RayC

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.

Ok I now know what you are referring to. And your point is?

What does that even mean? Is "It" fascism? Widely used to symbolise what? I'm pleased that you find this discussion easy. Although it is extremely simple to provide counter arguments and point out the flaws in your overly simplistic analyses, trying to get you to engage in any meaningful discussion seems futile. Anyway, Glastonbury's just finished on the TV so I'm off to bed. Good morning/afternoon/ evening.

What is the 1920 definition of Fascism? Mussolini fought socialists and crushed the unions. As I previously pointed out different political ideologies can share some attributes. This does not mean that the ideologies are identical. Again please take your own advice. Also please try to view things in a multi-faceted way.

Fascism and socialism are two different political ideologies. I suggest that you take your own advice.

The fact that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist does not "prove" that socialism founded fascism and/or that all socialists are fascists. I have shown the logical fallacy in your argument previously. I can only conclude that you are either 1) trolling and/or 2) incapable/ unwilling to understand counter arguments.