RayC

😂 You don't need to worry on that front, Jonny. I could never accuse you of providing a complicated argument. Well, not one that is also coherent and rational at least. Let's do that. It is "Any Palestinian flags, symbols at Malmo Eurovision show will be removed". See anything there about Sadiq Khan or the London mayoral elections? (Scroll down for the answer if the question is too difficult for you) Answer: No The manufacturers have asked me to politely request that you stop mentioning their product: Their sales have fallen off a cliff since you started endorsing them. I'll just leave that there. Debatable. The turnout in London was down compared to the last election so it is possible that some Muslim voters stayed away in protest at Labour's position re Gaza. The Labour Muslim vote was down in the other Mayoral and council elections. If that's the case then the Tories will never win London again. Imo that is not the case. The Tories suffered from the unpopularity of the Westminster government and having a candidate, who was even more hapless than their previous one, Shaun Bailey (and he was very poor). I'm far from a Khan fanboy. Imo he hasn't been a good Mayor and is far from likeable or popular. A decent Tory candidate a la 'Andy Street' type would have done well.

You don't need to be a military strategist to know that if you cut supply lines to one of the combatants then they will (almost certainly) lose the war. I don't doubt that Borrell knew this two years ago as well. I doubt very much that he was referring to NATO given that the sentence you quote comes just after he talks about Hamas. Imo he is referring to the legacy created by the West in Palestine. As he is an EU envoy and was making a speech at Oxford, I would think that he was referring to the UK and France in particular. No, I don't remember this. It all sounds a bit flowery - pun intended - however, without knowing the context in which this paragraph was made, it's difficult to form much of an opinion.

Congratulations. You will top prize in the 'Taking a quote out of context' contest. In the very next sentences, Borrell went on to say: " "But is this the way we want the war to finish? I do not want [that], and I hope that many people in Europe do not want [that] either. On the contrary, we will do whatever we can in order to provide the Ukrainians with the military and political support, and we will provide the people in the Middle East all our political engagement to look for a fair peace." Earlier in his speech, Borrell stated, "Today, Putin is an existential threat to all of us. If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will not stop there. The prospect of having in Kyiv a puppet government like the one in Belarus, and the Russian troops on the Polish border, and Russia controlling 44% of the world[‘s] grain market is something that Europeans should be aware of." That's the truth of the matter.

Like others I struggle to see the connection between the Sadiq Khan, the London Mayoral Elections and the Eurovision Song Contest. Anyway just for the record - and correcting yet another of your factual inaccuracies - London does not have a "huge" Muslim population (unless you consider 15% to be huge).

I think that you are all being very mean. He was very very ill and all those nasty people in the hospital were laughing at him. He's an very brave little soldier.

A sizeable majority (67%) of the Dutch electorate explicitly voted against the idea of Wilders being PM. However, there is something to see here, but not the 'sitch-up' which you imply. Given that no party gains an overall majority in Dutch elections, a process has to be adopted in order to form a coalition government with an acceptable PM. This process involves appointing an "informateur" (meditator) who is tasked with meditating between the various parties. The party which secured the largest individual share of the vote - in this case, Wilders' PVV party - selects the informateur. Following the failure of two previous meditators, the PVV selected Kim Putters, the " veteran socialist politician" to whom you referred. Putters has since concluded that there is no chance of a coalition government, in which Wilders will be PM, being formed. Putters has now been replaced by two new informateurs - who are both from right-of-centre parties - who are similarly tasked with finding a solution to the impasse. Some may view the Dutch system of appointing a government as chaotic. However, it is arguably more democratic than the 'first past the post' system employed in the UK. Of course, that is all a matter of opinion. The link below offers an opinion regarding the effect of PVV's strong showing in the election. Far from being excluded from mainstream Dutch politics, it suggests that they are now very much part of it. https://www.politico.eu/article/with-geert-wilders-give-up-what-is-next-netherlands/

If the purpose of this initiative was to bolster the Tory vote in the recent local elections, then it failed miserably.

I have watched one interview of Ms. Greene, so perhaps it wasn't representative of her. However, based on that one observation I would say that Ms. Peek is spot on in her assessment.

You make It sound like something anti-democratic has occurred when in reality, normal process is being followed, albeit the matter is taking longer to resolve than usual. The Netherlands has a system of proportional representation. Wilders' - the leader of the PVV party - won the largest proportion of the vote. However, at 23% this is far below the 50+% threshold needed to form a government and he must therefore seek coalition partners, which is what he is currently trying to do.

