RayC

Really? We already had a plan for dealing with the Covid pandemic? Then it rather begs the question why the vast majority of governments throughout the world simply disregarded all this scientific evidence and pre-planning and have caused countless problems for themselves. To what end? Wrt masks specifically, I remember being surprised at the time (early 2020) that there was so little research conducted into their effectiveness, so I don't know on what basis you reach your conclusion. Whether the scientists - whose views you casually disregard - were "narcissistic and attention seeking" is besides the point. The fact remains that there was no indisputable "previously established" science on which decisions could have been made in early 2020. Personally, I was appalled by Johnson's cavalier, flippant attitude at the start of the pandemic. It was only his own brush with death that seemed to bring home the gravity of the situation to him. That is an altogether different matter. Imo the case for the second and third lockdowns was less strong. It will be interesting to (eventually) read the findings of the Covid inquiry. Which neatly avoids addressing my comment about whether the individual should be permitted to decide what laws they follow. Nevertheless, you completely miss the point regarding Johnson. He is not being punished (again) for eating cake and having a drink at a gathering. He has been found guilty by his peers of lying to parliament. That Johnson has a need to be loved and cannot handle being unpopular would appear to the case. Johnson (Eton, Oxford, Tory) is the very embodiment of the establishment so I find it hard to accept that they would want rid of him simply because he was not liked, especially as he delivered a resounding victory in the 2019 election. I don't know whether it was due to arrogance and/or nativity but Johnson acted in a way that put himself 'above the law'. Imo if he had simply admitted that events took place which shouldn't have under his watch, and then taken full accountability and responsibility for these events then he would still be PM today. Yes, he would have had a rough ride for a while, but imo the parliamentary Tory party would have rallied round him. Imo Johnson has no one but himself to blame for his political demise.

If China and Russia do not sign up to Western regulations, then they will not be able to sell their products in our markets. How is that disadvantageous for Western companies? Good that the UK has, to date, had little input into the discussion about possible regulation in our two biggest (export) markets? As you say, another Brexit benefit. Any evidence to support that claim? The recent 'Atlantic Declaration' suggests that Sunak thinks otherwise. Maybe the UK doesn't need help from outside in developing regulation, but the fact remains that if we diverge too far from EU and/or US regulation then we will not be able to export to their markets. Surely it is in our own interests to be involved as early as possible in developing that regulation? Regulation is not an end in itself but is a necessity on occasion It appears that some people disagree https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12162909/Rishi-Sunaks-tech-adviser-warns-world-got-two-years-tame-artificial-intelligence.html

Quite possibly but that doesn't make it right. This - together with your final paragraph - suggests that you do not care if our politicians are honest? I do. Moreover, given that they are our lawmakers, then imo they should be held to the highest moral standards (more so than 'Joe Public'). With the benefit of hindsight that might be a valid conclusion (although it depends what the purpose of the lockdown was in the first place). If memory serves wrt the first lockdown; the government was dealing with an unknown virus, where the rate of infection and fatalities were increasing exponentially, where the method of transmission was not fully understood and where the measures imposed up to then (worldwide) had proved ineffective. Given all that, imo a lockdown didn't seem so pointless and stupid at the time. Who defines what laws are stupid and pointless? Imo you can't leave it to the individual to decide. For example, I have friends who insist that they are fully capable of driving - and do so - after a few drinks. Hopefully, the Covid inquiry will address these - and other - issues. See my first paragraph.

Presumably we should therefore just let an unregulated market dictate where we go? Both the UK and US administrations - as well as the EU - seem to think this a bad idea. The EU and US have been holding bi-lateral discussions on AI regulation for some time. The UK, quite rightly, is keen to be involved but has largely been excluded as a result of Brexit.

Clearly you have a vivid imagination as there is nothing factual in your post: You also appear to lack an understanding of the process governing the making of EU law. No " ... unelected (French) beaurocrat (sic) is laying down the law for the rest of the EU..." The European Parliament - a group of 705 democratically elected MPs from 27 member states - voted by a majority to table a motion. This will now go to the European Council and European Commission for further discussion. As the (full) Guardian article implies, the final proposal is likely to be different to the original proposal. You've already contradicted yourself as clearly the MEPs have done something i.e. made this proposal. Any evidence to support your claim that the trip to Berlusconi's funeral by the right-wing block of MEPs was funded by the European parliament? Who would have thought that a Brexiter would let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to have a rant against the EU.

