RayC

Of course you can provide an alibi or proof to back up that claim? ..... Thought not.

And let's take a look at the response by many eminent lawyers to Melzer's judgement. "More than 300 human rights lawyers and law professors criticized Melzer's approach to "allegations of sexual assault" in an open letter. While considering the "overarching argument" may merit attention, they wrote that they were "deeply disturbed by the way he approaches the allegations of sexual assault in this case". On the issue of sexual violence, they wrote that Melzer's intervention was "both legally erroneous and harmful to the development and protection of human rights law."" Bottom line is Assange jumped bail to avoid facing charges for alleged sexual crimes in Sweden.

Not quite as simple as that. The evidence has "weakened" due to the long delay in pursuing the cases, in part due to Assange's unwillingness to cooperate. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780743412/swedish-prosecutor-ends-investigation-into-julian-assange-over-rape-claims

And the Swedish state has a long and enviable reputation for its' lack of corruption and transparency.

The charges didn't just disappear. Two of the charges were dropped because of the (Swedish) stature of limitations had expired. The rape charge was dropped because " ... the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question ... (Ms Persson - Deputy Director of Public Prosecution) ... emphasised that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events". Have a read of this. The section entitled 'Conspiracy Theories' might be of particular interest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

Oh for the days when conspiracy theorists were relatively thin on the ground. Quick, look behind you😱

It's a shame that Assange won't now have to face trial for his alleged sexual crimes in Sweden.

I assume that ER must subscribe to the 'All publicity is good publicity' school of thought. Their initial campaign focussed on disrupting the public's journeys to work which, unsurprisingly, won them few friends. They now appear to have turned their attention to defacing cultural edifices which, unsurprisingly is cheesing off many people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause. Whatever the merits of their cause, imo ER their tactics are wrong; all they are currently succeeding in doing is alienating people. Are they using the same campaign management team as the Tory Party, perhaps?

I am out of my comfort zone here, but not all of The Pilgrims were religious zealots. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact In any event, that is bye-the-bye. The OP inferred that the Pilgrims and/or Founding Fathers would have been non-secular. The evidence suggests that while some might support a non-secular state, this view was certainly not universal. Therefore, the idea that the US constitution supports the concept of a 'State' based religion vis-a-vis the CoE in England seems flawed to me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States (section on religion)

I think that we are both correct (and incorrect). Some pilgrims did not believe in religious tolerance, others did. Some (most?) were secularist, others weren't.

It's a semantic argument. In the context of Brexit, the correct word to use is probably 'xenophobia' (or one of its' derivatives). Racism. Xenophobia. Imo equally poisonous.

Correct but you are referring to the original Pilgrims not the Founding Fathers, many of whom were members of the CoE. Do you believe that the original Plymouth Pilgrims would have approved of anything other than a non-secular Constitution?

I'm afraid that I will not support the MRLP until they reinstate their 1980's manifesto commitment to improve the British climate. This was to be achieved by relocating the island of Great Britain geographically to somewhere close to the Canary Isles. (The thorny issue of what happens to N.Ireland wasn't made clear).

At least we agree about the actual Agreement (albeit for different reasons). My original question concerned how the implementation of the Agreement could be/ could have been improved. I still don't have an answer to that question. As I implied previously, imo it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if the UK side had been led by the world's best negotiator. For one thing, s/he would have had the same problems as May did in getting the deal through parliament Ultimately, the deal was always going to be on the EU's terms. The only card the UK could have played was to walk away with 'No deal'. This would have hurt the EU but it would have hurt the UK even more. The Agreement is due for review in 2026. As we speak, I doubt that this will amount to much more than a box ticking exercise as the EU currently has no interest in spending any more time on Brexit. However, the political landscape is changing in the EU (member states) and the UK, and much can happen in the next 2 years, so who knows? Maybe Sir Kier will grow a pair and we'll enter into an EEA type agreement as a prelude to rejoining?🙏 (Almost certainly wishful thinking on my part). Article about the review here https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-might-the-review-of-the-trade-and-cooperation-agreement-actually-be-like/

No. My presumptions and grumblings are just that. Questions are something completely different. Whether they agree with my opinions or not, no one else here appears to be having any problem understanding my original post. However, for your benefit, I'll try again. Do you believe that the implementation of the Brexit deal has been badly handled by the UK government? If yes, what in your opinion do you think that the UK government could, and should, have done differently?

