RayC

Your statement was, is and will remain incorrect unless the law(s) governing UK nationals seeking residency in the EU change, or unless your statement amounts to nothing more than 'A UK national can fill in an application form for EU residency'; in which case it is effectively meaningless. The words 'UK' and 'EU' could be replaced by virtually any other nationality/ country and the statement would be true (and equally devoid of any substantive meaning). It certainly does not mean that the applicant will be given the right to reside in the country in question.

I'm all in favour of this move. For those of us in the rest of the world, other things being equal, the price of Bordeaux Grand Crus should reduce (due to the increased supply). Who knows, I might also now be able to buy a decent Burgundy without having to mortgage the house. Bravo,Mr. President (or as I believe you colonials say, "Way to go, Don").

Is this piece an example of the journalist quality that those of us who source our information from the MSM are missing? If so, a bit of self-congratulation is in order. Well done me for being so discerning. Do you seriously think that this rambling piece, which moves from discussing a national election in Romania to police raids in Germany and the UK - no longer an EU member incidentally - in any way supports the headline: "The EU Is Authoritarian and Hates Democracy"? No need to reply: It's a rhetorical question. I know the answer.

I am not questioning that you said, "UK citizens have every right to live anywhere in EU. They just need to go through a few easy procedures". It is there for all to see. What I disagree with is the accuracy of the statement. As I stated before UK nationals have every right to APPLY to live in the EU, they do NOT have every right to live there. To state the obvious, applying for residency and that application for residency being approved are two completely different things, and most UK nationals will not now fulfill the criteria necessary to be granted a long-stay visa in an EU member state. The physical act of completing the application form may well be easy. The steps involving in securing the necessary documentation to satisfy the issuing authorities probably aren't so simple. I originally stated that "The requirements vary by individual EU country but generally to apply for a long-stay visa, a UK national will need to have a) a job offer from a local company b) a close family relative who is a national c) an offer to study in the country d) a sizeable amount of money." I should have added a fifth category to cover Brits who were living in the EU prior to 31 January 2020, although I am unsure if their (almost) automatic right to residency has now expired? In any event, which part of this explanation is an exaggeration? I am being argumentative because you will not accept that your original statement is incorrect. As soon as you do - either explicitly or tacitly by not replying to me - then I will stop.

No what you said was, "UK citizens have every right to live anywhere in EU. They just need to go through a few easy procedures", which is incorrect. If a UK national does not fit into one of the four categories which I listed in my previous post - and most do not - then they are extremely unlikely to be granted the right to remain in the EU for more than 90 days in any 180-day rolling period.

Illegal immigrants will arrive irrespective of whether the UK is inside or outside the EU. Legal immigration to the UK has increased since Brexit. Removal of freedom of movement for EU nationals is one - arguably the main - contributory reason for this.

Incorrect. See my other post. The mask is slipping. Given that only British citizens can vote in UK general elections and it normally takes 5 years to become a British resident (not a citizen), this would appear to be a very flawed plan.

As usual a rant containing empty rhetoric and little, if any, fact Still, I'm sure that you feel better having got that off your chest?😁

UK citizens do not have every right to live anywhere in the EU. They have every right to apply for a long-stay visa and then, possibly, be granted residency. The requirements vary by individual EU country but generally to apply for a long-stay visa, a UK national will need to have a) a job offer from a local company b) a close family relative who is a national c) an offer to study in the country d) a sizeable amount of money. Whether the procedures associated with applying for a long-stay visa can be described as "easy", and whether having gone through the process, the individual is granted a visa is another matter. One thing's for sure: It was a lot simpler for a UK national to be able to live in an EU country when we were a member than it is now.

1) No, Brexit was never going to prevent extremely wealthy Britons from moving to just about anywhere they want. What it did do was prevent the overwhelming majority of the population of the UK freely residing in the other EU states and seeking employment there without restriction. 2) Once again, you are mistaken. UK nationals are free to visit EU member states - to be exact, the Schengen zone - as tourists for up to 90 days in any (rolling) 180 day period. 3) 1) and 2) are not examples of 'Project Fear' but the reality of what the ordinary Briton faces today. Throw in the increased bureaucracy and difficulties faced by UK businesses importing from/ exporting to the EU plus the general negative effect of Brexit on the economy and those promised 'sunny uplands' seem to be shrouded in apparently permanent darkness. Hope that has helped to clarify things for you.

Given current public sentiment in both Denmark and Greenland, I very much doubt that the US will buy the latter any time soon.

