RayC

Well you certainly haven't posted anything that could be considered remotely positive about immigrants. You say that they are all young men of fighting age. What message are you trying to convey by that? I don't doubt that many (most?) of these illegal immigrants are economic migrants and they should be dealt with accordingly. However, some are fleeing persecution and should be treated as refugees. If you were a homosexual or a political dissident in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, etc wouldn't you flee to save your life?

Good so you admit that not all immigrants are wrong 'uns. Not sure how I could have reached that conclusion given that every one of your posts either paints immigrants in a negative light or suggests that the native population are being victimised.

You're right, I wouldn't; who in their right mind would? But then not every immigrant - legal or illegal - is a sex offender.

Deleted. Duplicate post.

You're right; these protests are uncoordinated and not simultaneous and, therefore, individually they are not worthy of nationwide coverage. I don't doubt that illegal migration is a national concern. What I reject is the idea that the national media is not giving it sufficient coverage. The link to the BBC documentary about the subject proves that.

When the protests happened nationwide this time last year, they were headline news across the media, including the BBC 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock news bulletins. An isolated local protest in Epping - which is what the OP posted - is just that: a local protest.

Yes, completely undemocratic. Just as it was in 2019 when the Conservatives had an 80-seat majority after winning only 43% of the vote.

I'm sure they are. It's called local news.

That is probably because most of these protests are local and not considered sufficiently newsworthy to be broadcast nationally but you probably know that.

And you think that this sort of thing is sufficiently important and newsworthy to be covered in the main news bulletins?

Introducing any type of PR system is welcome although, unfortunately, I doubt that it will be extended to General Elections.

Once again, complete and utter nonsense

Legal immigration to the UK has increased since Brexit. EU law allows member states to refuse entry to individuals who pose a threat to public order, security, or public health. Not sure if you mean the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is based in the Hague or the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg? In any event, it's irrelevant as both are completely separate entities to the EU

Complete and utter nonsense https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87pqnn803yo.amp

It's a very pertinent question to ask. Many laws concerning food safety, animal welfare, consumer protection, environmental waste, etc. originated from Brussels do affect an individual's life in the UK. However, guess what, the overwhelming majority of those laws remain on the UK Statute book. And why's that? Because they are good laws which benefit the public. Brexiters will argue that you don't need to be in the EU to develop such laws. True, but the UK would need an even bigger army of civil servants - to research and draft legislation - and more parliamentary time to enact these laws individually. Delegating the European Commission to develop these laws results in economies of scale for the 27 member states. It has been well documented that for those Brits involved in trade with EU companies, Brexit has had a profoundly negative effect on their daily lives. On the positive side, now that we have left the EU we are free to rescind Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94, which deals with 'Bendy Bananas'. I wonder why that hasn't happened yet? Could it be that there are other sections of this Regulation which might be beneficial to the British consumer?

I would hazard a guess that the "indigenous British people" i.e. pure blooded Celts have been a minority in GB for +/-1500 years as a minimum.

Very flirty 😘 Intercepting the French navy in international waters might be less provocative than landing the marines on French beaches and/or blockading French ports, but it will still create an incident and a response which could quickly escalate.

Imo 'Smash the Gangs' is the solution, but how you do that is another matter, although I'm convinced that it will need coordinated international action rather than countries acting individually.

'It will hurt us but it will hurt you more' has never stuck me as a good argument.

Brexit has hurt the UK economy more than a little bit. For example, the OBR estimated that, over time, Brexit would cost the UK economy 4% of GDP (£32bn per annum). If that estimate is anywhere close to accurate, then that is sizeable in anybody's language. On top of that there are the non-financial barriers such as the increased complexity of doing business in the EU. I could go on. And what of the benefits? Increased sovereignty? In theory, but in practice, very debatable as the trade deals that the UK has agreed with the EU and the US show: They were basically given to the UK as, 'Take it or leave it'. The Johnson Brexiter government also promised a 'bonfire of EU legislation'. It hasn't happened and shows no sign of happening. Why? Perhaps, in contrast to what was claimed by Brexiters, not all EU law is bad. Or perhaps, it is the realisation that if the UK wants to take part in the game, then it is sometimes necessary to play by other people's rules especially when - like in the cases of the EU and US - they have the whip hand. Having said all that, I think that the comparison with Brexit is a false one. The US can (largely) dictate terms in bi-lateral trade talks. However, what I still don't understand is why (the threat of) a trade war is considered a good thing. If played out, it will likely result in a reduction in the volume of trade, a reduction in choice and increase in price for consumers and/or reduced margins for companies amongst other things. Whose interest does that serve? I also don't see how US sovereignty is enhanced.

Can you explain why you think (the threat of) a trade war is a good thing?

Oh dear. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You must have forgotten that I stated in my previous post that the call for a "People's" vote lacked validity.

Why should it be skewed? Individuals should ask themselves the same basic question - 'Do I think that membership of the EU is beneficial for the UK? - and vote accordingly. If anything, asking for confirmation after joining should lead to a more informed vote as there is the experience of membership to take into account. Access to information was obviously not as widely available in the '70s as it is now, however, I imagine that the broadsheets contained a good deal of facts and informed opinion about the pros and cons of joining the EC.

In our parliamentary democracy, the government has a mandate to make decisions on our behalf. As long as they stick to their basic manifesto commitments, then that system is fine by me. Hypothetical as it is, your conclusion if the UK had not signed the Maastricht Treaty is completely wrong. Like the EU, there was no mechanism to remove a member state from the EC or EEC unless they wanted to leave.

That's exactly what I did: Challenge your idea. You stated that Brexit has not been delivered, so I asked you to explain what it should have looked like. You made no attempt to answer the question, but instead adopted a condescending, patronising tone ("You confused people ..."; ".. I forgive your ignorance ..."). When I replied in kind, you play the injured party when you have no grounds for complaint.