Just following your example when it comes to hyperbole, Nauseus (Macron = Napoleon).

Fellow by the name of Johnson. Wonder what became of him? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/15/rest-world-believes-britain-time-did/

ID cards were - and I'm pretty sure still are - compulsory in Belgium. It was 25 years ago when I first applied for an ID card there but, if I remember correctly, the application process consisted of us presenting ourselves at the town hall where we were given a document stating that our applications were being processed. This document was accepted by banks, etc. Again, If memory serves we received our ID cards +/- 1 week later. All in all, a minor irritation but no great inconvenience. I don't doubt that it will take refugees longer to obtain an ID card. That is unfortunate but they will be 'in the system' and have access to essential services. The likelihood of a country such as Belgium refusing to (re)issue or withdraw an ID card without justification is imo almost non-existent. In any event, if the state is that keen to persecute an individual, then it will do so regardless of whether they possess an ID card or not.

It's not only the UK being different. There are many countries e.g. The Netherlands where ID cards are not compulsory. However, having said that I agree that ID cards are simple and easy. Imo the benefits - especially in this digital age - for both the individual and the state far outweigh the negatives.

I thought that post-Brexit, the UK was going to reassert its' authority on the world stage? 'Victoria imperium' and all that.

I agree with your conclusion (final sentence). However, the size and economic clout of the single market and customs union will go some way to mitigating against the decline in the EU. Sadly the ill-judged decision of the UK to leave the bloc means that we no longer have the guarantee of these safety nets. Instead - given the absence of any FTAs with the likes of China, India and the US - we continue to be dependent on the largesse of the EU for our economic prosperity. Oh, the irony.

I wasn't the one who introduced Brexit into this thread, Trans.

What search term/ string are you using? I searched for "effects of Brexit". The overwhelming majority of the results returned suggest that Brexit has had a negative effect.

An internet search will reveal an almost complete lack of data suggesting that Brexit has had a positive effect. On the other hand, there is a seemingly endless number of articles, reports, etc detailing the negative effects of Brexit. Given that, I don't see how it is possible to come to any other rational conclusion apart from the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Brexit has had a negative effect.

The overwhelming body of evidence suggests that Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK. Whether it constitutes a disaster is a subjective judgement.

As I inferred at the outset, illegal migration is a Europe-wide problem and imo it therefore needs Europe-wide cooperation to find a lasting and sustainable solution(s). The FACT remains that there is no "rule" (EU or UK) that refugees must be returned to the first safe country they entered and simply doing so will not solve the problem. All it will do is sour relations between ourselves and our European neighbours.

Not the case. Ukrainians and HK BNO passports holders were settled in the UK under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act. The figure of 66% which I quoted, referred to those individuals seeking asylum in under the provisions of the Refugee Convention. The link which I previously posted highlights these differences. I don't know but I'd hazard a guess that the majority are those who overstay their visa. Refugee status is not just granted to those fleeing war zones, it also applies to those fleeing other forms of persecution e.g. because of their political views, sexual orientation, etc. In which case, they would have their application for refugee status rejected. The fact that 66% of applications for refugee status are granted goes a long way to refuting your contention. Do criminal gangs traffick people? Of course. However, where is the evidence to support your claim that those arriving in boats are opportunists and not genuine refugees? Government data (see previously posted link) suggests otherwise. Again, where is the evidence to support your contention? Personally, I find it hard to believe that a refugee has an in-depth understanding of immigration law before they decide to head to the UK.

66% of applications for asylum in the UK in 2022/23 were granted which suggests that the majority of refugees were genuine. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#:~:text=As at the end of,a grant rate of 63%.

Your original claim was regarding " .. the fascist in D.C....". not the "American left". Unless they are one and the same i.e. no fascists or "left" outside of the capital, you have moved the goalposts. In my experience, this often happens when attempting to debate with blinkered ideologues, who seldom let rationality interfere with their thought processes. In a similar vein, I did not accuse you of stating or implying that the Russian election was free and fair, I merely asked you to avoid suggesting it. You managed to avoid doing so; well done. Unfortunately, I'd suggest that this was more due to luck than judgement. I would never claim to have a particularly deep understanding of the US or its' politics and it appears that I am not alone in that regard.

You were warned not to go cheap. Your crystal ball is faulty.

Agreed. Which is all the more reason why an effective Europe-wide solution is necessary.