RayC

That rather depends what you mean by dependent. Less than 1 in 5 people in the EU work in the public sector and the provision of many service utilities e.g. electricity, transport, communications, etc are, at least partly, owned by private or stock exchange listed companies. However, it's true that there is greater provision of centralised, publicly funded welfare services - such as medical care - in the EU/ UK than in the US. Imo such provision is a good thing but that's a discussion for another thread. (Bold text is unintentional)

You might be right, but as I mentioned previously, it is also no easier trying to turn back the tide (no pun intended) at the Channel or en route. The simple fact is that it is a very difficult problem to solve. I don't know whether that is true. (The following paragraph is not directed at you) However even allowing that it may be, I wonder what the view of those in the UK who favour unilaterally returning intercepted illegal immigrants to France would be if the boot was on the other foot i.e. crossings were made in the opposite direction (from England to France). Would they be keen to spend money on what would become a problem for France and/or accept returnees? Imo it will take a crisis on an unprecedented scale for the EU (states) to consider amending Schengen. Each member state is responsible for defining its' policy(ies) wrt illegal immigrants. Perhaps, an EU-wide policy would be beneficial but it's I'd suggest that it's unlikely that the likes of Hungary would cede their authority. Postscript: I am writing this while watching the 6 o'clock news. There was a piece about the Channel crossings. Doesn't say anything new but reinforces my view that there are no easy, quick-fixes. I imagine that some will make their own way; others will pay smugglers but I think that you knew this already.

I have mixed feelings about advertisements such as these and also some of the media coverage which imo infers that elite women's football - and women's sport in general - is the equal of men's in terms of skill and quality. Imo in most sports - for whatever reasons - that is not the case, although I appreciate that they are trying to combat some of the more bigoted and misogynistic views among the (male) sporting public. I can't claim to have watched many of the matches at this WC in full but, based on the relatively small number which I have seen, I'd wager that the number of misplaced passes, for example, in this women's WC greatly outweighs the number seen in the last men's WC. Personally, I'd rather enjoy women's sport in it's own right and for what it is rather than measure it against the yardstick of men's sport and have the media pretend that it is something that it isn't.

I doubt that the French are very keen on having gangs of smugglers living and working on their territory and unauthorized immigrants living on their land. The border forces on both sides of the Channel face a thankless task. The coastline is +/-500km long. It is impossible to police it to the extent that it becomes impenetrable. Stop the boats departing from the area around the Calais region and they will simply move to another part of Normandy. The same problem exists at France's land borders. They are simply too long to police. Merkel's well-meaning but ill conceived 'open border' policy was a disaster and, as you rightly say, has made a bad situation, worse. The EU are not going to abandon Schengen, so imo the problem has to be tackled at source. How to do this is another matter. (I don't understand your point about revising French and EU immigration policies).

Now, now. Michel Barnier warned you that you wouldn't be allowed to cherry pick. The wider EU and Eurozone forecasts tell a different story. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2023/07/10/world-economic-outlook-update-july-2023#Projections https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/economic-forecast-and-surveys/economic-forecasts/winter-2023-economic-forecast-eu-economy-set-avoid-recession-headwinds-persist_en It's about time that you took off your blinkers, removed your earplugs and accepted that the overwhelming body of evidence from respected sources (selection below) indicate that Brexit has, to date, been an almost complete disaster. The links offer mainly quantifiable economic evidence. Things are just as bad on the qualitative side e.g. exclusive of UK from expert bodies such as Horizon. And where are the promised benefits? How have we used our new found sovereignty to improve matters? Where are the changes to the constitution and regulations to enhance our well-being that we were promised? The new trade deals and other economic benefits? Our increased standing on the world stage? https://www.ft.com/video/91b8a350-5817-4b40-a5ea-c62ec832aa9c https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/?_sft_theme=brexit-the-eu-and-the-world (Take your pick of the reports from this last link. You might even find the odd Brexit benefit although, of course, any will be completely outweighed by the negatives)

But wasn't it to be expected? After all, the EU need us more than we need them. Only natural therefore that they should structure their policies and strategies to match the UK's. Probably only a matter of time before the EU asks to join the UK. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth ......

England were the better side and largely controlled proceedings throughout the 90 minutes. However, Australia probably had the more clear-cut chances. High quality match. Good advertisement for women's football.

Another sharp and incisive comment from a self-proclaimed independent mind.

And you talk about honouring commitments!???? The UK was almost inevitably going to have to accept what the EU offered during the Brexit negotiations as - contrary to what 'Vote Leave' would have us believe - we need them more than they need us. Of course, matters weren't helped by 1) the complete lack of a coherent UK negotiating strategy; however, this was to be expected given that Brexiters couldn't agree amongst themselves what Brexit actually meant/entailed and 2) the combative and hostile attitude shown by the likes of Lord Frost and the rest of his friends in the Flat Earth brigade during the negotiations. If the opposite had been the case, we might have got a slightly better deal. However, I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies as - hard as it may be to imagine - the problems caused by Brexit would probably have been even more pronounced if the UK negotiating team had adopted your stance. The bottom line is that (most) Brexiters refuse to accept accountability and responsibility for the mess created by their own hands; it's always someone's else's fault. Therefore, it shouldn't be any surprise that problems go unsolved and escalate.

Of course it is. The whole strategic vision of the EU is nowadays focussed on making the UK pay for having the temerity to leave the bloc. It's all they ever talk about in Brussels and the 27 member state capital cities.????

Obviously I engaged. That is a fact. Unfortunately, I worked on the assumption that you might have something of interest/ substance to offer on the subject. Clearly, my assumption was incorrect.

So you just threw the suggestion out there as a 'Discussion Point'? You have no opinion on the matter, and were simply encouraging the rest of us to engage in discourse? You - as became patently obvious - would offer nothing of substance to further the debate? If you decide to do this in future, could I please ask you to make it clear. I have no interest in engaging in a discussion revolving around pedantry, semantics and obfuscation, which is what you have turned this into. Thanks.

Many of your statements would suggest otherwise. People would be hard pushed to construe them as facts.

All of a sudden you start to believe in the results of polls ????

What a bizarre comment! Imo your time would be put to best use helping yourself.

Both sides should be able to find something here to support their respective views. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d8deac18-3a1d-11ee-81cd-1bf34cc855cb?shareToken=a4204c8f4447ed5504981a29076020b4

Your original post: "I believe that is the point. Along with the other safe countries the immigrants travel through to get to UK. Those countries don't seem to care about the immigrants plight." which you then claimed is supported by articles in the media and is obvious to anyone with a bit of savvy. However, you are unable to supply any evidence to support this contention, but now instead suggest that the onus is on those who disagree with you to disprove it. This is akin to the argument that "I believe in God's existence. You need to prove that s/he/it doesn't exist". The following link does not prove that illegal immigrants are treated well in France but it is evidence to support this contention and a counter-example to your suggestion. https://help.unhcr.org/france/en/droits-et-obligations/#:~:text=You are entitled to basic,a decision on your application.

If Labour get into power, then they may not prove to be any more successful in dealing with problems than the Tories. That remains to be seen. However, the Tories are the government in situ and imo it is right and proper that they are held accountable and responsible for their policies and actions. What I find tiresome though is some posters deflecting criticism, and not addressing points raised directly, when challenged.

This thread appears to have morphed into the Four Yorkshiremen sketch https://youtu.be/ue7wM0QC5LE

You dusted off your crystal ball then, Trans?

This is an excellent example of deflection. I know that in all likelihood I will either get another cryptic reply or else a simple 'No', but care to point out where I have done so. (Please spare me a 'if you know the answer, why ask?' type response). Then why don't you post a link to support your contention? What is obvious to anyone with a tiny bit of savvy is that you make statements which you are unable to justify.

Oh dear indeed. The vast majority of the time when you are challenged about your premises, you are unable to defend them in any rational sense. Instead you resort to a selection from a) the challenger is bias b) the challenger's sources are bias c) your individual experience confirms your premise - no further justification necessary even if the weight of evidence suggests the opposite, and now (d) new entry, the challenger is unable to think critically. It's ironic that you should bring up critical thinking, which involves objective analysis and judgement, when your observations are the exact opposite of that. At least, we can agree on the conclusion, albeit we arrive at it by vastly different routes: It really is a sad state of affairs.

You know, that's not such a bad idea.

I read the BBC website, the FT and the Times regularly. I also read articles from The Spectator and listen to podcasts from these organisations and the loons at Spiked! I can't claim to read every issue cover-to-cover, or listen with full attention to every podcast, but I don't recall anything being mentioned about countries such as France being unconcerned about the plight of refugees/ illegal immigrants. If this 'news' is in the media every day then - as Chomper remarks - you shouldn't have any problem in supplying a few links to support your contention.

I'm pretty certain that a concern for the welfare of the (illegal) immigrants wasn't the point being made by the poster to whom I directed my reply (Quote: "IMHO they should be towed back to France and their boats sunk."). That's a very sweeping statement which I would suggest requires some supporting evidence.