Isn't that what effectively happened? And the result was that the 'Leave' campaign was efficiently run whilst the 'Remain' campaign was largely inept. That was never going to happen. Neither the Tories nor Labour wants an end to the 2-party system.

I left the UK (for Thailand) in '91 and went to Belgium in '98, so I was well over the 15-year eligibility threshold. It's conceivable that the deal which emerged from the Brexit negotiations might have been better if the personalities had been different but I doubt it. Contrary to what some Brexiters claimed i.e. "they need us, more than we need them", imo the exact opposite was - and remains - the case. Imo ultimately the agreement was going to be either 1) 'No deal' or 2) a deal dictated by the EU which was the eventual outcome. Were the two sides goals aligned? Imo almost certainly not.

Anything is possible but under the 'first past the post' system, I doubt that the majority party will be anything other than Labour or the Conservatives for the foreseeable future. Imo there is a real possibility that Farage/ Reform is brought into the Tory fold after the election. If so, I don't doubt that they will make radical noises in opposition. Whether they would be a radical government if elected is another matter.

And the same old non-answer again. I'm delighted that you haven't managed to suffocate yourself yet, but surely it's time to remove your head from the sand. No point in pushing your luck😉

I was living in Belgium at the time of the Brexit referendum. I was denied a vote about something that had a profound effect on my life, whereas (some of) those living in Thailand had a voice about something which, at best, had a superficial effect upon them. I am - and will remain (pun intended) - bitter about that fact and will - almost certainly - continue to whine about it: I make no apologies for doing so. The vast majority of Brits - Brexiter or Remainer - do not believe that Brexit has, to date, delivered the promised benefits. There are four possible reasons for this: 1) These benefits do not exist and people were sold a pup 2) The benefits are slow to emerge but will be seen given time 3) There are benefits but the UK negotiated the wrong deal 4) It's the right deal and the benefits should now be visible, but things have been badly implemented. I am firmly in the first camp for reasons which I have outlined on many occasions. Wrt 2), it is, of course, possible that the benefits will emerge in time. However, imo hanging on to this hope requires 'blind faith'. There is little evidence to support this contention. Was it the wrong deal? Imo almost certainly. However, the only better deal would have involved remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. A watered-down Brexit deal would not have satisfied the ERG or Farage and would been seen as 'selling out'. These groups would have supported a harder 'no deal', but that would have been inflationary and led to the UK being even more isolated than it is currently. Why such a scenario would be considered beneficial is beyond me. So, we left with the idea that the current deal is, in fact, a good deal which has been badly implemented. This is a position taken by many Brexiters which begs the simple question, 'What should/ can the UK have done differently?' I have posed this question many times but have not, as yet, received an answer.

That may be true of the article and video but, sadly, that's not the case on this forum. It appears that many posters here can casually overlook Nazism.

You're right but that works both ways. You do not engage in such hyperbole yourself but there are many on this forum who ape Farage and Braverman's rhetoric, sneeringly labelling anyone who does not support their anti-immigrant, anti-European viewpoint as "woke", "Islington elite", members of the anti-democratic establishment, etc, and dismissing evidence presented against their premises as the work of "so-called" experts.

Imo it's fortunate that your views are not shared by many UK politicians or the majority of the UK public.

Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall, but I'd like to know the assumptions and margin of error associated with an economic prediction spanning 15 years.

Oh dear. I can only conclude that you are back on the drugs again. I don't usually proffer advice, but exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures: Please seek professional help before it's too late.