RayC

55% of people in the UK now think that Brexit was a mistake, compared with 30% who think it was the right thing to do. If Starmer loses very soon it won't be because of a Brexit reset.

Not so for any number of reasons. Many EU financial centres e.g Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris have tried - and largely failed - to entice financial institutions to relocate from the City of London. This highlights the first reason why a major relocation has not occurred: Intra-EU competition. A second reason is that many (most?) of the major financial institutions already had a presence in continental Europe, therefore the City's loss of passporting rights meant that the impact was limited: Some functions were relocated but the hub remained in London. Thirdly, London has a dominant position in some markets e.g. foreign exchange trading where 38% of global transactions are conducted. Fourthly, the intellectual expertise and infrastructure cannot simply be replicated overnight in Frankfurt, etc: There is also the 'human element'. It appears that US financial executives simply prefer London as a city to its' continental counterparts. I could go on but you get the gist. Again, not true. There can be no doubt that the UK has problems - which country doesn't? - but it is far from a failed state and it is - contrary to what some of the ex-pat doom mongers on ASEAN now might suggest - still a fairly decent place to live for the majority of people. However, having said that the loss of a significant proportion of the financial service sector would be a major blow to the country as financial related services contribute about 12% to the UK's total economic output (gross value added), or £275 billion. This represents around 3.4% of UK GDP and contributed 10.1% of total UK tax receipts (Source: Google AI). Yet again, not the case. Notwithstanding the fact that the 'transfer' of functions may not be a simple and smooth process, as I stated in the previous paragraph the effect that this would have the UK economy would be significant, and the knock-on effect for the EU economy sizeable; 13% (+/-$330bn) of EU exports and 9% (+/-$180bn) of EU imports go to/ come from the UK. A reduction of say, 10%, in these figures - due to the loss of purchasing power on the part of the British consumer/ manufacturer would be significant for the EU. As I showed above, if the EU were to regulate the UK out of existence, it would be a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face. I credit them with more savvy than that.

I am not making out you wrote something which you didn't. Your words: "Some people might claim that vandalism and destruction of property is in some way a creative expression of something.", and that's what I commented on: Imo it's not unreasonable to think that on a thread about a court case concerned with the felling of a tree that the posts might be related to that subject. Anyway, enjoy your weekend.

If you are not suggesting that the possibility that this tree caused offence to these individuals' sense of aesthetic beauty and, therefore, should in some way be considered as mitigating circumstances, then what is your point? That we all have a subjective concept of beauty? Yes, agreed. And?

You wrote, "Some people might claim that vandalism and destruction of property is in some way a creative expression of something." Sounds a lot a way of excusing the act; in other words, a defence.

In other word, 'They need us more than we need them'. I heard that before somewhere🤔😂

I'm not sure whether the EU could have (or can) destroyed the City of London, and less convinced whether it would be in its' best interests to do so. Financial services account for +/-10% of UK GDP, and the destruction of this sector would obviously severely damage the UK. Why would the EU welcome this outcome? They would have to deal with the effects of having a large failed state on its' doorstep. An interesting academic discussion on the effects of Brexit on the City of London can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949694224000051#:~:text=The only significant financial power that the,shared with the EU was financial regulation.&text=Despite some relocations from London%2C Brexit has,to London as an international financial centre.

Hardly a credible defence. The fact that I consider (most) brutalist architecture to be an eyesore doesn't permit me to hire a crane and wrecking ball and destroy some South London housing estates.

Didn't Northern Ireland and Wales recognise Indian and Pakistani independence?

I'm not sure what specific national English - as opposed to regional English - issues there might be. In any event, there is already devolution to the metropolitan and county councils in England. There might be a case for transferring more responsibility and powers to these entities but I do see the need for an English parliament.

What would be the point of an English parliament? There isn't really a "democratic deficit", as 85% of Westminster MPs represent English constituencies. An English Assembly would simply be an (almost) exact replica of Westminster.

How long before Trump claims that his depiction as Pope swung the election for Prevost?

London is centre of political power, the largest centre of population and has the largest concentration of minorities. It would be a surprise if London wasn't the epicentre for demonstrations in the UK.

It's hardly surprising that the necessity of firstly having to reach consensus among the 27 EU Member States before the EU can sign a trade agreement means that the process can be lengthy. As a single entity, the UK does, indeed, have a potential advantage when it comes to speed in negotiations. However, what the EU lacks in nimbleness it more than makes up for in negotiating strength. The EU appears to work on the maxim that, 'No deal is better than a bad deal'. Unfortunately, the deals that the UK has struck with Australia and NZ suggest that we do not have that strength.

Being extremely generous and counting all 5 trade deals as pluses, what other benefits has Brexit brought for the "indigenous, working class, British male"? If you think that Brexit has been a success overall then you are using a strange set of success criteria and are easily pleased.

