RayC

An essay was once returned to me ungraded but with the remark: "Well, if that's what you think". Make of it what you will.

You answered your own question: Because they are 'entitled' (in the self-centred sense of the word).

'Argument' as in reasons to support a premise. Whether you call it an argument or suggestion, it is facile: It can be applied to any situation. It's effectively meaningless. If Theresa May had remained PM, relations with the EU might have been better. If Jacob Rees-Moog was PM, then relations might be worse. If Man City didn't have mega rich owners, then they might not be in the CL final but instead been fighting relegation from L3, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

https://www.ft.com/content/e6682422-67cb-47a8-a7d0-fb47f09d4301 Not sure if the above link is behind a paywall? Contained in the link are examples of the EU laws which will be repealed later this year. My take on some of the content is given below. Fortunately, those of us in the UK will shortly no longer have to worry about being prosecuted for any overfishing of anchovies, which we might have undertaken in the Bay of Biscay during the 2012 fishing season. Likewise, those who recklessly disregarded the measures relating to fishing in Sao Tome and Principe will shortly be able to rest easy in their beds, as will drivers who breached the limits to working hours during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak. So this is what was meant by "taking back control"!?

Sliding doors! If we had left the EU in March 2019, everything could have been different. That's the extent of your argument?

Ok, there would have been "plenty of time" - sigh ... in reality, an 'extra' eight months - to work on the intricacies .... and ...? You seem to be making great play of this 8-month delay in the original schedule but are unable to explain why and what the effects have been. You're right???? Parliament continued to meet remotely throughout the Covid crisis. If the Minister for Brexit had developed a solution for, say, the Irish border question, it could have been discussed during cabinet meetings and presented to Parliament if needs be. Would you now care to try to explain why there is little sign of any Brexit benefits two years after the pandemic restrictions ended? No wriggles, now.

It is directly relevant to the conversation. I haven't twisted anything to suit myself. I have simply challenged you to defend your position; something you appear unable to do. You suggest that the 8-month - sorry, "nearly a year" - delay in our initially planned departure from the EU and the Covid crisis was instrumental in the benefits of Brexit not being realized: No one would doubt that the Covid restrictions had an impact (although it would have been possible for some work on, for example, trade deals to have continued during lockdown). But why would this eight month delay have made all the difference? What would have been possible during the period between April 2019 and January 2020 that wasn't possible thereafter? As I stated previously, it is two years since the pandemic restrictions were lifted; surely (the beginnings of) these Brexit benefits should have started to become visible by now? (I'll preempt the Ukraine war card being played by asking how it affects the Brexit benefits being realised?)

Two years on from the pandemic and is there any sign of Brexit delivering any economic benefits? It's a rhetorical question: The answer is 'No'.

Imo it is pretty much as simple as @dunroaming suggests. MPs are not delegates and are under no constitutional obligation to vote according the majority view in their constituency: Their remit is to vote in what they consider their constituents' best interests. Having said that, imo there was a strong moral argument that MPs should have voted according to the majority view in their constituency. Nevertheless that is all besides the point. The UK served Article 50 in March 2017. If the process had run to the planned schedule, the UK would have left the EU in April/May 2019 (after the Withdrawal bill had been passed by the UK parliament). As you know, we actually left on 1 February 2020; imo leaving the EU eight months earlier wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. There would still be no sign of the 'sunny uplands'.

You ignore the fact that this Conservative Government sells arms to repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia?

Excellent advice but I am bit surprised that you limit these rules to dealing with Immigration only, and have completely omitted Rule #3: Rule #3: When discussion has concluded, wai deeply in the general of all in the vicinity, and recite 'Khob Khun Krub' repeatedly until you are sure that you are out of earshot.????????

I should have been more exact and said 'resident for tax purposes'. I believe Thailand has the same (basic) determinant for tax residency as the UK i.e. that you are tax resident if you spend more than 183 days/year in the country. You say that you receive no benefits from Thailand but what about the emergency services, government departments, government investment in infrastructure, etc? People might complain about the quality of the services and/or claim that they do not benefit from them personally but theses services still need to be provided and paid for.

