RayC

Introducing any type of PR system is welcome although, unfortunately, I doubt that it will be extended to General Elections.

Once again, complete and utter nonsense

Legal immigration to the UK has increased since Brexit. EU law allows member states to refuse entry to individuals who pose a threat to public order, security, or public health. Not sure if you mean the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is based in the Hague or the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg? In any event, it's irrelevant as both are completely separate entities to the EU

Complete and utter nonsense https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87pqnn803yo.amp

It's a very pertinent question to ask. Many laws concerning food safety, animal welfare, consumer protection, environmental waste, etc. originated from Brussels do affect an individual's life in the UK. However, guess what, the overwhelming majority of those laws remain on the UK Statute book. And why's that? Because they are good laws which benefit the public. Brexiters will argue that you don't need to be in the EU to develop such laws. True, but the UK would need an even bigger army of civil servants - to research and draft legislation - and more parliamentary time to enact these laws individually. Delegating the European Commission to develop these laws results in economies of scale for the 27 member states. It has been well documented that for those Brits involved in trade with EU companies, Brexit has had a profoundly negative effect on their daily lives. On the positive side, now that we have left the EU we are free to rescind Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94, which deals with 'Bendy Bananas'. I wonder why that hasn't happened yet? Could it be that there are other sections of this Regulation which might be beneficial to the British consumer?

I would hazard a guess that the "indigenous British people" i.e. pure blooded Celts have been a minority in GB for +/-1500 years as a minimum.

Very flirty 😘 Intercepting the French navy in international waters might be less provocative than landing the marines on French beaches and/or blockading French ports, but it will still create an incident and a response which could quickly escalate.

Imo 'Smash the Gangs' is the solution, but how you do that is another matter, although I'm convinced that it will need coordinated international action rather than countries acting individually.

'It will hurt us but it will hurt you more' has never stuck me as a good argument.

Brexit has hurt the UK economy more than a little bit. For example, the OBR estimated that, over time, Brexit would cost the UK economy 4% of GDP (£32bn per annum). If that estimate is anywhere close to accurate, then that is sizeable in anybody's language. On top of that there are the non-financial barriers such as the increased complexity of doing business in the EU. I could go on. And what of the benefits? Increased sovereignty? In theory, but in practice, very debatable as the trade deals that the UK has agreed with the EU and the US show: They were basically given to the UK as, 'Take it or leave it'. The Johnson Brexiter government also promised a 'bonfire of EU legislation'. It hasn't happened and shows no sign of happening. Why? Perhaps, in contrast to what was claimed by Brexiters, not all EU law is bad. Or perhaps, it is the realisation that if the UK wants to take part in the game, then it is sometimes necessary to play by other people's rules especially when - like in the cases of the EU and US - they have the whip hand. Having said all that, I think that the comparison with Brexit is a false one. The US can (largely) dictate terms in bi-lateral trade talks. However, what I still don't understand is why (the threat of) a trade war is considered a good thing. If played out, it will likely result in a reduction in the volume of trade, a reduction in choice and increase in price for consumers and/or reduced margins for companies amongst other things. Whose interest does that serve? I also don't see how US sovereignty is enhanced.

Can you explain why you think (the threat of) a trade war is a good thing?

Oh dear. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You must have forgotten that I stated in my previous post that the call for a "People's" vote lacked validity.

Why should it be skewed? Individuals should ask themselves the same basic question - 'Do I think that membership of the EU is beneficial for the UK? - and vote accordingly. If anything, asking for confirmation after joining should lead to a more informed vote as there is the experience of membership to take into account. Access to information was obviously not as widely available in the '70s as it is now, however, I imagine that the broadsheets contained a good deal of facts and informed opinion about the pros and cons of joining the EC.

In our parliamentary democracy, the government has a mandate to make decisions on our behalf. As long as they stick to their basic manifesto commitments, then that system is fine by me. Hypothetical as it is, your conclusion if the UK had not signed the Maastricht Treaty is completely wrong. Like the EU, there was no mechanism to remove a member state from the EC or EEC unless they wanted to leave.

That's exactly what I did: Challenge your idea. You stated that Brexit has not been delivered, so I asked you to explain what it should have looked like. You made no attempt to answer the question, but instead adopted a condescending, patronising tone ("You confused people ..."; ".. I forgive your ignorance ..."). When I replied in kind, you play the injured party when you have no grounds for complaint.

How does a referendum about continuing membership differ in essence from one about joining? The individual will decide whether they think that being a member of the EU is a good thing or not. I have not suggested otherwise (although what the result of a hypothetical election would have been is, of course, pure conjecture).

Hardly a personal attack. I was replying in kind to your patronising tone.

Congratulations. As incoherent mutterings go that is near the top of the list. You have just proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are just another in the long list of those who doesn't have the faintest idea what he thinks Brexit should look like.

"(Farage) insisted the Royal Navy should tow boats back to France if deportations fail. “Ultimately, the last solution would be for the Royal Marines to take them back to France. If it comes to that, it comes to that. But I don’t [think] it would need to.” No need to look any further than this for a reason why Farage should never become PM. Effectively invade France. UK foreign policy circa 1530.

I've asked these questions many times before to many different people, but have yet to receive any constructive answers: What should Brexit look like? What deal (with the EU) could and should have been brokered?

You can't have it both ways, Nauseus. On the one hand, you complain that we joined the EC without a referendum, but then complain that the result of the 1975 referendum was 'tainted' because the electorate did not fully understand the complexity of the issues: It's the same argument used by those who were in favour of a "People's" vote following the result of the 2016 referendum. Neither has any validity.

The EU came into being as a result of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the ECJ's powers were formalised as part of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. The UK could have vetoed either or both of these treaties if it had wished to do so. It did not; it chose to endorse them. In a similar vein, to become an EU member, there needs to be unanimity amongst the existing member states i.e. One existing member can effectively veto a country's application; Germany and latterly, Greece has effectively blocked Turkiye's application. If the UK was against EU enlargement it could have vetoed it.

And I posted a response in a previous thread: It is a ridiculous suggestion. Invading France as you suggest would have such far-reaching effects, it is unlikely that the UK would recover for decades.

We've been here before. If the French authorities choose to ignore their own national laws, then there are ways and means for French nationals and residents to complain and hold them to account. If other nations believe that France is breaching international laws and agreements then, in a similar vein, there will be a mechanism to hold the French government to account. That's exactly what the French authorities are doing https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/06/20/french-police-launch-nationwide-crackdown-on-undocumented-migrants_6742532_7.html

Yes, this would lead to problems of all kinds and, yes the problems created by doing as you suggest would probably make the illegal migrant problem pale into insignificance.