover Grange and Gardens

I recently ran into a bit of a dilemma at my shop and thought my experience might be helpful for anyone in a similar situation.... more
The Lewes Forum is one of the many great things about Lewes