That's a reasonable (and reasoned) argument. However, if you are a resident of Thailand, then imo that's where your UK pension should be taxed (and where you should be permitted to vote: I accept that this is unlikely to occur anytime soon). I know that pensions are (usually) a product of income earned in an individual's home country, but expats benefit from the services provided by their host countries and imo they should contribute financially for their provision.

Fair point and Harry may well still be traumatized by his mother's death. You would have to be heartless not to feel sympathy for him in this regard. However, the description of this particular event; 2 hour high-speed chase through Manhattan endangering all and sundry, with the police unable to intervene and put an end to things, beggars belief. He appears to be ill-advised.

I am not a monarchist and usually try to avoid this soap opera, however, I find myself becoming increasingly irritated by this self-seeking, publicity-hungry couple. The paparazzi might be a bunch of ***** but I find it hard to believe that they would be active, willing participants in a "catastrophic" event and even less likely that the NYPD would not be able to intervene, especially as two of their colleagues were nearly mown down according to the publicity-shy couple's spokesman. Perhaps Harry is still suffering mental health problems and I should be generous?

Why should non-residents be allowed to vote in local/ national UK elections? These elections are predominantly fought on domestic issues which (largely) don't affect non-residents. By the same token, imo resident aliens have a strong claim to be given a vote.

Imo 15 years is way too long for non-resident UK nationals to be permitted to vote in local/ national elections. I would reduce it to a maximum of 5 years. Depending on the subject, I do think that referendums are different. This is not directed at you personally of course, but it does (still) grate with me that that British ex-pats living in non-EU countries, who had been away from the UK for less than 15 years, got to have a say in the Brexit referendum whereas someone like myself, who was directly affected by the result, did not (I had been living in Belgium for 17 years at the time). Never let it be said that I pass up an opportunity to have a rant about voter eligibility for the Brexit referendum.

You can't speak for Nigel Farage but have no trouble categorically stating that Braverman, Sunak and "everyone" else (!!) has moved on from the days of Empire!!! A lack of consistency, methinks. In any event, that is your opinion, not a fact. Mine differs. The empire did not end "about 100 years ago" as you state, it started to disintegrate after WW2. Most countries which had been in the Empire did not gain independence until the '50s or '60s. Those born in the '40s will remember the period. They will also have influenced their children, so I'd contend that there are almost certainly people (albeit a minority) who still yearn for the days of Empire.

You might find this link useful (although much of it repeats what Mike and Vinny say). https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/inheritance-tax-planning-iht/ As an aside. If you do not already have a Power of Attorney for your relatives I would seriously consider getting one as it makes things so much easier if, unfortunately, they become unable to manage their own affairs. @vinny41

"Harry and Megan's Nightmare journey": A new mini-series coming soon on Netflix.

That works both ways. Braverman, the ERG and UKIP (or whatever it calls itself nowadays) considers anyone who doesn't yearn for the days of Empire, and isn't wary of Johnny Foreigner, to be a Communist infiltrator and a quisling.

We will have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that if it had been 52-48 in favour of Remain, the likes of Farage and the ERG would not have gone away quietly. Whether the majority of 'Leave' supporters would have accepted the result is debatable. In any event, we'll never know as they are purely hypothetical questions.

"Ms Truss urged the West not to work with China, warning that totalitarian regimes "don't tell the truth"." She might be right. Just a shame that she didn't practice what she preached when she was in office. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/31/campaigners-seek-overturn-liz-truss-resumption-saudi-arms-sales-yemen https://news.sky.com/video/liz-truss-refuses-to-criticise-saudi-arabias-human-rights-record-12641890

The OBR estimates that leaving the EU has cost the UK 4% of its' GDP per annum (+/-£120bn). This dwarfs what was the UK's annual contribution to the EU (+/-£18bn). If legal immigrants are unemployed, then that's a problem for the UK government to solve and has nothing to do with France or anyone else. Refugees fleeing their home countries and illegal immigration presents a (bigger) problem for many EU nations. It is not a uniquely British problem caused by the French. Imo there would never have been a good time. Maybe remaining in the EU wouldn't have been a "great alternative", but I'd suggest that the evidence points to it as being a better option.

Perhaps a little unfair of me to take issue with you on this matter as you are by no means the worse offender, but an awful lot of opinion is presented as fact.