RayC

I imagine that most AfD supporters will feel disappointed that they are unable to form a government but, I repeat, there is nothing undemocratic or untoward about other parties not wishing to be part of an AfD-led coalition. That is their perogative. What the AfD needs to do is win >50% of the votes cast, then there can be no argument about whether they should form a government.

Rather like most soap operas, this one has more than run its' course. Hopefully, the media will realise that soon.

Unfortunately the AfD polled well. As the largest party they have earned the right to attempt to form a coalition. However, there is nothing improper or undemocratic about the other parties refusing to join an AfD-led coalition. It certainly doesn't "bypass the will of the people" as you suggest: A large majority (66%) did not vote AfD. It is very rare for parties to win >50% of votes cast in 'one-off' elections and centre-based coalition government is the usual outcome. Is this anti-democratic given the circumstances? No. Does it generate the best outcome? Probably not. Is it the best way of electing a government? Open to debate.

Why does telling DWP that you are married cause a problem?

Much as I would like to see it happen, the phrase, "Good luck with that" comes to mind.

None of which in any way rebukes the content of the article. You should try playing the ball, not the man. As for propaganda: Pot, kettle, black comes to mind. I'll pass on your regards to Mr. Kolyandr if I bump into him in London.

There are racists in the UK - as there are in every country - but you'll need a bit more evidence than that to suggest that the UK is a racist country.

Have you already applied for your state pension and been asked to supply a marriage certificate? If so, ignore the rest of this message. If not - and you are about to apply for your state pension - then you do not need to provide a marriage certificate. You merely need to confirm that the date of your marriage. I applied recently over the phone (+44 191 218 7777)? I was hanging on for +/- 5 mins and the application process took +/-15 mins. Listed below are the details which I had to supply: • Contact details (telephone numbers, address, email address) • Marital status (including dates of marriage, death or divorce) • Spouse’s UK National Insurance number if they have one • The date you left the UK (month and year is acceptable) • The name of your last UK employer and the date you left that employment (month and year is acceptable) • If you have lived or worked in any other countries than the UK, we need the dates that you lived/worked in those countries as well as your social security numbers for those countries if you have one • The banking details of where you would like to be paid.

If you could have parked your bias and actually read the CEPA article, you would have seen that it is very similar to the piece in The Economist. Moreover, both articles support my contention that the current growth rate does not tell the full story about the Russian economy. As you were kind enough to give me your counsel, I will reciprocate and suggest that you follow this piece of advice: It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Not exactly the full story https://cepa.org/article/russias-economy-closer-to-the-edge-than-it-looks/

Please don't assume that you speak for me. I suggest that you search the internet. There are numerous sites which provide instruction in basic Economic theory and, in particular, how governments finance their expenditure.

😂 The exact same number as those UK citizens who elect the Cabinet Secretary. The link below details the processes for elections and appointments in the EU in case you need to refresh your memory. https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/leadership/elections-and-appointments_en

I'm sure that he will correct me if I have misinterpreted him, but I believe that there is an element of sarcasm in JonnyF's post. As for the rest of your post, could you elaborate about the lack of democracy and moral values in the EU, and be a bit more specific about the EU's attitude to the "genocide of children" and the hypocrisy.

See my reply to your other post. The decision should be set in stone forever more.

We have a parliamentary democracy and elect politicians every five years to make these decisions on our behalf. Imo there should never have been a referendum. It was a dereliction of duty by the 'Boy David', who put potential personal political gain before the needs of the country. Nevertheless, I agree that having been foolish enough to call the referendum, the result can hardly be ignored. I've always thought that 3 parliamentary terms (15 years) is a sufficient time for any Brexit related changes to be made and the effects to become clear, so let's wait until 2035 before posing the question again. Hopefully, the damage done over the 15 years can be rectified.

There are a number of reasons for going on about it but, perhaps, the main one is to remind politicians that it is never too late to correct an obvious mistake.

The current deal is bad but a 'No Deal' would have been even worse. Even Johnson realised that. If we did rejoin then it would almost certainly be on worse terms than we left. We wouldn't have the same opt-outs that we enjoyed before we left. It makes the decision to leave all the more sad.

And there was I thinking that your comments were borne of a desire to see the country of your birth thrive. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in liquidating your assets. Hopefully, you can now sort out everything remotely from Thailand and it won't be necessary for you to return to the UK.

The correct comparison is between where the UK is now i.e. out of the EU and where it might have been if we had remained a member. Of course, it is impossible to be categorical about this but the overwhelming body of evidence, which has modelled various scenarios, has concluded that Brexit has had a negative economic effect. It is also surely beyond argument that UK SMEs who export to the EU have been negatively affected by Brexit. If that is the case then it shouldn't be too difficult to debunk the various studies' conclusions and/or methodologies. However, pro-Brexit groups remain quiet. If you were to conduct a study in that way, you would introduce bias at the outset i.e. by assuming that the effect is tiny. The point of the studies is not to prove that the economic effect is large or tiny, but to ascertain what is the economic effect. Assuming that the methodology is sound - and as I implied previously, the pro-Brexit camp hasn't come up with many objections - only then can you conclude whether the effect is tiny or large. Every economy in the world suffered an economic hit from COVID, and the war in Ukraine affects the economies of most EU member states more than it does the UK. When will the economic benefits of Brexit start to become apparent? When do we draw a line in the sand and say, 'Ok let's judge Brexit'? 15 years? 20 years? 70 years? Someone stated in another thread that Rees-Moog had thrown that timescale out there. I often think that UK governments are too short-termist, but a pay back period of 70 years is a bit much.

No more than I expected from you. A typical response from someone unable to justify their position.

We all agree that it is important for the UK to have good relations with its' nearest neighbours ... wait a sec, that needs changing ... Some of us think that it is important for the UK to have good relations with its' nearest neighbours. Just a shame that it will just be bi-lateral talks. If only there was an organisation which brought together most of the European states where co-ordinated agreements on trade, safety standards, foreign policy, etc could be discussed and made .... oh, hold on ...

Not sure about the UK government but Brexit supporters need new trade agreements with whomever they can find in order to support their ill-founded claims that the UK would be better off outside of the EU. Of course, Brexit will be vindicated just as soon as Joe, Donald or Kamilla, the US President in 2028, 2032, 2036 ...... decides that the US needs the UK more than vica versa😂

Those were just two studies, among literally hundreds of others. The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Brexit has had a negative effect. There are very few studies which suggest otherwise.

This article shows what might of happened if we had left with 'No Deal'. How exactly would that have been beneficial? https://www.politico.eu/article/what-happens-no-brexit-trade-deal-eu-uk/

There is much to admire about Thailand and it's people but those traits aren't among them. Still, no surprise that you should find them appealing. I didn't suggest that all Thais did. However, some do and the local Wat forms a big part of community life in much of Thailand. You would discover that if you ever left your solipsistic bubble. I would suggest that you return to the UK and see for yourself that is not the case - how long's it been since you set foot in the UK? - but we are better off without you.