RayC

Might be wishful thinking, but I'll put a note in my diary to check whether that's the case in Feb. 2054. Unfortunately, no chance of me making it to Feb. 2074, so someone else will have to follow-up then😉

Attached article explains how Sharia 'law' works in the UK https://www.roythorne.co.uk/site/blog/family-law-blog/an-overview-of-sharia-law#:~:text=There are around 30 Sharia,are contrary to UK law.

What point are you trying to make?

Something else Liz got wrong then. That speech was cringeworthy. One can only assume that there was no rehearsal or if there was, that by some miracle the rehearsals actually sounded ok. Alternatively, was there not one aide with the courage to say, "I think this speech and it's delivery needs a bit work"?

There was no presentation because there was no plan, and there was no plan because - given the economic situation at the time - the ideas were nonsensical.

The figures you quote are out of date. The link which I posted are UK government estimates made in 2023. In any event, whatever the true figure may be, it is additional expenditure that is easily avoided. Imo there may be some placating noises, but no party will commit to unfreezing pensions unless it will bring them some electoral benefit. I can't see that benefit.

The reason is simple. Because it would cost +/-£1bn/year to do so. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/estimated-cost-of-uprating-uk-state-pensions-in-frozen-rate-countries-2024-to-2028/estimated-costs-of-uprating-state-pension-in-frozen-rate-countries-2024-to-2028

The sovereignty issue is overstated. As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, the fact is that between 1997 - 2016, the UK was forced to enact 3% against its' wishes. We were either in favour of 97% of laws originating in Brussels or, at worse, indifferent to them. That is just utter nonsense. See any of the numerous links which have been posted. In the long-term, we are all dead. The UK economy may be on life support by then. The economic benefits of Brexit are starting to appear? Can you give some concrete examples or offer any evidence for this claim? This is just more utter nonsense and bears no resemblance to reality. There are no end of studies which conclude that Brexit has cost the UK between 4 - 8% of growth; has fundamentally altered the labour market (immigration) for the worse; has reduced trade between the UK and EU with limited increases elsewhere; has negatively affected inward investment to the UK; has lead to a decrease in the value of the pound of +/-10% with limited benefit for UK exports; has lead to domestic political chaos (N. Ireland); has divided the country and has weakened our diplomatic position in the world. Just how bad did you expect the impact to be? We were promised a 'bonfire of EU legislation' almost immediately. I would like to say that good sense prevailed, but it was probably more a case that reality bit. In theory, we are free to make our own laws without restriction. In practice, unless we want to reinvent ourselves as Europe's North Korea - something I believe the flat earthers in the ERG might find attractive - then the ability to do so will be severely restricted by our dealings with the rest of the world. Yet another conclusion based on a false argument. I'll adjust your analogy. You (Brexit) are locked out of your home where a fire is raging. The fire brigade (EU) arrive - complete with a full array of fire fighting equipment in working order - and offer to help you fight the fire. "No thanks", say you, "I've got this. Me and my leaky one gallon pail will soon have things under control".

It is undeniable that the COVID related lockdown and the war in Ukraine has had a negative effect on the UK and EU member states' economies. Indeed, the effect of the war has had a more pronounced negative effect on most EU member states when compared to the UK. Have the worst case scenarios e.g. a 50000 increase in the number of unemployed, suggested by the 'Remain' side prior to the referendum occurred? No but it is undeniable that there have been negative effects, both economic and political, as yet another report shows. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/brexit-has-sliced-5percent-off-uk-economic-growth-goldman-sachs-says.html And what about the promised benefits? There is virtually no chance of a trade deal with the US in the foreseeable future irrespective of who wins the Presidential election this year, and it's a similar story for China and India. On the political front, one only has to look at Northern Ireland since we left the EU to see negative effects. Staying on the political front, why has there been no mass repeal of EU law? I'd suggest that one reason might be that the overwhelming majority of EU laws are good laws and therefore shouldn't be repealed (Incidentally, the UK voted in favour of 95+% of the laws which originated in Brussels). The simple truth, which you fail to acknowledge despite all the evidence, is that Brexit has damaged the UK and brought few, if any, benefits.

Never let it be said that you miss an opportunity to have a dig at Germany and the EU and, equally, never let it be said that there is ever any substance to these digs. Given that the UK government was free to adjust its' fiscal policies when we were in the EU, and the BoE was equally free to adjust the base rate, how exactly has being outside the EU helped the UK economy recover? On the other side of the coin, how does being in the EU 'shackle' its' members' economic recovery? How has the German economy been negatively affected by Germany's EU membership?

