RayC

Complete and utter nonsense. 'My' facts are just that, facts. There is nothing in your self-pitying post to refute them. To give you some credit, you have done a complete volte-face wrt Johnson. I seem to recall that you had his face as your emoji and singing his praises? Still, I'm pleased that you now realise just what a charlatan he is. Better late than never. Whether Johnson's deal was a tweak of May's and/or whether Merkel was the real power in the EU is completely irrelevant. No one forced Johnson to sign the Withdrawal Agreement. That is a FACT. It is as simple as that. Just as the UK is never going to regain its' position circa 1850 as the world's dominant power, the EU was - and is - never going to return to its' 1970s self. If this is what you wanted then you were always destined to be disappointed. If you have another vision of what the world post-Brexit should have looked like then can you please explain what it is: I've asked this question numerous times but have yet to receive a direct answer, so I've steeled myself for yet another disappointment.

You have proven my point. You clearly view women as nothing more than objects to be used and abused as men see fit. When it comes to women, you are devoid of what the overwhelming majority of people - male or female - would label morals.

I'm male. (Hetrosexual in case you think sexual inclination makes a difference). Your morality is not mine. You do not own 'male morality' and define what it is

Ventura isn't - and never was - Combs' property to use as he saw fit. If she wanted to have sex with other men she was perfectly entitled to do so. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So either your morality is superior to others - conceited arrogance - or you are a hypocrite. Take your pick.

But you have no problem casting stones at Ventura.

Ventura should have covered this song and dedicated it to Combs.

Combs should be applauded for his restraint. He didn't kill the adulteress, Ventura. Praise the Lord! Perhaps the Pope should initiate the process of elevating this shining example of masculinity to sainthood.

Here we go again. The same old Brexit tune: The reason Brexit isn't a success is because it was sabotaged by everyone from the 'Man in the Moon' to 'The Jolly Green Giant'. Here's a recap of the FACTS for you. Your hero, Boris Johnson, signed the Withdrawal Agreement not Theresa May. What went on during her watch was basically irrelevant. If Johnson thought that the Withdrawal Agreement was the 'Dogs Dinner' you suggest, then he should not have signed it. No one could have coerced him into doing so: Not the EU; not the Civil Service; no one. Your side got what it wanted: We left the EU. Its' your side's responsibility and you are accountable for the outcome. You knew what you were voting for, or so you kept telling us Remainers. Stop blaming others for a situation which you created.

So her actions excuse his domestic violence? Women should be viewed as nothing more than another possession? Right?

This one sealed it for me. You must be trolling. I don't understand what anyone gets out of this pursuit. Maybe you can explain. Anyway, I won't be feeding you any more. On the off chance that you are bring serious, I'd suggest that you re-read your posts in this thread. They portray a misogynist with sadistic tendencies. I hope that you don't act out your words.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

That may be but it still doesn't explain a near doubling in immigration. Not so. According to Gov.uk, 269,000 EU citizens migrated to the UK in 2015.

How if the current situation is advantageous for the EU is it a problem for them? The same could be argued from the UK side. It would be good to have a survey into the effects of Brexit on the EU similar to the ones conducted into the effects on the UK. Certainly incorrect re Polish workers. One of the main complaints of 'Leavers' was the number of Polish plumbers and construction workers coming to the UK. The facts speak for themselves: In 2016 the UK was the second highest net contributor (€7.43bn) behind Germany. France's net contribution was €4.4bn. Personally, I'd steer well clear of CAP if I were trying to make a point. In 2014 France received €8.5bn from CAP. Ukraine did change the equation and highlighted Europe's lack of readiness for war. Within Western Europe, France and the UK are the only nations with sizeable armed forces, hardware and defence expertise. If the EU is to play a bigger role in Europe's defence then it can ill afford to exclude one of its' two major players. Fishing rights may be deeply symbolic but cod quotas have nothing whatsoever to do with the production of Trident missiles.

That doesn't explain why immigration has doubled since 2015.

If that is the case then Brexit has failed. Brexit may well have reduced the number of EU migrants but immigration to the UK is at - or near to - its' all-time high.

