RayC

I'm not sure whether the EU could have (or can) destroyed the City of London, and less convinced whether it would be in its' best interests to do so. Financial services account for +/-10% of UK GDP, and the destruction of this sector would obviously severely damage the UK. Why would the EU welcome this outcome? They would have to deal with the effects of having a large failed state on its' doorstep. An interesting academic discussion on the effects of Brexit on the City of London can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949694224000051#:~:text=The only significant financial power that the,shared with the EU was financial regulation.&text=Despite some relocations from London%2C Brexit has,to London as an international financial centre.

Hardly a credible defence. The fact that I consider (most) brutalist architecture to be an eyesore doesn't permit me to hire a crane and wrecking ball and destroy some South London housing estates.

Didn't Northern Ireland and Wales recognise Indian and Pakistani independence?

I'm not sure what specific national English - as opposed to regional English - issues there might be. In any event, there is already devolution to the metropolitan and county councils in England. There might be a case for transferring more responsibility and powers to these entities but I do see the need for an English parliament.

What would be the point of an English parliament? There isn't really a "democratic deficit", as 85% of Westminster MPs represent English constituencies. An English Assembly would simply be an (almost) exact replica of Westminster.

How long before Trump claims that his depiction as Pope swung the election for Prevost?

London is centre of political power, the largest centre of population and has the largest concentration of minorities. It would be a surprise if London wasn't the epicentre for demonstrations in the UK.

It's hardly surprising that the necessity of firstly having to reach consensus among the 27 EU Member States before the EU can sign a trade agreement means that the process can be lengthy. As a single entity, the UK does, indeed, have a potential advantage when it comes to speed in negotiations. However, what the EU lacks in nimbleness it more than makes up for in negotiating strength. The EU appears to work on the maxim that, 'No deal is better than a bad deal'. Unfortunately, the deals that the UK has struck with Australia and NZ suggest that we do not have that strength.

Being extremely generous and counting all 5 trade deals as pluses, what other benefits has Brexit brought for the "indigenous, working class, British male"? If you think that Brexit has been a success overall then you are using a strange set of success criteria and are easily pleased.

Copy of my reply to you on the UK-US trade deal thread: The UK rolled over 68 EU-negotiated trade deals and has signed 5 new deals since Brexit with: (1) The US: Extremely limited in scope and expected to have minimal economic impact (2) Japan: An extension of the EU - Japan deal. Very few marginal gains. (3) Australia and (4) New Zealand: Deals described by George Eustice, a Brexiter ex-Environment Minister as follows, “Overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.” (5) India: The one significant deal. However, should the EU and India reach an expected agreement later this year, the UK - India deal will need to be measured against that. And all these deals have been made against the cost of making life more difficult for exporters to and importers from our biggest market which is on our doorstep. Yep, viva Brexit!🤦

Actually, it's "only" around 93%. The UK rolled over 68 EU-negotiated trade deals and has signed 5 new deals since Brexit with: (1) The US: Extremely limited in scope and expected to have minimal economic impact (2) Japan: An extension of the EU - Japan deal. Very few marginal gains. (3) Australia and (4) New Zealand: Deals described by George Eustice, a Brexiter ex-Environment Minister as follows, “Overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.” (5) India: The one significant deal. However, should the EU and India reach an expected agreement later this year, the UK - India deal will need to be measured against that. And all these deals have been made against the cost of making life more difficult for exporters to and importers from our biggest market which is on our doorstep. Yep, viva Brexit!🤦

Unlike the UK, the EU is large enough to have some negotiating strength when dealing with the US, and therefore does not need to sign the first piece of paper placed before it. The US -UK deal is better than nothing, but I wouldn't be getting the bunting up and declaring Brexit a roaring success on the back of it. Your linked article makes clear just how limited this deal is. For example: "Rather than a sweeping free trade agreement ... the deal is set to include targeted tariff reductions and serve as a symbolic diplomatic gesture more than a transformative economic policy." " .. the economic impact is likely to be modest ... the deal is aimed more at mending past trade tensions rather than establishing a new era of significant transatlantic commerce. The potential for broader cooperation with the European Union—still the UK’s largest trading partner—is widely considered more economically crucial." "Chancellor Rachel Reeves (stated), “I understand why there's so much focus on our trading relationship with the US but actually our trading relationship with Europe is arguably even more important, because they're our nearest neighbours and trading partners"

Give it a go.

Precise details? No. But the attached article gives an indication of what these issues might be. https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-india-trade-deal-hanging-tough/ Perhaps, we are both wrong in viewing this deal as a Brexit benefit? That certainly appears to be Nige's view; he believes that the deal has “sold out (British workers) to the highest degree”.

Perhaps the bulk of the deal was agreed before June last year, but the tricky bits remained and the fact remains that the Tories were incapable of finalising matters despite 4 years of trying. Hansard will show that the deal was passed by parliament under a Labour government.

"Another"? I can't recall any others. The EU and India are slated to sign a trade agreement before the end of this year. If that happens, we'll be able to see just how good this is.

