RayC

The topic is about what the Trump presidency might mean for the UK. This naturally leads to a discussion about how the UK might mitigate any potential negative effects. One suggestion is to forge closer ties with our European neighbours, so discussion about EU/UK relations is very much 'on topic'.

Politicians cannot effect change unless they are in office. Starmer will compromise on his beliefs in to gain (remain in) office. He's no different to almost any other politician in that regard irrespective of the colour of the rosette.

The BS

If Trump decides to visit Clacton then he might need to find his own way there. Apparently, Farage doesn't spend much time in the constituency. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/20/clacton-nigel-farage-first-months-as-mp-reform It remains to be seen whether Trump's win will have any effect on Europe's populist movements.

I doubt that Starmer believes that Brexit was anything but a massive mistake. However, he's a politician and rejoining now would upset too many of his potential voters. Obviously he doesn't want to risk losing their support. Me? I'd rejoin tomorrow unless the terms offered by the EU were prohibitive. We won't get the same deal as we had, but I find it hard to imagine that any deal is worse than being on the outside looking in.

I agree with most of that. However, unfortunately, many of my compatriots are apparently stuck in some Victorian twilight zone where 'Britain ruled the waves' and was able to dictate the course of world events.

And due to the UK's weaker negotiating position now that we are outside of the EU, any such deal will almost certainly be worse than one that the EU could strike with the same partner(s).

Why would he want to do that when everything's going so well since we left?🤦😂

Didn't stop you believing it in 2016.

Another example of the BBC's left-wing bias ... oh, hold on .... Starmer stated in his welcome to Badenoch that " ... he looks forward to working with her in the interests of the British people". Far chance of that happening. As George Osborne said, "Kemi could start an argument in a phone box with herself". And Osborne's one of her friends!!

That would probably be a boost for the EU as the CDU is von der Leyden's party. So not all bad then.

And you're still supporting death in Ukraine with your pro-Russian propaganda.

Anyone thinking that the right-wing conspiracy theorists might disappear as a result of Trump's victory can rest easy. Some posts in this thread show that they are still alive and kicking.

You'll just have to bear the pain. The facts often hurt.

"But the UK really doesn't matter much to the US." Ouch! That hurts. Nevertheless, thank you for posting your opinion, which I imagine is held by a sizeable number of your compatriots and, more importantly, seemingly by a succession of US governments (whatever their colour). The UK has a rich cultural, economic and social history and has much to be proud of, but the belief that by acting on its' own in the 21st century, it has any real influence or power in the world is imo delusional. Europe as a whole is a fading force. Imo it can only slow the inevitable decline, and continue to be important, if it acts and moves as one entity. For that reason alone, Brexit was a disaster for the UK and a sizeable body blow for Europe as a whole.

In what way is the following 'nonsense'? What is factually incorrect about the statement? "The EU has preferential trade agreements with 70 nations, and seeks to extend that number. If Trump is true to his word, all imports to the US, irrespective of their origin, will attract tariffs." And 8 years after the referendum result and approaching 5 years after we formally left the EU, what have we got to show for it? Three new deals - Japan, Australia, NZ (deals on terms where the latter two nations can't believe their luck) - but nothing with the US, India or China and no indication that there is likely to be any deals in the foreseeable future. Instead - if we want to continue exporting to our biggest market (the EU) - we now have to effectively implement new and revised EU regulations without having any input into the development of these laws as we had previously. As an added bonus, exporters to the EU have to deal with 'red tape' that never formally existed. Yes, everything's been peachy since we left.

Absolute tosh as usual. The EU has preferential trade agreements with 70 nations, and seeks to extend that number. If Trump is true to his word, all imports to the US, irrespective of their origin, will attract tariffs. See the difference? Even after leaving, the UK could have remained a member of the Single Market and Customs Union but chose not to. A decision that you supported.

