RayC

Would you agree that most Muslim immigrants to the UK are not a threat to the fabric of British society?

Fine. But how exactly are Labour responsible for you being unable to buy a property when they are in government?

It is so easy to spot a Leaver who buries his head in the sand and will still not accept the evidence presented to him regarding the negative effects of Brexit. Here's a link outlining how the EU actually works https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-does-european-union-work I will ignore your advice and continue to moan about Brexit for as long as I see fit.

The EU is a Single Market therefore the comparison should be with that entity. In any event, there is little to suggest that being outside the EU has contributed much to the UK's economic growth. If France were to leave the EU would face a major crisis. However, given that National Rally have stated that they will seek to leave and the majority of the French public are overwhelming in favour of remaining a French exit from the EU in the foreseeable future is unlikely.

Unless they are Greek, your friends' views are not representative of their compatriot's. In fact, they are not representative of many people worldwide. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/24/people-broadly-view-the-eu-favorably-both-in-member-states-and-elsewhere/

Brexit has been a failure by most metrics. I have submitted numerous links on numerous occasions to support this contention. It is disingenuous of Redwood to imply that leaving the EU has had a positive effect on service exports. Services did not form part of the TCA. Leaving the EU has had a negative effect on the UK's trade deficit in goods: Trade with the EU is down and the promised trade deals with China, India and the US are nowhere to be seen. 95% of the "many, many trade deals" were simply legacies of the UK's membership of the EU which we subsequently carried over. The very few trade deals that the UK has struck since Brexit e.g. with Australia have generally been more favourable to our bi-lateral partners. However, the provision of financial services was the one area where the Leavers refrain, "They need us more than we need them", had a ring of truth. The EU is still building the infrastructure necessary to support its' financial services industry. In addition, there has been little diversification of regulation since Brexit. When the EU is comfortable with it's ability to supply the necessary services and if the UK departs from EU regulation, the effect of leaving the EU will be clearer. I doubt that the outcome will be favourable for the UK. Rather than compare the UK with only one EU member state over a short time scale, a better comparison would be with the EU bloc or Eurozone since the referendum. On most metrics, the UK has underperformed. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/14/brexit-has-sliced-5percent-off-uk-economic-growth-goldman-sachs-says.html Hopefully, National Rally won't win in the second round of the French election. Even if they do succeed, I'd make sure that you get the supplies in: You'll have a long wait for France leaving the EU.

I agree with your first two paragraphs. However, we don't all have paranoid tendencies which assume that anyone originating from another country, who might follow a different religion, is by definition a threat to the host culture and people.

Why not? I brought a flat in London when the Tories were in government and sold it when Labour were in power. Neither transaction was particularly difficult.

I can see how right-wing neo-conservatives, who can't come to terms with change of any sort and have an irrational fear of immigrants, might perceive Starmer as a threat..... There again, given that Starmer appears about as radical as John Major maybe I can't.

Who should be PM in your opinion?

I agree that there is little real enthusiasm for either Starmer personally or Labour as a party. It's more a case of 'they can't be any worse than the current lot'. Let's face it, the bar has been set so low by Johnson, Truss and Sunak that it's very difficult to imagine that Starmer can be worse.

I can only assume that the other 28% weren't prepared to say so publically.

I know that time flies and the memory fades as we get older, but I can't remember anything of the last 900 years😉

We are not exactly blessed with a surplus of excellent politicians in the UK but man alive, surely the two major US parties could have found better candidates than the two currently on offer?

I agree (+ try to ensure that they are free from persecution) A licence is required in order to employ overseas nationals. I doubt that this presents much of a problem for multinationals, but it is probably a different story for SMEs. However, that is an aside. Rather than pander to calls to cut immigration to some arbitrary number, I would like to see immigration numbers based on the UK's estimated future needs. Of course for this to happen, it would the government to develop an integrated industrial strategy. Given that, such a policy would have to be medium/ long term in nature and political parties cannot see further than the next election, I'm not hopeful.

They are subject to confirmation by the European Parliament, whose membership is directly elected by the EU member states' electorate. The UK employs a different system to appoint its' senior civil servants (Permanent Secretary): It is solely the responsibility of the PM.

The democratically elected President of Ukraine was ousted in 2014 because instead of signing the EU-Ukraine Political and Economic Agreement, which was the main policy on which he was elected, he unilaterally decided to ditch this platform and attempt to forge a closer relationship with Putin. Is it any wonder that the Ukrainian public rebelled?

Andrew Parker has described himself as a property developer, a part-time actor and a Reform supporter. Even 'The Mail' is having problems defending the indefensible. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13579777/Yes-actor-Reform-campaigner-Activist-filmed-calling-Rishi-P-says-goaded-remarks-claims-racist-hes-Muslim-girlfriends-insists-wasnt-paid-infiltrate-party.html

I understand the terms. What I (still) don't know is what point you are trying to make.

🤷🤦

" .. Fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer" while at the same time " (Fascism) explicitly (rejects) the capitalist elements of economic individualism and laissez-faire liberalism" See any problem there? Here's a more objective and nuanced description of the similarities and differences of fascism and socialism: https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/fascism-vs-socialism

To repeat one last time. Yes, Mussolini was a socialist. Mussolini then rejected socialism and embraced a 'new philosophy' which was referred to as fascism. Fascism is a different ideology to socialism. Why is this so difficult for you to understand.

I am neither dishonest nor am I trying to rewrite history. You are desperate. This is unsurprising given that you have backed yourself into a corner with your illogical argument.

I note that you avoided answering my question regarding the meaning of, "It was a symbol of collectivist government authority and is widely used to symbolize". I will be generous and assume that - with the benefit of hindsight - you now realise that the sentence in question is utter gibberish. I did not falsely claim anything. I provided you with a quote which defined fascism, and characterized it as being right-wing (ideology). It may have escaped your notice, but it is common in political discussion to portray fascism as 'right-wing' and communism as 'left wing'. Given I am unwilling to pay you to "educate" me - a laughable proposition in itself as you have consistently proven yourself incapable of engaging in rational argument - I assume that this is the end of this exchange. Small mercies.

You are the one claiming that "...we don't need more unskilled people (immigrants) bringing with them anti-semitic, misogynistic, intolerant belief systems." In the first instance, it is up to you to provide evidence to support that contention not to me to disprove it.