RayC

What's the point in mentioning the sample size then, unless you think that it is too small? If you do believe that the sample size is too small then, by definition, you consider the survey methodology flawed Likewise why mention the sponsor unless you think that this introduces bias? If this is the case then, again, the methodology is flawed. No matter how well designed, polls will sometimes get things wrong.

You have to admit it is a possibility. After all, the Tories have also been in power since 2010. Btw: Welcome back. Good to see you posting again.

The question asked was: "In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?" What's the problem with that? Any proof that the methodology used by YouGov - arguably the most respected pollsters - was flawed?

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Rejoin the EU and help prevent Brits from eating their pets'????????

That may be true, but that is not what you claimed in your original post (see below). The 'Cost of living' is generally accepted to include food, and some foodstuffs have increased in price as a result of Brexit.

Don't fancy the dog's chances further down the line!

Still flogging this dead horse. Simply repeating information in a different thread doesn't make that information any less incorrect.

Texas or France? No idea of the entry requirements for the former, but pretty difficult for Brits to (legally) stay in the latter nowadays.

I guess if you smoked enough weed and drank enough wine, you might have been able to forget about the East Europeans and other undesirables working in the nearby fields.

So a Romanian fruit-picker decides to go abroad to work next summer. The UK process: 3 months processing time minimum; may need an interview; needs a sponsor; may get refused and, oh yes, £259 application fee. The EU process: Tip up in one of 26 countries. Ask the local farmers if they have any work. Can't see the UK countryside being overrun by East Europeans next summer.

I'm making an assumption here, but given that you seem to have a certain disdain for East Europeans, I imagine that you are not over-keen on Algerians, Moroccans, Cameroonians, etc? Plenty of individuals from these nations and a fair few East Europeans in France. Looks like you had a narrow escape, and that Brexit did you a favour.

According to many Brexiters, xenophobia played no part in the referendum. Hmmmm.

While it might be morally just to expect Russia to pay for the cost of rebuilding Ukraine, it won't happen. Russia will pay something but it simply can't afford it to pay everything. The cost of rebuilding Ukraine is estimated at between $350 - $750billion. Russia's annual GDP is less than twice the higher figure. Any attempt to make Russia pay the full amount would cripple its' economy, lead to political instability and then who knows what would happen next. Imo there will have to be some sort of latter-day Marshall plan with the US and EU picking up a large part of the tab.

Now that we are out of the EU, British bananas are now free to be whatever shape, girth, length, etc that they choose to be. That's changed my mind. Brexit: It's all been worthwhile. #Freetheoppressedbritishbanana

Thanks a lot for the very quick reply and helpful advice.

Would be grateful for advice. I am travelling on a UK passport. I entered Thailand on a 90-day non-O visa which expires on 8 February 23. I plan to leave Thailand a day or two before that date. My question revolves around re-entering Thailand. I would like to re-enter Thailand on or around 16 February 23 and depart for the UK on 31 March 23. Can I (re)enter Thailand "visa exempt" for this +/-35 day period? If so, are there any additional requirements - other than having 20k baht - that I should be aware of? Thanks in advance for any confirmation/ clarification. I hope that I am just being paranoid in asking this question!! (In case it matters: As far as I'm aware I have a clean record with Thai Immigration).

Depends what you mean by Identity. As someone born and bred in Brixton, I've never known any different than being surrounded by people who were non-native and, in many cases, non-white. I suppose because it was my upbringing I didn't give it a second thought. Brixton was a <deleted>-hole in the 70s and 80s, and there were undoubtably a few bad apples but most people, whatever their colour, were decent, law-abiding citizens. One of the biggest problems was the racist, heavy-handed policing by the likes of the SPG. Your European friends who want to leave the EU are in the minority. I know very few who even toy with the idea. In any event, your post and mine prove nothing. It is all ancedotal evidence (but I find that it's good to get it off your chest every now and again).

As I said previously, unfortunately given the devastation, I imagine that there will be plenty of work to go around. Who pays for it may be a bigger issue. Again, the UK government deserves credit for the military support that it has provided but the humanitarian aid provided by Poland (1.5m refugees accommodated); Germany (1 m) and Czechia (.4m) shouldn't be forgotten.

The EU and NATO memberships may overlap but they are separate, independent entities and need to be analysed as such. The UK government deserves respect for the support that it has shown to Ukraine, but I doubt that it will mean much when it comes to handing out contracts for its' rebuilding. After all, Ukraine wants to succeed to the EU and a few strategically placed contracts with EU firms won't harm their prospects. In any event, unfortunately, it looks like there will be plenty of work to go around.

Thanks. Entertaining read. Imo Messi's quest is to replace Maradona as the greatest Argentinian footballer. This would, de facto, make him the greatest ever footballer. Doubt that he will manage it

That is just nonsense. As I inferred previously, the date of the Brexit vote was, and is, completely immaterial. Indeed it wasn't even known at the time (2004). The fact is that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for the 10 'new' members of the EU from 2004-11. There was nothing preventing them from doing so. It was their decision - and their's alone - not to do so. It really is as simple as that!

I answered this question earlier in this thread. If you say so. Any link confirming the actual numbers? You might be right but it doesn't actually address my point. There are now 27 members and a change in voting procedure is probably necessary. Excellent. We agree.

I still don't understand your point or, more specifically, the point(s) of mine which you object to. You, not me, are the one conflating the date of the Brexit referendum with the fact that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states.

What is your point?

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states. That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto. On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion. Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter. Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU.