RayC

I was being flippant. My apologies; it was totally misplaced. I agree that the West has to put on a strong, united front and hope that will be enough to see Putin back down. The removal of Putin might be the best option although as others have warned, there are individuals lurking in the shadows who are potentially even more dangerous than Putin. Worrying times.

I'm not sure that mutual destruction is the optimal outcome for anyone.

Again more right-wing arrogance. Those who don't share my views should leave the country. A philosophy straight out of the Dark Ages. It's perfectly possible to embrace and enhance the positive elements of our cultural heritage, while discarding the negative and/or outdated elements.

Fair enough. No it doesn't. You are basically saying that the constitution is fixed forever.

I agree that to suggest that the UK is in a poorer state solely because of Brexit is overstating things. Moreover, showing a casual link - as opposed to simple correlation - between events is extremely difficult. However, most economists agree that Brexit has already had a negative impact on the UK. The time when the perceived benefits of Brexit seems to disappear further into the distance all the time. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we are all dead". Any benefits won't be of much use to us then.

Each to his own. My tuppence worth. To me: Cameron is a privileged, entitled toff who views the country's politics as a toy with which he can amuse himself. May is a decent woman who acts with a sense of duty, and in a manner in which she thinks is in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately, she made strategic mistakes from which she could not recover. Johnson is similar to Cameron with the addition of being an opportunistic chancer, who (apparently) would stop at nothing to further his own personal cause. I have nothing but contempt for the man.

I didn't mention the size of Johnson's victory because it didn't seem relevant but, yes I agree it was a landside. I also agree that the Labour party's Brexit response was disjointed and that the Lib Dems call for a so-called 'Peoples Vote' was misguided. (I never supported it). However, is the current state of the country what the electorate wants? I assume that you are a Brexiter and a Tory supporter (apologies if I am wrong). Is the current situation what you envisaged in 2016 (or even 2019)? Are you happy with the current political state of affairs?

I think that you make a good point. Personally, I hope that a federal Europe is neither absolutely necessary or inevitable although I struggle to see an alternative solution to the problems posed by monetary union. That said, I also struggle to understand the mechanics of the capital markets so, hopefully, there is another solution?????

Absolute arrogant right-wing tosh. The only true British patriot is a narrow-minded, insular zealot, eh? Just because I have a different vision of what I want the UK to look like doesn't make me any less of a patriot than you.

Yet again you've misunderstood and misinterpreted one of my posts. To (hopefully) avoid any further confusion on your part, here's my full(ish) view of the Brexit process. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to disagree with my analysis. (Strap yourself in. It's a long one). We can agree that Cameron campaigned for 'Remain' and therefore almost certainly voted that way. However, my point is that Cameron called the referendum when he didn't need to. Granted he was obliged to hold it once he won the 2014 general election as a commitment to do so had appeared in the Tories manifesto. However, it only appeared there because Cameron believed that 'Remain' would win. This would have quietened - at least temporarily - the Brexit element of his party. In essence, Cameron put his own political needs above those of the country. It was an unnecessary gamble made for personal gain. We all know the result: The gamble failed; the country's divided as a result and we are at loggerheads with the EU. May also gambled by calling a general election, which she hoped would strengthen her position. Again, the gamble failed. She then compounded this error by rejecting the possibility of the UK remaining in the Single market and/or Customs Union, thereby severely limiting her negotiating position. Johnson managed to make a bad situation worse. Despite warnings from his allies (the DUP) that they would not support the deal he intended to sign, he went ahead and did so. Almost every political commentator warned beforehand that this would result in the NI Assembly collapsing and threaten 25 years of peace on the island of Ireland. Lo and behold, this is what transpired. Johnson then threatened to tear up an international agreement which he had signed only a year before. The only conclusion one can make about Johnson is that he was either (1) incompetent or (2) a liar (as he had no intention of honouring the terms of an agreement which he had freely entered into) ..... Phew .... In summary, Cameron's decision to hold a referendum was the catalyst for this chaos and that is why I blame him. Truss will have to go some to make matters worse but who knows she might succeed. It is becoming clearer by the day that the 52% were sold a pup.

