RayC

Why should non-residents be allowed to vote in local/ national UK elections? These elections are predominantly fought on domestic issues which (largely) don't affect non-residents. By the same token, imo resident aliens have a strong claim to be given a vote.

Imo 15 years is way too long for non-resident UK nationals to be permitted to vote in local/ national elections. I would reduce it to a maximum of 5 years. Depending on the subject, I do think that referendums are different. This is not directed at you personally of course, but it does (still) grate with me that that British ex-pats living in non-EU countries, who had been away from the UK for less than 15 years, got to have a say in the Brexit referendum whereas someone like myself, who was directly affected by the result, did not (I had been living in Belgium for 17 years at the time). Never let it be said that I pass up an opportunity to have a rant about voter eligibility for the Brexit referendum.

You can't speak for Nigel Farage but have no trouble categorically stating that Braverman, Sunak and "everyone" else (!!) has moved on from the days of Empire!!! A lack of consistency, methinks. In any event, that is your opinion, not a fact. Mine differs. The empire did not end "about 100 years ago" as you state, it started to disintegrate after WW2. Most countries which had been in the Empire did not gain independence until the '50s or '60s. Those born in the '40s will remember the period. They will also have influenced their children, so I'd contend that there are almost certainly people (albeit a minority) who still yearn for the days of Empire.

You might find this link useful (although much of it repeats what Mike and Vinny say). https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/inheritance-tax-planning-iht/ As an aside. If you do not already have a Power of Attorney for your relatives I would seriously consider getting one as it makes things so much easier if, unfortunately, they become unable to manage their own affairs. @vinny41

"Harry and Megan's Nightmare journey": A new mini-series coming soon on Netflix.

That works both ways. Braverman, the ERG and UKIP (or whatever it calls itself nowadays) considers anyone who doesn't yearn for the days of Empire, and isn't wary of Johnny Foreigner, to be a Communist infiltrator and a quisling.

We will have to agree to disagree. My opinion is that if it had been 52-48 in favour of Remain, the likes of Farage and the ERG would not have gone away quietly. Whether the majority of 'Leave' supporters would have accepted the result is debatable. In any event, we'll never know as they are purely hypothetical questions.

"Ms Truss urged the West not to work with China, warning that totalitarian regimes "don't tell the truth"." She might be right. Just a shame that she didn't practice what she preached when she was in office. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/31/campaigners-seek-overturn-liz-truss-resumption-saudi-arms-sales-yemen https://news.sky.com/video/liz-truss-refuses-to-criticise-saudi-arabias-human-rights-record-12641890

The OBR estimates that leaving the EU has cost the UK 4% of its' GDP per annum (+/-£120bn). This dwarfs what was the UK's annual contribution to the EU (+/-£18bn). If legal immigrants are unemployed, then that's a problem for the UK government to solve and has nothing to do with France or anyone else. Refugees fleeing their home countries and illegal immigration presents a (bigger) problem for many EU nations. It is not a uniquely British problem caused by the French. Imo there would never have been a good time. Maybe remaining in the EU wouldn't have been a "great alternative", but I'd suggest that the evidence points to it as being a better option.

Perhaps a little unfair of me to take issue with you on this matter as you are by no means the worse offender, but an awful lot of opinion is presented as fact.

l'll rephrase my original question (and add some supplementaries): Do you support Brexit? If so, in your opinion has it been a success up to now? If not, what actions should/ should not have been taken by the UK government to avoid getting to where we are? What does the UK government need to do to make Brexit a success?

And that's a fact? Off hand, I can't think of one thing that I agree with Farage about, however it would be churlish not to acknowledge his success in getting a referendum on Brexit. Imo without him, there would have been no Brexit. If the vote had been 'Yes' I imagine that he would have been banging on about another referendum and that it would be a lot closer to reality than it is now.

But previously you suggested that this was not the Brexit that was voted for? I assume that you voted for Brexit so, presumably, you had a vision of what a post-Brexit UK might look like? Fair enough, you might not know how it might be achieved but the politicians such as Nigel Farage who were peddling this concept of a 'Brave New World' should be able to detail what it is and how we were going to get there.

I get that Mr. Farage would have done things differently (wouldn't we all????). However, apart from reducing immigration, which would have exasperated the labour shortages, neither you nor he can offer an alternative approach.

Can't find anything in that link about the 'new' trade deals that the UK has with India and numerous African countries. An 'approach' or a 'consultation' is completely different to a deal.

What is this Brexit that the UK voted for? How would it have been delivered?

What new trade deals has the UK negotiated with India and "numerous African countries" since the UK left the EU? "As of May 2023, the United Kingdom has 36 active free trade agreements with nations and trade blocs, covering 98 countries and territories.[3][4] Three of these are 'new' trade agreements: the European Union, Japan, and an enhanced agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The remaining 33 are continuity agreements. In addition, two further new agreements, with Australia and New Zealand, are expected to come into force on 31 May 2023" (Source: Wikipedia) There are currently ongoing talks between the UK and India, just as there are between the EU and India.

???? A superb analogy which sums up Brexit perfectly.

Surely they can all live there? The size of the place suggests that the two parties would never need to meet other.

It's hardly the same thing, is it? An embarrassed vice- principal vs. a trainload of infuriated passengers (I am assuming that the majority of passengers were right-minded <not right in the political sense of the word>) and negative publicity for the nation. Imo if the perpetrators were Nazis then they should be prosecuted under Austrian law. If they were stupid adolescent pranksters, then they should be told and shown why their actions were inappropriate.

If you want the UK to become Europe's version of North Korea then this mantra of yours might hold true. If, however, you want the UK to continue playing an active part in the world (especially with the EU member states), then there will be many occasions when this will not be the case. I don't find it hard to envisage scenarios where the Flat Earthers in the Tory Party would like a piece of EU law repealed but where doing so would break the (Windsor) Agreement. In such cases, I doubt that any responsible UK government would repeal that law.

So you would simply bin all legislation which originated in Brussels without knowing what would be the effect of doing so? Re specific laws worth keeping. Try Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 governing Food Law and the various other Regulations and Directives referenced in this document and subsequent amendments. The need to have laws governing Food Safety appears self-evident to me. That should keep you busy for a while. When you've finished your analysis let me know. We can discuss your findings before moving onto other related subjects such as Animal Welfare, the Environment, etc.

It isn't quite as simple as that. The increase in support for rejoining the EU isn't linear and constant across the UK. Labour need to regain the 'Red Wall' seats - where support for Brexit is still the strongest - if they are to get elected. They are obviously worried that standing on a 'rejoin' platform would jeopardize their chances.

Perhaps. But the same argument could be applied to many other European nations Again, perhaps you are right. But why would the UK be the first domino to fall and why within the next 12 months? Derivative based investments are inherently risky and imo don't seem to be the most logical place for local government pension funds to be invested. Nevertheless, the catalyst for the increase in UK government bond yields, which caused the problem in the markets, was Truss's budget proposals.

Congratulations. You seem to have aligned @puchooay and me on the same side which is a rarity. (I assume by "benefit handouts" you mean government expenditure which includes a lot more than simply welfare payments?) Assuming that Sunak does not change course and have a 'Liz Truss' moment which spooks the markets, why would the UK - rather than any other nation - need a bail-out from the IMF within the next 12 months?