What are you suggesting? Every BBC programme should be politically 'balanced'? What about right-wing bias? Wasn't so long ago that the two most powerful political voices at the BBC were Nick Robinson and Andrew Neil. Btw: Ed Balls is (mainly) on the other channel.

That'll be the personal opinion - no supporting evidence - of the same Richard Sharp who was forced to resign from the BbC in disgrace, has been a Tory party donor and who voted Brexit. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/28/who-is-richard-sharp-why-quitting-bbc-boris-johnson

Prior to Cameron promising a referendum in 2013, Brexit was one issue among many. It only went to the top of the agenda after that. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-referendum/ A disastrous, avoidable political gamble wagered for purely selfish political gain by Cameron i.e. to strengthen his hold on the Conservative Party.

What? Referendums?

Is there any particular reason for this article at this time? Is Clarkson in the news again? What for?

Only one person showing their bias. Anyone is free to apply to be a member of the QT audience. Audience members are selected based on age, gender, occupation, ethnicity, disability status, voting intention, voting history, and party membership in order to get a political balance. They do sometimes 'fail' (deliberately) to achieve a balance. For example, last year an audience consisted solely of people who had all voted Brexit. Wrt the panels. The link lists the individuals who have sat on the panels by episode. I looked at this year's panels. Unsurprisingly, there is no left-wing bias as you suggest: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Question_Time_episodes#2024

My default position is that referendums should be kept to a minimum. The UK has a parliamentary democracy. We elect MPs to represent us and the largest party to govern. I think that there can be little doubt that certain members/ sections of the establishment were anti-Brexit, however, I don't think that had much bearing on the Brexit negotiation process. Once Article 50 was tabled, it was clear that we were going to leave. However, Article 50 was not triggered until 27 March 2017, 9 months or so after the referendum. Imo the government should have had a plan and strategy for negotiation prior to the referendum "just in case", but there is no excuse for them not having one when we entered the formal negotiations. Having said all that, I don't think that it would have made much difference as the EU were always in the stronger position, and were always going to dictate the terms and conditions of any deal Although I never thought Johnson fit to be PM, he undoubtedly had a mandate to govern. However, he relinquished this mandate as a result of his actions. Imo he has no one to blame but himself. Similar story for the Tory Party as a whole. They have wasted their majority and destroyed their credibility as a result of their in-fighting. No one to blame but themselves. I agree that the UK government has, in general, been ineffective but the same might be said of the German government. With better leadership perhaps both countries would have escaped recession? However, wrt Brexit (the EU) imo more specific questions need to be answered. Would Germany's economic performance been better outside of the EU? I have not seen any reports suggesting that might have been the case. However wrt the UK, report after report suggests that leaving the EU has had a negative economic effect on the UK. In response to these reports, Brexiter's often cite bias on the part of the authors. However, when challenged they are unable to point to this bias and/or other errors in the reports' methodologies. A second line of defence is that Brexit wasn't 'done right'. Imo the only 'harder' Brexit possible was "No Deal". How that would have improved matters is again unclear. The third line of defence is that Brexit isn't complete, the benefits are yet to be seen. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been no trade deals signed with any of the major economic powers, how long do we have to wait for these benefits to materialise? 10/20/50 years? To misquote Keynes, "In the long run we are all dead". Bottom line: Imo Brexit has significantly damaged the UK not just economically but in many other ways too e.g. diplomatically, academically, culturally, etc.

I agree with your conclusion but not with your premise. Recent governments have set a target inflation rate of 2%. Between 2009 - 2021, the BoE was fairly successful at meeting that target (2011 was the only year when the annual rate was above 3%). From March 2009 until December 2021, the base rate never rose above 0.75%. A rate anything like 6% could have never have been justified. The base rate has to be set in accordance with the prevailing economic conditions not the historical average or a gut feeling.

Why 6%? Would you raise rates now? If so, that's a .75% increase at a time when growth seems to be stagnant at best. I can't see how that helps the economy recover.

What 'truth' is that, Bob? That the answer to Islamic terrorism is to kill all Muslims? Anyone who believes that is evil and/or mad.

Err ... Corbyn is no longer leader of the Labour Party and Diane Abbott has had the Labour whip removed so there is next to no chance of either eventuality.

I agree. Let's leave it at that.

No I won't be accompanying her to the ritual because there will not be a ritual. You've clarified that you are serious. I can't understand how you - and others - can have such a warped view of 25% of the world's population, so there really is no point in continuing this discussion.

If this is a wind-up, it's not very tasteful but you did have me going. If you are serious then I'm lost for words and I'll leave it at that.

Zealots who use religion as an excuse to commit violence are not my friends. Only a simpleton could think that 1.8 billion Muslims are all religious zealots with blood on their hands.