Could someone please tell me, an innocent bystander, which Law Johnson is supposed not to break?
AFAIK there hasn't been a Court Judgement yet about Johnson remaking the Benn Bill - which needs Royal consent first anyway?
And if there's talk about PMs breaking the law - what about the Article-50 Bill? Isn't that the Law of the Land, and aren't the Remain MPs breaking it with their demands for extension after extension?
Were there any court cases about that?
Please do explain!

As a long-time quiet reader here, may I ask one question:
is there a reason that Owen Paterson isn't figuring on any list at all?

I hope all those Tories who're now into this self-congratulatory mode reflect on how this plays for the BMEs - a group which CCHQ is so keen to get to vote Conservative in 2015 ...

Given what has been happening in the last three weeks in the Ukraine, and given what is still to come, I suspect that nice arguments for and against in a big focus group will simply become redundant because of: "events dear boy, events" ...

"8. Be prepared to retaliate if Moscow seizes British assets."
Why would Moscow seize British assets?
Could it be that they might do that after Cameron has seized Russian assets, as he's threatening to do? And how are "we" supposed to 'retaliate' then? Take Chelsea FC away fro Abramovich?

Btw - have any of the advisors to cameron thought about what would happen if the Russians start removing their assets before they're frozen by Cameron? I mean - these oligarchs are not exactly stupid, else they'd not have become oligarchs, right?
But the City has of course no influence at all on the rest of our economy, right?
And anyway, our economy is soo strong, we can deal with a bit of 'pain' in the City ...

"British aid money intended to help the poorest people in the world has been spent by the European Union on training Ukrainian soldiers in riot control, The Telegraph can reveal.
The EU spent more than £1 million of British-funded aid on instructing Interior Troops from Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs on how to control crowds and arrest protesters, documents show." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/...

Words fail me!

Any comment from ConHome?

Russia will pay dearly for the Crimea ... and who will pay dearly for the Ukraine?
Apparently we're so rich and our debts are so low that it isn't a problem to hand over an extra £ 2.4 billion to Brussels, to finance their 'aid package' of € 11 billion ...

Firstly, you write "For all the sending of an American warship to the Baltic, [...]" - no, it is actually the Black Sea, as the title of the report you link to makes perfectly clear.

Secondly, this (genuine, I believe) mistake shows that far too many people in the Westminster Village are excellent at talking about great, overarching ideas, but have not much knowledge of simple practicalities, such as what the sending of an US warship into a situation not exactly calm and serene might mean.

Thirdly, talking about NATO: I can't be alone in assuming that Putin and Lavrov and the Russian government know exactly what NATO stands for. Thus the bleating by some of the more belligerent commentators in the MSM (not here on ConHome) that Putin wants to grab all the former Warsaw Pact States is war-mongering nonsense, worthy of the coldest days of the Cold War. It does nothing to calm down this situation.

Fourthly - why is it that having another economic basket case in the EU is suddenly so important? Do we not have enough on our plate, financially, be it only here in the UK, be it in the EU as a whole? Where is that first hand-out of 11 billion € to come from? Apparently, we'll be giving £ 2.4 billion towards this 'help' ... and we all know that this is certainly not going to be an on-off.

And finally, a couple of questions which nobody is prepared to or able to answer: why is it that the former PM of the Ukraine, Yanukovich, was a perfectly nice PM as long as the EU treaty negotiations ran, but not once he didn't sign? Why is it that the same corrupt politicians which the Ukrainians rejected in 2010 when they elected Yanukovich are now wonderful democrats, out to do only good, and perfectly acceptable to receive our money - which we need to borrow in the first place?

It is very strange indeed that even Mr Lilico seems to leave out the fact that it was the Ukrainian's PM refusal to sign the EU association treaty last November which kicked off this revolt.
One wonders how come that this PM, who now is descried as dictator and 'puppet of Putin', was a perfectly good PM for the EU to negotiate with and sign treaties with. Ought we to suppose it would've been better for him to become a puppet of the EU? Like those PMs in Greece and Italy?

This article reads as if Putin, out of the blue, is suddenly occupying an innocent neighbour.

How can it have escaped Mr Field's notice that the unrest in the Ukraine went back to the non-signing of that EU Assimilation Treaty last November? A treaty, one assumes, which also just happened to fall from the sky?

How can it have escaped Mr Field's notice that not just Germany, with their heavy support and backing for Vitali Klitschko, but also the USA - that infamous phone call by Ms Nuland from the US State Dept, they one where she said "F*ck the EU", remember? - have been supporting the unrest financially, to the tune of millions of $$?

And how on earth can it have escaped the notice of the heavyweights in the FCO that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is stationed on the Crimea, by international treaty, thus of vital interest for Putin. Did they really think Putin would just roll over and do nothing, when blatantly anti-Russian, neo-nazi groups are now forming part of that 'new' regime?
The ineptitude which got us into this mess, and the further ineptitude shown by the reactions of e.g. Mr Hague are mind-boggling.