Divided party, divided country, economic decline, reduced standing in the world, etc. Yep, thanks for everything. I thought that Brexit was ongoing? Traitor: Revised ERG definition - Anyone who doesn't share their right-wing parochial worldview. "Political ideology"? You're got to be kidding! The only ideology Johnson knows is a self-serving one which, happily, it appears has brought about his downfall. As my dear old Dad used to say, "Bloke'll skin a turd for a sixpence". Somehow I don't think that Johnson will be making it on to an Honours list if Rishi has anything to do with it!

Surely that should be 'making my day'? The day wasn't over at the time of your - or this - post?

Johnson has no one to blame but himself for his downfall.

I agree with you about the hypocrisy but who are these left-wing woke individuals who control sport? Are the board of the RFU left-wing? Nothing to indicate that. Moreover, the likes of Eddie Hearn and PL football club owners don't strike me as being revolutionary Marxists. Those controlling sport are just as (more?) likely to be right-wing. Wasn't so long ago that we had the good old fascist, Max Mosley and the Hitler apologist, Bernie Ecclestone running motor sport.

My argument rests on the assumption that the owners of the various clubs wield the power. Look at the ownership of the major European football clubs. Those clubs not in the hands of Middle-Eastern states are either owned by corporations or extremely wealthy individuals (admittedly Germany is the exception). I doubt that you will find too many socialists among their number. I'd suggest that it's a similar story for F1, cricket (the IPL) and boxing (the leading promoters); horse racing has long been controlled by Middle-Eastern owners. I'm not a connoisseur of US sports, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of teams in the NFL, NBA, etc have similar ownership to European football. Again, I doubt that there will be too many left-of-centre types in their ranks, although I'm open to being corrected. (Golf and tennis might be slightly different. However, golf is now controlled by Saudi Arabia. Tennis is still very much an establishment sport. Again, I doubt that many socialists are present at Wimbledon, Roland Garois, Queens or Flinders Park).

I blame the 19th century missionaries. They obviously didn't do a very good job in civilising these 'primitive' countries ????

I find Lineker, Neville, etc irritating and hypocritical but their ability to influence football to any great degree is limited. Perhaps your ire would be better directed at those who really control sports: I doubt that you'll find many who are 'left of centre' in their ranks.

Plenty of people raise concerns. Unfortunately, their voices fall on deaf ears.

Tbf to the golfers who are against LIV, they have no choice if they want to continue playing tournament golf. Unlike the hypocritical footballers who could have boycotted the Qatar WC, and then resumed their (club) careers without much problem, the golfers have nowhere else to go.

Is this you????? VID-20201024-WA0005.mp4

But we were told that Brexit was 'oven ready' in early 2020.

Terrible news. This explains why but not why if you see what I mean: Railway accidents: What makes train travel so unsafe in India? As much as 40% of Indian Railways' 1,219 line sections are utilised beyond 100% (Source: Business Standard)

Tbf the Leave campaign only promised new trade deals. They didn't say anything about them being beneficial to the UK.

If, by chance, you happen to talk to my mate Bill, please remind him that he owes me a fiver. Thanks.

There is!!! Unfortunately, they tried to land in the UK and Suella Braverman denied them entry!????

I assume that you are exaggerating for effect but that is not even close to the truth. The Belgium government is comprised of a 7-party coalition of unlikely partners (2 Socialist parties, the Christian Democrats, 2 Green parties and 2 Liberal parties) which commands a majority in the Senate, and represents a majority of the voters. Worryingly, the right-wing, anti-immigrant Flemish nationalists polled well but they were unable to form a government.

https://www.ft.com/content/1fd173a6-8718-4798-b692-685801ec1604 Maybe behind a paywall but the headline says enough.

Deleted. Essentially duplicates a post by Placeholder.

My last word on the matter which, no doubt, will be a blessed relief to other posters You are either trolling or delusional. Again, only you know which it is (or maybe not if it's the latter, in which case you have my sympathy).

Yet again. No elaboration. Nothing to support the statement. Then you shouldn't have any trouble referring to the post(s). No time like the present. Done it far too often. I suggest that you give it a go. Your counselling is about as good as your reasoning. You going to tire of trolling any time soon?