RayC

If only the lawyers on both sides could have had the opportunity to lay out their respective cases in front of a court; however, we both know the reason why that wasn't possible. If, as you imply, the accusations of sexual misconduct against Assange were part of a US attempt to discredit him, then it was a pretty inept performance. Why invent a scenario which involves consensual sex? If these women were complicit in this sting, why didn't one or both of them simply accuse Assange of rape with nothing consensual to it? Why would the Swedish state wish to implicate itself in such an affair? Instead of assigning Messiah status to an individual who - irrespective of whether he has committed a crime in this particular instance - is imo a flawed individual, why don't you approach matters with a more open mind rather than immediately conclude that anything untoward must - seemingly by definition - be the fault of the US state? I will certainly not be buying Assange's book but if you post a link to a free version of it, I may give it a go.

Wrong!!! I was replying to a post by JonnyF where he stated, "Drastically reduce the number of immigrants ...". There is no differentiation there between legal (economic) immigrants and asylum seekers.

Sunak was not elected by the wider Tory membership; he was selected by MPs. Prior to that, Tory party members were presented with the choice of Sunak or Truss, all other candidates having been eliminated in a series of elections in which only Tory MPs could vote. The fact that two right wing candidates, Sunak and Truss, made it to the final supports my assertion that the Conservative Parliamentary Party is itself right-wing. Sunak has shown himself to be conservative wrt social policy. Economically, in rejecting the majority of Truss' madcap ideas, Sunak has, by default, shown himself to be pragmatic but he is a neo liberalist economist at heart. The Economist concluded that Sunak was the most right-wing leader since Thatcher and I agree with them.

I think the exact opposite. I don't agree with all the author's conclusions, but it is a well written piece, full of well articulated arguments. If by "..defend the indefensible", you mean the current status quo then I don't see that at all. The Tory (and Labour) party is - and always has been - a broad church. It is a by-product of our 'first past the post' system. If you want to gain office at Westminster then you must join one of the two major parties, which means that both parties attract a broad spectrum of people and views. Given that context, I disagree completely with the implication that the current Tory party has moved leftwards; if anything the opposite is the case. Sunak and Truss are more naturally right-wing than any Tory leader since Thatcher; Johnson - ironically probably a more centralist Tory at heart - owed his position to the backing of the extreme right-wing ERG (I use 'extreme' in the context of the Tory party, not the broader political spectrum), having firstly had to purge the party of more centralist Tories e.g. Clarke, Stewart. Therefore, I would suggest that the current crop of Tory MPs is probably more right wing than any in the past 40 years. For me, the most interesting sentence in the article - and one which with I agree - is, "Reform does not represent a coherent strategy or political philosophy but something entirely new and rather extraordinary: a party that exists merely to subvert rather than to promote its own cause". Imo this sums up Farage. He got Brexit, but was never going to be held accountable or responsible for its' implementation or success. Post-election, if Farage does migrate to the Tories, he will once again be free from accountability or responsibility as the Tories will, almost certainly, be in opposition. The acid test for Farage will come if he ever achieves office although, given his age, that is unlikely. Imo Farage is an excellent and successful lobbyist, but - to date at least - no more than that.

It isn't as simple as reducing numbers as the various data sets here illustrate https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/ However, I agree that the UK doesn't need immigrants who bring with them, "' ...anti-semitic, misogynistic, intolerant belief systems.". It's therefore fortunate that the majority immigrants to the UK don't have those attributes.

Given that most of the major right-wing parties in the EU e.g. National Rally, AfD, etc have moved away from a commitment to leave, I'd say that the break up of the EU is extremely unlikely in the near future.

Of course you can provide an alibi or proof to back up that claim? ..... Thought not.

And let's take a look at the response by many eminent lawyers to Melzer's judgement. "More than 300 human rights lawyers and law professors criticized Melzer's approach to "allegations of sexual assault" in an open letter. While considering the "overarching argument" may merit attention, they wrote that they were "deeply disturbed by the way he approaches the allegations of sexual assault in this case". On the issue of sexual violence, they wrote that Melzer's intervention was "both legally erroneous and harmful to the development and protection of human rights law."" Bottom line is Assange jumped bail to avoid facing charges for alleged sexual crimes in Sweden.

Not quite as simple as that. The evidence has "weakened" due to the long delay in pursuing the cases, in part due to Assange's unwillingness to cooperate. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780743412/swedish-prosecutor-ends-investigation-into-julian-assange-over-rape-claims

And the Swedish state has a long and enviable reputation for its' lack of corruption and transparency.