Agreed but so what? Surely that's the UK's problem? I haven't seen any studies specifically on the effects of Brexit on the EU economy either. However, there is plenty of evidence which highlights the negative effects. For example, exports from the EU to the UK have fallen 18% since Brexit (Source: ONS). In addition, there is the loss of freedom of movement for EU nationals. The loss of the UK's financial contribution should not be underestimated either. In what ways is Brexit politically a "clear win" for the EU? The Scandinavian countries, The Netherlands, the Baltic states and some Eastern European nations probably think otherwise. Militarily and from a wider security perspective, Brexit has weakened the EU. If you don't ask, you don't get😁 We all have our pet hates. For example, I fail to see the link between fishing rights and European security. Indeed, as Kaja Kallas said, "(I'm) surprised how important fish are, considering the security situation".

So that makes it right? You should have stopped there. Really? Other men would have got "relatively light sentences" if found guilty of statutory rape and sexual assault? I am not that familiar with the US legal system but if what you say is true, then imo it is seriously flawed. I assume that you mean the sex trafficking charge? You are displaying your bias given that the evidence has yet to be heard in court. You are asking us to feel sorry for Combs!? You are again asking us to feel sorry for Combs? You have answered your own question. I suggest that you reread your first five words of what you wrote. Yet again, you portray Combs as the victim. Unbelievable! So Ventura should be vilified and what else? Subject to prosecution? I really hope that you are posting these words as a wind-up. If so, I consider it tasteless and misplaced. However, if you are actually serious then I have no words.

The relative lack of checks on EU goods arriving in the UK seems to favour EU exporters. Other third countries such as Pakistan would appear to have more cause for complaint. You don't need to convince me that Brexit was a mistake: I agree. The point under discussion was that Brexit has negatively affected both the UK and the EU (member states).

Whether Combs' is guilty of sex trafficking and racketeering remains to be seen, but there is overwhelming evidence that he is guilty of domestic violence amongst other things (yes, I know that he is not charged with that). In short, he's a nasty bit of work. And yet you defend this man, attempt to lay the blame on the victims and even imply that somehow, Combs hadn't broken any moral code. Unbelievable! You clearly have no respect for women and feel that their only purpose is to be used by men.

I still doubt that Reform will form the next government, but if it does it will face a similar problem to Labour i.e. its' economic policies are underfunded. So while Reform may have been consistent in its' messaging, I doubt that they will be able to do what they say they wrt taxation, etc unless they are willing to destroy the welfare state.

I gave you my personal choices based on who I would pick if there was a vacancy today. However, the issue you outline is, in reality, a non-problem as Starmer will most likely lead Labour into the next election, and five years is plenty of time for any potential successors to emerge.

I think that you are confusing me with someone else. I was never an ardent 'Starmerite'. There was always appeared to be a bit too much of the Blairite 'power at all costs' mentality in him for my liking. Nevertheless, I did expect more. There have been some successes e.g. re-engaging in an apparently meaningful way with the EU (although TBF to Sunak, he set the ball rolling there) but, taken overall, the past year has been a disappointment to me. As for a successor. Well, it's not going to happen anytime soon and I agree that the talent pool doesn't appear to be that big. Pushed for names, I'd say maybe Darren Jones, Pat McFadden or John Healey. I also like Hilary Benn but, unfortunately, I think that his time has been and gone.

I assume that you are talking about the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance? Politically - and possibly economically in terms of savings - it didn't make sense. For those reasons alone, I'd question why the government thought its' introduction a good idea. However, while I accept that means testing the allowance would still have generated a negative reaction, I can't see a principled objection to this course of action. Those pensioners living in poverty (11%) could continue to receive the allowance (imo they should be given additional help), however, the 27% of pensioners who have wealth exceeding £1m could be excluded from any additional payments, such as the Winter Fuel Allowance, as they clearly don't need it. (Source of figures: Google AI).

Indeed. If Starmer continues on this trajectory there will be little difference between Labour and Reform come the next GE.