RayC

The idea that the British Royal Family is apolitical is nonsense. The very fact that the PM has to brief the Monarch on a weekly basis illustrates that. Why can't Charles get the news through the same channels as the rest of us? Moreover, because of his position Charles has a platform from where he broadcasts his views, a fact he demonstrated yet again at the latest COP meeting. Charles has been continuously interfering in political matters since his youth and governments are forced to spend time considering matters. He has disproportionate influence and it is undemocratic. If we must have a HoS who is not the PM, let us elect him or her. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

Same old, same old from the board's biggest Putin supporter. Many of us have torn apart his pro-Russian stance but, unfortunately, it has no effect and he still peddles the same old nonsense.

Macron was elected in a free and fair election, Charles was not. It's ironic that you continually rail against the "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" and complain vehemently about what you perceive as a lack of democracy in the EU, but are happy to champion this anachronism which places an individual as the HoS on purely hereditary grounds, and has nothing at all to do with meritocracy. Such a system has no place in a 21st century democracy.

I wouldn't vote for any of them but I didn't vote for Johnson and had no say in Charles becoming HoS, so I don't understand what is your point? In any event, why group those four individuals together? Democratically speaking, they fall into two groups: Macron and Trump were democratically elected so where's the problem? Putin and Xi were not elected by way of a free and fair election.

48,000 UK Family Visas were issued in 2022. Is it really that big a problem to accommodate this number of individuals in order to keep a family together? Moreover, it's not as though making it more difficult will lead to any significant cost savings. According to Stephanie Flanders speaking on the Iain Dale show, the government itself expects savings of +/-£5m/annum which, in the big scheme of things, is a drop in the ocean.

It would be better still if the UK became a republic with an elected Head of State.

You over-simplify things again. If the US were to leave NATO tomorrow then Europe would be very vulnerable as, currently, it doesn't have the capability to defend itself: France and the UK are the only European nations with significant defence forces and both are dwarfed by Russia. Europe could, and imo should, be more self-sufficient in terms of its' own defence. However, matters are complicated by a number of factors. Firstly, even allowing for Putin's imperialist intentions, Russia is not seen as a direct threat by many Southern European states hence, secondly, their ongoing reluctant to commit anything like 2% of GDP on defence spending (as demanded by NATO). Thirdly, there is the historical context: Until very recently, no European country would be happy to see a rearmed Germany. Likewise, there are some countries e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece where a military dictatorship was a thing of the recent past, hence the caution in increasing the military's power. Fourthly, until recently, US administrations of both colours were against the idea of a European army, as it was believed that it would undermine NATO (and presumably US influence in Europe). There are probably a plethora of other reasons. The above might be seen as an excuse for European states to do nothing but he bottom line is even if a plan to form a European army was agreed tomorrow, imo it would probably take the best part of a decade before it could be deployed. NATO (including the US) is still needed to ensure Western Europe's security.

So extremists and the problems of diversity are uniquely Islamist and French? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-supremacists-behind-over-80-extremism-related-us-murders-2022-2023-02-23/

Europe has greatly reduced its' dependency on Russian gas but imo more could be done to make economic sanctions on Russia bite. However, this would probably require all members of the G20 to agree upon what needs to be done which appears unlikely: The effect of the EU and UK placing sanctions on Russia is undermined by the likes of China and India increasing their imports. Switching to nuclear or other forms of energy is not a short-term option. If appeasement of Putin and his methods is to be avoided, then we are in a war of attrition* *which I realise is easy for me to say from a position of relative safety and comfort

Presumably because these disorders were not deemed serious enough to detain him involuntarily. In hindsight, that appears to be a major error.

I hope that doesn't happen as it will be a reward for Putin's aggression.

😂That's a corker😂

I would agree if they were setting lower standards for themselves but the opposite is the case here. If those who represent us wish to apply higher standards for themselves than they expect of us, then I'm all for it.

A good man. Died too soon and retired from front line politics too soon.

Have a look at the Ukraine thread, Mike. In summary, Russia gets to keep the Crimea and Donbass. A reward for aggression. When challenged on his pro-Putin views, he resorts to outright lies e.g. wgt post-WW2 Yalta conference; the acceptance of Ukraine's borders post break-up of the Soviet Union.

Execute a corpse? Well, I suppose you can never be too sure🤷

No. How does this article fit your pattern? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/oct/20/a-lot-of-pain-europes-jews-fear-rising-antisemitism-after-hamas-attack

I won't go to Wonderland so you bring your alter ego, the Hatter, to see me. How kind! I have no idea how that answers my question but please🙏 don't bother trying to explain. Thanks. As I mentioned previously, l agree with you: I can't tell the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

It would have. £120m plus £20 - £30m per refugee rehoused in Rwanda.

Data relating to the UK economy has changed; it has been revised downwards. I imagine that the IMF will also revise their forecast for UK growth downwards. https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-november-2023/#chapter-1

And which part of my previous (admittedly sarcastic) post leads you to conclude that I don't know the difference between EU and non-EU migrants? Actually forget that last paragraph. I admit that I don't know the difference. Anything to avoid disappearing into another of your 'Alice in Wonderland' type rabbit holes where everything is deniable by use of pedantic semantics.

Any evidence to support your confidence?

If those involved with this video are UK citizens, then I sincerely hope that they are found and brought to justice. However, you are being sensationalist. London has not morphed into 1940's Berlin over the last month. As for Rwanda. Here's what the US state thinks about it. You fancy sending your family and friends to live there? https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/rwanda/#:~:text=Significant human rights issues included,or detainees%3B transnational repression against

But you don't seem to consider them to be of any particular significance. Perhaps you could put some flesh on the bones and give some examples of how this newly won sovereignty has manifested itself and benefitted the UK since we left the EU? We can agree that there were no end of tactical errors made by the UK side during the negotiations. The underlining reason for this was that there was no plan or strategy and the reason for that was Project Brexit ended when the referendum result was 'Leave'. No thought was given to the consequences. The public embarrassment of the UK during the negotiations was the only natural outcome. In any event, the lack of preparation made no difference to what happened. The UK could have made the best strategic plan and had the world's best negotiators and it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. The EU had 4 aces showing and the UK a pair of 2s. The EU were always going to dictate the terms of any agreement (and any future amendments to it). You were sold yet another pup if you believed 'they need us more than we need them' mantra. Another consequence - at least in part - of Brexit. Many immigrants from the EU left their families in the home nations and returned to them periodically (many weekly). It was pretty easy, quick and inexpensive to do a weekly commute from most EU countries. Those immigrants have left and been replaced by immigrants from further afield who bring their families with them, thus giving rise to the problems which you outline. My understanding is that these criminal gangs are mainly Albanian who arrive in the country legally and then overstay. Maybe one solution is to be stricter with the granting of visas for nationals of certain countries. Unfortunate but necessary? Or perhaps, immigrants are a convenient peg upon which to hang society's problems. Hasn't it always been so? Firstly, the Jews then the Irish then the Blacks. The Poles and East Europeans were briefly the bad eggs and now it's the Muslims turn If the economy goes down the pan there will be no nation to worry about. I've never been hunting or foraging for my food and I don't fancy starting now.

I notice that you don't disagree with the proposal. Maybe I reappraise my assumption that you're not part of the 'send em back' brigade?