RayC

Never let be said that rational discussion of the potential effects of a policy initiative got in the way of political bias.

So you would approve of a ban on Israel's participation? If so, by the same token, you would no doubt agree with the ban on Russian teams being banned from international competition.

Miliband is simply stating the obvious. Eight years on from the vote, and 4 years since we left the EU, the only rational conclusion is that Brexit has been bad for the UK. QED.

Most sports originally had 'open' categories. Some such as golf still have them e.g. British Open, US Open. Trans individuals can compete in these categories. Women's categories were created because women cannot hope to beat men in most sports. That is not a misogynistic statement, it is a fact. The evidence also suggests that when it comes to sport, individuals who have gone through puberty as a male and then transitioned retain many of the physical advantages of being borne male. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that such individuals should not be allowed to compete in women only categories.

Hope that it works out for your lad and he gets what he wants. Good luck.

Exactly the response I expected. However, you are correct. I am quite capable of doing some research. That research offered the following when I searched for the phrase, "Brexit benefits" (other results are variations on a theme): https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/what-benefits-brexit-does-government-claim https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/04/brexit-trade-perks-firms-business-department-leaving-eu-companies Imo calling the benefits, "all a bit marginal" is being generous. All a bit pitiful is closer to the truth.

If the portrayals of Andrew and Emily Maitlis are accurate, then they are both somewhat eccentric. Maitlis doesn't appear to go anywhere without her whippet in tow. More bizarrely, Andrew has a collection of dolls which have to be arranged in a particular seating arrangement! Imo it's a very good review. Despite the good acting performances I was left wondering why the producers felt it necessary to make this film. Other than the odd - very odd in the case of Andrew - tidbit, the film didn't offer anything new.

Here we go again. Brexit isn't the problem, it's the way it was implemented. So what Brexit should have been implemented? What exactly should the UK government have done differently? What does it need to do now to realise the promised Brexit benefits?

What a load of old <deleted>. When was the last time you were in London. Why look down you nose at "low earning ... legal immigrants"? In any event, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that ithe middle class in (South) London are being replaced by immigrants. The lack of social housing, high cost of private housing (for rental or sale) means that individuals and families have to earn in excess of the national mean and median salary to be able to afford to live in the capital. I can't comment on north of the river but if you knew anything about South London, you would know that it has improved out of all recognition since the '70s, 80s and '90s. Far from being "a toilet" or "a dump" it is vibrant and thriving. As far as safety knows, unfortunately knife crime has increased throughout the UK but, as an outsider, you've a lot less chance of being mugged in Brixton or Peckham now compared with 30 - 50 years ago.

What law did the pro-EU fireworks display break? What other laws has Khan broken? London's population is increasing on an annual basis. Where's the evidence that "educated high earners" are deserting the capital? Never let the facts get in the way of anti- Labour rant, eh.

And if the flags's being flown at half mast?

Belarus is effectively a satellite state of Russia. It has a large amount of Russian armaments on its soil, which pose a direct threat to the countries which border it (Latvia, Lithuania, Poland). Presumably, you would see no problem in NATO invading Belarus in order to prevent Belarus becoming even more integrated into Russia, and to reduce the threat to Latvia, Lithuania and Poland?

Crimea and the Donbass were within Ukraine's internationally agreed borders. What justification was there for Russia invading these areas?

Discrimination and hostility based on race, religion, disability and sexual orientation was already covered by existing UK legislation. Therefore, any criticisms centred on equality or the supposed curtailing of free speech could just as easily be directed at Westminster. Having said that, imo this Scottish law is contentious and a poor piece of legislation. If the Scottish government considered it necessary to extend the existing UK legislation to explicitly cover transgender identity, then wouldn't the first clause have been sufficient i.e the bullet point, "demonstrated hostility ... transgender identity" Imo the second clause, "been motivated ... transgender identity" is problematic. What constitutes motivation? Why introduce even more uncertainty into an already contentious area.

15000 is a relatively large sample size. The poll was conducted by Survation. A non-political research company. I don't understand why the article mentioned that the organisation commissioning the poll is pro-EU unless they feel that this may introduce bias into the results. If so, they should detail their concerns.

The best ever manifesto promise was made by the Monsters ..... We will deal with the problem of bad weather in GB by towing the island to somewhere close to the Canary Isles😂

It's estimated that Brexit added +/-0.6% to the UK inflation rate on an annual basis. Certainly not a positive but not an absolute financial disaster either. I'd also agree that for the vast majority of the UK public, Brexit has had few direct effects - either positive or negative - on their day-to-day lives. However, for the +/-25% of UK SMEs, who either export to/ import from the EU or form part of a supply chain with EU components, it has caused major financial and logistical problems. In addition,for those of us individuals who were living and working in an EU state at the time of the referendum, the decision to leave introduced a great deal of uncertainty and stress and did directly affect our day-to-day lives. And for what? Change often brings benefits for the majority whilst having unintended negative consequences for the few. I was one of the 'losers' from Brexit. If you - or anyone else - can point to any substantial benefits as a result of Brexit then I might stop my griping and accept that it was for the greater good. In the meantime, I'll continue to deride this avoidable act of sado-masochism by the UK. I certainly won't take advice from those living 7000 miles away - many of whom have no intention of returning to the UK to live - extolling the non-existence virtues of Brexit and advising me to get over it. (Note: Despite protestations from both sides during the Brexit negotiations that the individual rights of EU or UK nationals wouldn't be used as bargaining tools, that is exactly what happened. I have equal contempt for both the EU (member states) and the UK in this regard).

Why were the accusations suspicious? Because one of the investigating officers had contact with one of the alleged victim in the past?

I replied to your contention that the drop in the value of the pound was good for the UK. I also replied to another poster who attributed Germany's current economic woes to Brexit.

I said that I was correcting those who refuse to accept that Brexit has had a negative economic effect despite the ever increasing amount of evidence which suggests that it has. Maybe you should pay a bit more attention to what's actually written.

I'm bored with continually correcting those who refuse to accept the overwhelming body of evidence which shows that Brexit has had a negative economic effect.

Why does the date matter? An overnight fall of 10% in the £/$ exchange rate and 7% against the Euro on 23/6/16 is still a collapse, not a managed correction.

I remember reading the BBC article which you quote and thinking it was interesting. Not much (anything?) in it to support the idea that Brexit has had any economic benefits. However, in the interests of balance It should be pointed out that not everyone agrees with the German Finance Ministers analysis. It appears that a pro-Brexit 'think tank' believes that Brexit hasn't negatively affected German exports https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/it-is-a-myth-that-brexit-has-damaged-uk-german-trade/ Personally, I agree with Michel Barnier: There are no winners from Brexit. Both the UK and the EU member states (some more than others) are suffering as a result of it which, imo makes the decision all the more bone-headed.

The EU's membership has grown during the period you quote and the Euro didn't come into existence until 1999, so a direct comparison is impossible. I don't think that the following is a particularly useful comparison but the dollar/mark exchange rate remained relatively stable over the period in question while the (French) franc trended downwards.

Whether the pound was over valued at the time of the referendum is debatable but, as JayClay points out, an overnight fall in the value of sterling of 20% is not a correction, it is a collapse. This was solely attributable to the decision to leave the EU.