Copy of my reply to you on the UK-US trade deal thread: The UK rolled over 68 EU-negotiated trade deals and has signed 5 new deals since Brexit with: (1) The US: Extremely limited in scope and expected to have minimal economic impact (2) Japan: An extension of the EU - Japan deal. Very few marginal gains. (3) Australia and (4) New Zealand: Deals described by George Eustice, a Brexiter ex-Environment Minister as follows, “Overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.” (5) India: The one significant deal. However, should the EU and India reach an expected agreement later this year, the UK - India deal will need to be measured against that. And all these deals have been made against the cost of making life more difficult for exporters to and importers from our biggest market which is on our doorstep. Yep, viva Brexit!🤦

Actually, it's "only" around 93%. The UK rolled over 68 EU-negotiated trade deals and has signed 5 new deals since Brexit with: (1) The US: Extremely limited in scope and expected to have minimal economic impact (2) Japan: An extension of the EU - Japan deal. Very few marginal gains. (3) Australia and (4) New Zealand: Deals described by George Eustice, a Brexiter ex-Environment Minister as follows, “Overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.” (5) India: The one significant deal. However, should the EU and India reach an expected agreement later this year, the UK - India deal will need to be measured against that. And all these deals have been made against the cost of making life more difficult for exporters to and importers from our biggest market which is on our doorstep. Yep, viva Brexit!🤦

Unlike the UK, the EU is large enough to have some negotiating strength when dealing with the US, and therefore does not need to sign the first piece of paper placed before it. The US -UK deal is better than nothing, but I wouldn't be getting the bunting up and declaring Brexit a roaring success on the back of it. Your linked article makes clear just how limited this deal is. For example: "Rather than a sweeping free trade agreement ... the deal is set to include targeted tariff reductions and serve as a symbolic diplomatic gesture more than a transformative economic policy." " .. the economic impact is likely to be modest ... the deal is aimed more at mending past trade tensions rather than establishing a new era of significant transatlantic commerce. The potential for broader cooperation with the European Union—still the UK’s largest trading partner—is widely considered more economically crucial." "Chancellor Rachel Reeves (stated), “I understand why there's so much focus on our trading relationship with the US but actually our trading relationship with Europe is arguably even more important, because they're our nearest neighbours and trading partners"

Give it a go.

Precise details? No. But the attached article gives an indication of what these issues might be. https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-india-trade-deal-hanging-tough/ Perhaps, we are both wrong in viewing this deal as a Brexit benefit? That certainly appears to be Nige's view; he believes that the deal has “sold out (British workers) to the highest degree”.

Perhaps the bulk of the deal was agreed before June last year, but the tricky bits remained and the fact remains that the Tories were incapable of finalising matters despite 4 years of trying. Hansard will show that the deal was passed by parliament under a Labour government.

"Another"? I can't recall any others. The EU and India are slated to sign a trade agreement before the end of this year. If that happens, we'll be able to see just how good this is.

Wtf are you gibbering on about? Terrible comments but hardly government policy. A reform councillor has posted racist comments, should we therefore conclude that Reform is a racist party? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrg2nwgxl0o Guidelines proposed by an independent body - the Sentencing Council - not by the government and since suspended due to pressure from the Justice Secretary. But why should you let facts get in the way of another mindless anti-Labour rant. And talking of 'dog whistling', there you go again with your use of 'indigenous', despite being unable or unwilling to define what you mean by the term. And you call me a dinosaur! You might not have noticed, but society has changed since the '70s and '80s. It's therefore not much of a surprise that political parties have changed as well. In any event, in this particular example you are once again factually incorrect. This cabinet is the first where none of its' members attended an independent school before the age of 15. Not exactly a bunch of elites. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/britain-mps-middle-class-poorer/ An opinion. You might be proved correct. But it doesn't make any of them enemies of the nation as you constantly infer. Oh, to be a forward-looking, progressive thinker like you! Just what the country needs: Insular, narrow-minded bigots. Last the full term? Labour currently has a majority in the Commons of 145, so no matter how tightly you close your eyes and wish really, really hard, the government is unlikely to be forced from office within the next 4 years.

All valid concerns. No doubt the cost is a burden. The UK has long had a reputation for being a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. Personally, I think that is something to be proud of. Nevertheless, there are those who are not genuine refugees and, more problematically, seek to damage the country. Differentiating between the groups is the challenge. I don't have the solutions. An increase in demand for NHS services may exacerbate matters, but I don't think that the NHS's problems can be blamed on immigration. It begs the question why the police do not take action? Agreed. Most things are.

So, by that line of argument anyone who is not of Celtic descent cannot be considered an indigenous Briton(*). You have just ruled out a sizeable proportion of the UK population of Anglo, Jewish, Norman, Saxon and Slavic origin amongst other groups. Who knows, maybe you've excluded yourself. Now that really would be something😂 In any event, it still remains nonsensical to infer - as you endlessly do - that this government is some sort of 'fifth columnist'. You might disagree with the policies, they might affect you adversely, you might think that they will have a negative effect on the country, but to suggest that a British government - no matter its' political colours - would actively try to damage the country as you do is ridiculous. (*) Google AI defines indigenous Britons as, " .. the Celtic people who inhabited Britain before the Anglo-Saxon invasions beginning in the 5th century AD".