In the last polls in 2014 before Russia effectively occupied the Donbass region, the majority of inhabitants were still in favour of remaining Ukrainian, albeit with a greater degree of autonomy. Never forget that Russia has traditionally been governed in a corrupt and brutal manner.

"Authorities allege that the Saxonian Separatists were planning to establish a regime inspired by National Socialism in parts of eastern Germany, with a blueprint for “governmental and societal structures” that would emulate elements of the Nazi era. Authorities revealed chilling plans for ethnic cleansing, noting that “unwanted groups of people are supposed to be removed from the area by means of ethnic cleansing.” Most people would classify the Tories as either centre-right or right-of-centre. You'd be happy to vote for them if they put these type of policies in their manifesto?

Labour promised to build 1.5m more homes within the lifetime of this parliament, so it's obviously far too early to judge whether that promise has been kept. Labour also recognised that one of the stumbling blocks to building more homes was the complexity and lead-times involved in obtaining planning permission. To that end, they promised to immediately update the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and to that end, an updated draft document was produced. The consultation period for comments on this document ended in late September and I imagine that an updated finalised version will be made available soon. This document, amongst others, will provide input to a new Planning and Infrastructure bill which will be placed before parliament. To answer your questions directly: Has land been purchased and building plans developed for all 1.5m new homes? Almost certainly not and completely unrealistic to think that they would have been. I imagine that the building of the individual homes are all at different stages of the process. * Not accountable or responsible for 14 years of government mismanagement ..... *

A very long article but imo quite damning. https://www.thetimes.com/article/40de6e15-0456-49cb-988c-1ec39518cef9?shareToken=19c36968b75de5c2d489b3c671424135

You're welcome😉 If the monarchy were to be abolished, I don't see why those figures should be affected greatly. Millions visit Versailles and the other former Royal Palaces in France annually, even though there is no longer a monarchy there.

I guess that this is directed at me? 14 years of largely Tory mismanagement and Labour are meant to correct everything in the space of 6 months. No accountability or responsibility but no more than I've grown to expect from most Tory posters on this board. "Whataboutery"? If you say so. That's my hat-trick. Get in.⚽

I've no idea. Perhaps you're right? All the more reason to send him your plan. Fair play. It's a proposal but, unfortunately, not a solution. 2/3rds of illegal immigrants originate from 5 countries (Iran, Iraq, Albania, Syria and Afghanistan). https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/ (Figure 5). We don't send aid to the governments of Iran, Iraq or (I think?) Albania, so that leaves Afghanistan and Syria. Many of the illegal immigrants from these countries will be genuine refugees fleeing persecution and not economic migrants so, personally, I have no problem with them. You and some others probably disagree. However, notwithstanding the above, doing as you suggest would only recoup relatively small amounts as direct payments to overseas governments are not that large https://www.context.news/socioeconomic-inclusion/britains-foreign-aid-where-does-the-money-go (see 1st graphic). In conclusion, implementing your proposal will not recoup the cost of abolishing farmers IHT. It was an oversight on my part. I know nothing about the science behind carbon capture, so have no idea whether the benefits claimed for it are valid and verifiable. However, in a previous post I stated that the revenue generated from IHT in 21/22 was £6bn i.e. one tax year. In many instances, you quote costs for projects which accrue over the course of a project i.e. more than one year. For example, the estimated £22bn cost of carbon capture initiatives is spread over 25 years! Similarly, the £11bn figure for climate aid to Africa is spread over the period 2021 to 2026. Puts a rather different perspective on things, wouldn't you agree? I have discussed foreign aid above and in a previous post, and I have nothing to add to my previous comment about aid to Ukraine being money well spent imo.

I live in the UK for 7 months of the year and am currently there. The only delusional retards are those who think that the colour of a person's skin determines their decency and value to society. I posed you a question earlier: You used the phrase 'indigenous people of the UK'. I asked you to define such a person. No reply as yet. Using phrases that you don't understand? Question too difficult for you?