The charges didn't just disappear. Two of the charges were dropped because of the (Swedish) stature of limitations had expired. The rape charge was dropped because " ... the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question ... (Ms Persson - Deputy Director of Public Prosecution) ... emphasised that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events". Have a read of this. The section entitled 'Conspiracy Theories' might be of particular interest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

Oh for the days when conspiracy theorists were relatively thin on the ground. Quick, look behind you😱

It's a shame that Assange won't now have to face trial for his alleged sexual crimes in Sweden.

I assume that ER must subscribe to the 'All publicity is good publicity' school of thought. Their initial campaign focussed on disrupting the public's journeys to work which, unsurprisingly, won them few friends. They now appear to have turned their attention to defacing cultural edifices which, unsurprisingly is cheesing off many people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause. Whatever the merits of their cause, imo ER their tactics are wrong; all they are currently succeeding in doing is alienating people. Are they using the same campaign management team as the Tory Party, perhaps?

I am out of my comfort zone here, but not all of The Pilgrims were religious zealots. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact In any event, that is bye-the-bye. The OP inferred that the Pilgrims and/or Founding Fathers would have been non-secular. The evidence suggests that while some might support a non-secular state, this view was certainly not universal. Therefore, the idea that the US constitution supports the concept of a 'State' based religion vis-a-vis the CoE in England seems flawed to me. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States (section on religion)

I think that we are both correct (and incorrect). Some pilgrims did not believe in religious tolerance, others did. Some (most?) were secularist, others weren't.

It's a semantic argument. In the context of Brexit, the correct word to use is probably 'xenophobia' (or one of its' derivatives). Racism. Xenophobia. Imo equally poisonous.

Correct but you are referring to the original Pilgrims not the Founding Fathers, many of whom were members of the CoE. Do you believe that the original Plymouth Pilgrims would have approved of anything other than a non-secular Constitution?

I'm afraid that I will not support the MRLP until they reinstate their 1980's manifesto commitment to improve the British climate. This was to be achieved by relocating the island of Great Britain geographically to somewhere close to the Canary Isles. (The thorny issue of what happens to N.Ireland wasn't made clear).

At least we agree about the actual Agreement (albeit for different reasons). My original question concerned how the implementation of the Agreement could be/ could have been improved. I still don't have an answer to that question. As I implied previously, imo it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference if the UK side had been led by the world's best negotiator. For one thing, s/he would have had the same problems as May did in getting the deal through parliament Ultimately, the deal was always going to be on the EU's terms. The only card the UK could have played was to walk away with 'No deal'. This would have hurt the EU but it would have hurt the UK even more. The Agreement is due for review in 2026. As we speak, I doubt that this will amount to much more than a box ticking exercise as the EU currently has no interest in spending any more time on Brexit. However, the political landscape is changing in the EU (member states) and the UK, and much can happen in the next 2 years, so who knows? Maybe Sir Kier will grow a pair and we'll enter into an EEA type agreement as a prelude to rejoining?🙏 (Almost certainly wishful thinking on my part). Article about the review here https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-might-the-review-of-the-trade-and-cooperation-agreement-actually-be-like/

No. My presumptions and grumblings are just that. Questions are something completely different. Whether they agree with my opinions or not, no one else here appears to be having any problem understanding my original post. However, for your benefit, I'll try again. Do you believe that the implementation of the Brexit deal has been badly handled by the UK government? If yes, what in your opinion do you think that the UK government could, and should, have done differently?

Isn't that what effectively happened? And the result was that the 'Leave' campaign was efficiently run whilst the 'Remain' campaign was largely inept. That was never going to happen. Neither the Tories nor Labour wants an end to the 2-party system.

I left the UK (for Thailand) in '91 and went to Belgium in '98, so I was well over the 15-year eligibility threshold. It's conceivable that the deal which emerged from the Brexit negotiations might have been better if the personalities had been different but I doubt it. Contrary to what some Brexiters claimed i.e. "they need us, more than we need them", imo the exact opposite was - and remains - the case. Imo ultimately the agreement was going to be either 1) 'No deal' or 2) a deal dictated by the EU which was the eventual outcome. Were the two sides goals aligned? Imo almost certainly not.

Anything is possible but under the 'first past the post' system, I doubt that the majority party will be anything other than Labour or the Conservatives for the foreseeable future. Imo there is a real possibility that Farage/ Reform is brought into the Tory fold after the election. If so, I don't doubt that they will make radical noises in opposition. Whether they would be a radical government if elected is another matter.

And the same old non-answer again. I'm delighted that you haven't managed to suffocate yourself yet, but surely it's time to remove your head from the sand. No point in pushing your luck😉