RayC

If you are that bothered about how national laws are administered in France, I'm certain that there are processes for addressing such concerns.

It is up to France how they police and enforce their national laws. If France is breaking international law/ agreements then presumably there is a court/ organisation responsible for arbitrating/ passing judgement on any disputes. The UK could therefore raise the matter to this entity(ies) if it wished. As I'm sure you'll agree, the UK economy has enough problems without creating more unnecessary strife for itself. In no way, does putting at risk a trade deal with our biggest partner pale into insignificance in this context. No you didn't mention Lee Anderson or BarraMarra, but those were the two proposals which I commented on initially and were therefore central to my point.

That's not the point. If the RN was to station vessels on the edge of French territorial waters effectively mounting a blockage and policing what boats were able to leave French ports, do you think that the French authorities would be happy and take no action? The issue would quickly escalate. I agree that the abuse of the EU freedom of movement provision makes it easier for illegal migrants to move around mainland Europe. Imo Merkel must shoulder much of the blame. Opening the door to illegal migrants in 2015 was well-meaning, but sent all the wrong messages and has proven to be catastrophic for Europe.

Even if that is the case, do you think that would justify Lee Anderson's proposal that the UK stop French trawlers fishing in UK waters or BarraMarra suggestion that the RN effectively blockage French ports? Do you think that either action will happen? Rhetorical questions: The answer is 'No'.

While Lee Anderson might favour that approach, fortunately I doubt that any of the leaders of the UK political parties, including Farage, would be stupid enough send RN vessels into French territorial waters uninvited.

Different time and context. Are you suggesting that adopting Lee Anderson's solution would be without consequence?

I doubt that the UK electoral system and the plight of Celtic Britons are anywhere near the top of President Trump's list of concerns.

Which would break the recently agreed trade deal and almost certainly lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations - not just with France but with the EU as a whole - and, almost certainly, the imposition of trade sanctions. And what happens if French fisherman refuse to comply with this order? Are the RN meant to impound these vessels somehow and/or open fire on them? Yes, Lee Anderson's "solution" certainly is 'simple'.

Perhaps an American can explain why the US would want a war with China and Russia, but from a European perspective why would we want a war with either? What advantage has it for Europe? And why risk it given that there is no guarantee that we would be successful?

How is Zelensky a puppet of the EU? What do the EU gained by providing €132bn (and counting) in aid to Ukraine?

Are these examples of the freedom afforded to those who oppose Putin, Frank? Let me hazard a guess at your reply: It's MSM propaganda https://meduza.io/en/feature/2024/11/21/political-persecution-in-russia-by-the-numbers https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/jailed-russian-dissidents-call-mass-prisoner-release-part-peace-deal-with-2025-07-03/ https://www.voanews.com/a/russian-repression-of-dissidents-civil-society-reaches-unprecedented-levels/7279656.html

I have made no comment about yesterday's court ruling and have no wish to learn anything more about it. Agreed. (see my reply to Nauseus) Fine and dandy Not according to Google AI they aren't: "A judicial review is a specific type of legal challenge ..." i.e. the latter is a subset of the former You seem to be obsessed with making a distinction between the phrases. If you provide a legal definition of both phrases from a reputable source then that can be used in future although, as I said at the outset, I have no comment to make about yesterday's ruling Memory loss? Happens to all sometimes

Agreed. GCHQ does not determine law but, as you say, it is a government agency and therefore, by definition, is acting on the government's behalf. For whatever reason, the judiciary determined that it broke the law.

A completely separate and different issue to the one which we were discussing. In any event, here are two examples where the UK judiciary have ruled against GCHQ (I have assumed that GCHQ was acting on the UK government's behalf). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/15/government-security-gchq-decisions-can-be-challenged-in-court-judges-rule https://www.channel4.com/news/gchq-nsa-broke-law-surveillance-prism-snowdown Nice to be able to agree on something: Apparently Google and me do know better😉

Somewhat pedantic but replace 'countless' with 'numerous' if you wish. Russia. Btw who founded Louisiana? The New England States, etc?