Not so according to someone who worked very closely with her https://www.dw.com/en/would-margaret-thatcher-be-in-favor-of-brexit/a-43252699 Cameron put his and the Tory party's needs (in that order) before those of the country. The actions of May and Johnson have made matters worse but imo the main culprit for the mess, that we find ourselves in is 'The Boy David'.

If Cameron had listened to Thatcher's advice regarding referendums, and been less concerned with bolstering his position within the Tory party, we would have avoided this Brexit fiasco.

The implication being that anyone who doesn't hold the same views as you doesn't support their country?

My original comment from Page 1: "I find it hard to believe that tourists visit the UK because they think that they are going to bump into the head of state on their travels." When placed in the wider context of the overall discussion, I am clearly exaggerating for effect. However, even taken literally I stand by the comment unless, of course, you want to tell me that you visit, say, the US in the belief that the President is going to invite you to the White House for afternoon tea? Feel free to send me your next one(s)

4 pages of examples in this thread if you care to (re) read it. ???? Please show me where my comments have changed

It was the (Tory) government's decision to hold a referendum. (Not sure how "the leader" of the country felt about that????)

I disagree. Imo the EU Single Market and Customs Union are success stories and have contributed significantly to member states' economic growth and the welfare of its' citizens. In addition, as a bloc, the 27 member states are much powerful economically (and politically) on the world stage, than they could ever hope to be individually. Sadly, the UK is discovering this as it labours to agree favourable trade deals with other nations and make its' voice heard on the international arena. I agree that at a macro-economic level, monetary union (the Euro) has been a failure. Imo the venture was ill conceived and it is difficult to see how the problems can be solved without complete monetary (and fiscal union).

???? No, sorry to disappoint. Two separate individuals who seem to have similar views about a number of issues. One other thing that we have in common: We have both put forward arguments in this thread that you seem unable to counter????????

Brexit wasn't enough for some people. Nothing less than the disintegration of the EU will do. Sadly that seems to be the view of many in the UK government. Is it any wonder that the relationship between the EU and UK is so bad?

If that's the case, then I can't see the point. Surely the PM has enough on his/her plate without attending non-essential meetings?

That's the whole point. They may be something more than simply tradition. The monarch may try to influence the PM's decisions. Yes, that is all conjecture on my part. But if that's not the case, why hold these meetings? I would have thought that the PM has enough to do without being obliged to troop off to Buck Palace every week. The PM's office can easily update the monarch's secretariat on current events if necessary.

My search for the omnipotent being ends! You clearly know what I meant better than I do. I am doing nothing of the sort. I have been consistent in my argument throughout. Frankly, I'm fed up repeating myself. If you are that bothered, all I can suggest you do is re-read my posts. If you find any inconsistencies in them, point them out. Weekly audiences with the PM would suggest otherwise

I'm not sure what is 'up to me' but thanks anyway In that case there's a simple solution: Don't engage with 'my type' on this forum. That's very generous of you (especially as you have no interest in 'my type', however, your needs are clearly much greater than mine so look after yourself firstly. If I can help in any way, let me know ????‍⚕️ Seems a rather limited criterion for defining idiocy, but I agree that it's not the most astute piece of timing.

I was exaggerating for effect. I didn't think that anyone would take my comment about tourists coming here believing that they would meet the monarch literally. Clearly, I was wrong. Of course, tourists come to the UK to see the palaces, changing of the guard, etc, just as they would if the monarchy was abolished. I'm not proposing that the UK adopt some sort of Khmer Rouge Year zero policy, merely that they are stripped of their constituental power and that doing so would have little effect (in itself) on tourism.

I don't know why you have brought the concept of leadership into the conversation? My point is - and has been throughout - that in the UK an unelected monarch holds a position of constitutional power where they can exert influence. Imo they shouldn't. You're right. The head of government in both Russia and China is a bloke. The presidents of both France and Germany are blokes. The PM of New Zealand is a woman ..... So what?