RayC

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?

Get rid of the welfare state: Can't hide behind it if it's not there. Pensioners have had their day. The sick are nothing but a burden and a waste of resources. Neither group is of any use to anyone. Let nature take its' course. Won't need to train as many medical professionals. They can be re-employed burning the corpses immediately to avoid disease spreading to the deserving. Why complicate matters, eh? Simples. Unfortunately, I imagine that there are those who think that this is a sound proposal.

Congratulations. You reached a new low.

I find it strange how easily you - and most Brexiters - dismiss the negative economic consequences of Brexit and the fact that many in the UK are made poorer as a result of it. You are saying (I assume) that Brexit was won because of the sovereignty issue. To repeat, I think that it is a red herring and those who believed the 'taking back control' mantra were sold a pup. But playing devil's advocate and accepting that there is some substance to that argument (which, to be clear, I don't), are you saying that being made progressively poorer is worth it simply because you are ruled from Westminster rather than Brussels? I see that you've thrown in the 'someone else's fault/ Brexit wasn't done right' excuse for good measure without, yet again, adding any detail about how Brexit could have been 'done right'. Wrt migration, you don't spell out what are these "cumulative adverse effects", whether all migrants bring this baggage with them and what should be done about it. Should we therefore send all non-native borne individuals in the UK 'back home'? No doubt there are those posting on this forum who would answer 'Yes' without giving a moment's thought about the effect that losing +/-5 million workers would have on the UK economy, let alone the irony of them living in a country as an immigrant themselves! (I'll pay you a back-handed compliment by stating that I don't think you fall into the category I outline above). Re the 5 million figure: In 2021 there were an estimated 14 million people borne outside the UK living there. Working population is 37% of the total. Quick back of a fag package estimate of the number of non-British borne individuals eligible to work is thus +/-5m).