Wtf are you gibbering on about? Terrible comments but hardly government policy. A reform councillor has posted racist comments, should we therefore conclude that Reform is a racist party? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrg2nwgxl0o Guidelines proposed by an independent body - the Sentencing Council - not by the government and since suspended due to pressure from the Justice Secretary. But why should you let facts get in the way of another mindless anti-Labour rant. And talking of 'dog whistling', there you go again with your use of 'indigenous', despite being unable or unwilling to define what you mean by the term. And you call me a dinosaur! You might not have noticed, but society has changed since the '70s and '80s. It's therefore not much of a surprise that political parties have changed as well. In any event, in this particular example you are once again factually incorrect. This cabinet is the first where none of its' members attended an independent school before the age of 15. Not exactly a bunch of elites. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/britain-mps-middle-class-poorer/ An opinion. You might be proved correct. But it doesn't make any of them enemies of the nation as you constantly infer. Oh, to be a forward-looking, progressive thinker like you! Just what the country needs: Insular, narrow-minded bigots. Last the full term? Labour currently has a majority in the Commons of 145, so no matter how tightly you close your eyes and wish really, really hard, the government is unlikely to be forced from office within the next 4 years.

All valid concerns. No doubt the cost is a burden. The UK has long had a reputation for being a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. Personally, I think that is something to be proud of. Nevertheless, there are those who are not genuine refugees and, more problematically, seek to damage the country. Differentiating between the groups is the challenge. I don't have the solutions. An increase in demand for NHS services may exacerbate matters, but I don't think that the NHS's problems can be blamed on immigration. It begs the question why the police do not take action? Agreed. Most things are.

So, by that line of argument anyone who is not of Celtic descent cannot be considered an indigenous Briton(*). You have just ruled out a sizeable proportion of the UK population of Anglo, Jewish, Norman, Saxon and Slavic origin amongst other groups. Who knows, maybe you've excluded yourself. Now that really would be something😂 In any event, it still remains nonsensical to infer - as you endlessly do - that this government is some sort of 'fifth columnist'. You might disagree with the policies, they might affect you adversely, you might think that they will have a negative effect on the country, but to suggest that a British government - no matter its' political colours - would actively try to damage the country as you do is ridiculous. (*) Google AI defines indigenous Britons as, " .. the Celtic people who inhabited Britain before the Anglo-Saxon invasions beginning in the 5th century AD".

That definition (of a Briton) seems to encompass all individuals born in GB, wouldn't you agree? A 'Yes' will suffice but, prior warning, be prepared for a 'Please elaborate' from me if you reply 'No'.

What's your definition of an indigenous Briton?

Haigh is absolutely correct in her assessment. The idea that increases in funding for education, the NHS and social care, housing and improvements to local government finances and pensions could be funded solely by efficiency improvements and anaemic private sector growth inherited from the Tories was - and remains - pie in the sky. The choice was stark. If the electorate wanted the improvements, then it would have to pay for them. The government should not have ruled out tax increases during the election campaign. It has made a rod for its' own back and has compounded its' problems by the introduction of unnecessary self-imposed fiscal rules. To those who say that Labour would not have been elected on a platform of increasing taxes, I'd argue that Labour should have been more 'political'. They should not have explicitly stated that tax rises would be necessary but they should have left the option open. Dishonest? No. Devious? Certainly. But then Labour definitely don't have a monopoly on that attribute. Imo Labour would have still been elected with a substantial majority such was the public's disillusionment with the Tories. Moreover, the LibDems/ SNP wouldn't have been able to make any political capital out of the situation since their policies would also have meant an increase in taxation. There may have been an increase in Reform's vote, but I doubt that it would have resulted in a large increase in the number of MPs. An increase in employee NI contributions and/or PIT last October would obviously have been very unpopular. However, the rise in employer NI was - quite correctly - seen as a tax rise and is unpopular so I'd question what has actually been achieved by Labour's play on words. Imo it would have been better to have got the pain out of the way immediately. It's difficult to imagine that this government would be much more unpopular if it had done so.

My bad. However, following embedded links within the embedded links within the embedded links, etc. you often end up with something that undermines your premise. For example, "Apollo Global Management’s chief economist, Torsten Slok, recently laid out a timeline where lower imports from China leads to layoffs in transportation and retail industries in the U.S., empty shelves and a recession this summer" (Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/29/port-of-los-angeles-sees-shipping-volume-down-35percent-next-week-as-tariffs-bite.html) Empty shelves and a recession doesn't sound much like "winning" to me - more like verification of the stupidity of Trump's tariff policy - but I guess that depends upon your definition of "winning".

I don't think that the vast majority of the electorate are overly bothered by our membership of the ECHR in its' own right. However, imo illegal migration is an issue but not THE issue, and I certainly don't think that it holds the key to power. Imo when it comes to general elections, the public are more concerned with the economy - more specifically what the parties' policies mean for their pockets, health provision i.e. the NHS, and crime i.e. whether they feel safe: Immigration - both legal and illegal - is an issue and it may be growing in importance but I don't think that it is of primary concern for most of the electorate.

So do you think that replacing Badenoch with Jenrick is all it will take to restore the Tory vote to 2019 levels?