Unfortunately there may be some truth in what you say. Russia may well end up as the victor. However, you are completely incorrect regarding the catalyst for this war. It has nothing to do with the US and NATO wanting a poxy war with Russia, and everything to do with Russia wanted to prevent Ukraine moving towards the West. Victor Yanukovych was elected on a platform which sought EU membership. As a first step towards this, Ukraine was to enter into an Association Agreement with the EU and legislation was passed by the Ukrainian parliament to effect this Agreement. However, Yanukovych - under pressure from Moscow - refused to sign the Agreement and, instead decided to pursue stronger economic ties with Russia. There was a public outcry over this which led to the Maiden protests and the overthrow of Yanukovych. There can be no doubt that if matters had been left to run their natural course after Yanukovych's removal that Ukraine would have forged ever closer ties with the West in general, and the EU in particular. This was unacceptable to Putin and he ordered the invasion - and subsequent annexation of Crimea - on the pretext that the invading Russian forces were no more than 'peace keepers'. Only one nation - Russia - and in all likelihood one person - Putin - bears responsibility for this war.

Greenland apparently.

So the freedom loving Vlad continues to fight for peace against the despotic forces of the West. All lovers of liberty should rejoice! Just one thing: I thought that your underlining concern was to avoid making more poor women and children in Ukraine, widows and orphans? Those who don't know better might think that you are an apologist for Putin.

Dearie me, are you so deeply deluded that you genuinely believe your self-deception to be true? You casually alter reality to suit your perception of the world. Here are the facts (visible to anyone who can be bothered to read from the start of this thread) 1. You believe that the government tacitly supports the Sentencing Guidelines. They do NOT. It is clear from quotes from government ministers contained in the very link which you posted! 2. You refuse to accept that I too do NOT support the Sentencing Guidelines despite me stating this categorically on more than one occasion. I will repeat it again here: I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. 3. BAME convicts receive longer sentences than their white counterparts. (The reasons for this are unproven). You refuse to acknowledge this fact. 4. You claim that I " ..defend .. positive discrimination.." when what I actually said was, "I am not sure that positive discrimination is the answer". Very few people would interpret that as a defence. 5. In between all your delusional lies, you actually happened to stumble upon a fact: Yes, I do believe in DEI when it is defined as, ".... organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people" (Source: Wikipedia). That you seemingly don't, says it all. Anyway, I'll leave you to wallow in your self-pity about having had the misfortune of being born a white male in the 5th/6th most prosperous nation on earth with the option of returning there any time you like. Oh, how fortune has forsaken you.

Wrong again. All my own work. Look, trying to attribute statements to me which I haven't made isn't going to work and only highlights the weaknesses of your own argument. I have stated more than once that I am against the Guidance issued by the Sentencing Council, and will continue to do so each and every time you bring up the lie that I support it. Definition of a racist: "characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Maybe we need a new term and/or an update to this definition to include religion). I'm pleased for you that you are happy with your position.

Your sense of grievance and victimhood knows no bounds.

Then think yourself lucky that you haven't had any problems up to now because if you're a white, heterosexual, indigenous UK male then the current UK government hates you and is coming for you. Everybody knows this; it's a fact🤦

Unfortunately, your prejudice is so plain to see that these attempts to deflect attention from them are futile.

"I know what I know". I'll only accept studies which support my viewpoint. My prejudice is against people who believe those who are not indigenous or right-wing are not patriots. If you bothered to read posts properly you will see that I stated earlier in this thread that, "I'm not sure that positive discrimination is the answer".

You won't acknowledge that the harsher sentencing of BAME criminals compared with their white counterparts illustrates bias because the studies are methodologically flawed: However, the complete absence of any studies whatsoever showing bias towards white, indigenous individuals convicted of crimes during last summer's riots you deem to be irrelevant. It's inconsistent reasoning and it indicates prejudice.

I was there at the outset. What about my other point? i.e. that in the absence of methodological sound studies we can't conclude that white, indigenous UK nationals faced discrimination when being sentenced in the aftermath of last year's riots. If you are going to be consistent in your reasoning, surely you must agree?

It's possible but there needs to be evidence to support that premise. If by that you mean that that group should not be discriminated against, then the answer is 'Yes'. I'm not sure that 'positive discrimination' is the answer (especially when it comes to military operations).

Which bit of my previous post (reproduced below) is unclear? The authors of the report which I linked to acknowledge the methodological limitations of the study but, notwithstanding this, it still shows that BAME offenders receive tougher sentences than their white counterparts. Interestingly, the lack of methodological sound studies to support your grievance that white, indigenous males were discriminated against during sentencing as a result of last summer's riots doesn't seem to concern you. ---+-+------++-++-- "Where did I defend it? That's right I didn't. Please don't attribute statements to me which I didn't make. For the record, of course there should not be a two-tier justice system."

https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-updates/ethnicity-and-custodial-sentencing-data-highlights-racial-bias I'm sure that now I have brought the evidence to your attention, you would like to go on record and condemn the bias shown towards BAME under the UK justice system.