RayC

Congratulations and welcome to 'TBL Ignore' club. I'd like to claim that it is exclusive but membership must be in the hundreds by now.

Many people don't have a choice and for all its' faults, the UK still - relative to most other countries - offers a good quality of life for most residents. Free, good quality education to the age of 18; a free - albeit struggling - health service; decent standard of living; good leisure facilities; etc. And next-to-no chance of getting shot.

It appears that you are confused about the origins of the EU. This should help your understanding: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/1945-59_en https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuman_Declaration

We have had 4 PMs (3 Tories) since we left the EU and not one of them has been successful in stopping illegal immigration, so that blows the theory that it is solely down to Labour sky high. Unless you want to go down the avenue of blowing the boats out of the water and all that entails, then it's difficult to see what deterrents can be effective. Farage may be many things, but I doubt that he is a cold-blooded killer. As for dealing with the root cause(s) of the problem, I very much doubt that Farage has any more idea than anyone else in Europe. Labour is not anti-Britain. Most of the voices that are seem to originate from disgruntled expats.

So yet another non-answer. 'In Nigel, we trust'. Let's face it, (almost?) all you 'hard' Brexiters don't have the foggiest idea what you want and even if you did, you wouldn't have a clue about how to achieve it.

If you are referring to dealing with illegal migrants then, arguably, things have become worse since we left the EU and opted out of the Dublin Agreement. Moreover, if membership of the EU was the sole reason preventing the UK from solving the problem of illegal immigration, why haven't successive UK governments been able to introduce measures which would do the trick? If you are referring to legal immigration then the UK is more reliant than ever on overseas labour. Membership of the EU - in particular, freedom of movement - was beneficial in so many ways. Not only did UK employers have a vastly increased workforce to choose from, they were no bureaucratic hurdles to hiring EU nationals; part-time, fixed contract jobs were easy to fill with workers who were also transient, many of whom had no desire to immigrate permanently to the UK. These benefits were also available to Brits wanting to broaden their experience by living and working in the EU. Sadly, these benefits are no longer available to either Brits/EU workers or employers without firstly having to complete a lot of previously unnecessary red tape. The throwaway line about "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels" is just that a throwaway line without any substance. As Michel Barnier said, "There are no winners with Brexit".

By that rationale, the rest of Europe should lay back and do nothing if Putin decides, for example, that he wants to reclaim the parts of Poland that were formally Russian. 1930's style appeasement. Nothing more, nothing like.

So May ruined Brexit? So, usual question(s), Jonny, which I expect you will avoid answering once again. What does this utopian Brexit look like, and how should/ could it (have) be(en) achieved?

The laws you quoted may well stand but BahtSimpson is not incorrect as you stated. The terms of the Dublin Agreement - which the UK opted out of after Brexit - allowed for the return of illegal immigrants.

Clearly you know Sweet Fanny Adams about WW2. The US entry into WW2 was a turning point as was Russia changing sides however, no one saved the UK's ass in 1940; we - together with the help of Commonwealth troops - stood alone against the Nazi evil. A major reason for that was Churchill. Many in the British cabinet wanted to sue for peace but Churchill held firm. Whatever Churchill's political failures - and there were many - he was a pivotal figure in WW2.

Annoying for you but tbh not altogether surprising. I'm sure that you know as well as me that the level of competence varies greatly by branch. I hope that this is not tempting fate but the Khao San Road branch of KTB are usually on the ball. However, the branch on Thanon Phra Sumen less than 800m away is effectively useless: I once made the mistake of going into the branch on Thanon Samsen (+/-1km away). Once the staff had recovered from the shock of seeing a farang enter their branch, they all dived for cover!😁

What an absolute lot of old tosh. This is, never was and given the current political climate won't be in the foreseeable future, any prospect of a US-UK free-trade deal being put on the table. Trump offered warm words about a post-Brexit free-trade arrangement first time round and nothing happened. Given that the US is becoming increasingly protectionist, the chances of a substantial deal this time round is slim. Starmer was attempting a damage limitation exercise in Washington i.e. trying to avoid US tariffs being imposed on the UK. Time will tell, but to that end he might be successful. Wrt the EU, Starmer - and to be fair, Sunak before him - are merely trying to resume normal relations and repair the damage done to our relationship with our closest trading partner following the catastrophic confrontational agenda pursued by the buffoon, Johnson. It is ridiculous to suggest that any UK PM - whatever their political persuasion - actually hates Britain.

As expected. Not so great.

I'm not sure if it's common but it certainly isn't unprecedented. I suspect that it depends on the individual nation's constitution. For example, the 2010 UK General Election resulted in a 'hung' parliament i.e. no one party had an overall majority. The Conservatives won the most seats, however, Labour were the incumbent government and had first chance to form a new coalition government with the third party, the Liberal Democrats. It turned out that the Lib-Dems rejected Labour's overtures and formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. I think that you need to delve a bit deeper into the FP's recent past. They have 'form' as the saying goes. Many of their leading figures in the past had Nazi connections. It might be argued that most of these individuals are no longer around, however, when they were last in power in 2017, the Chancellor was caught on tape stating that he would effectively try to suppress any anti-government reporting (search for 'Ibiza Affair'). I don't think that it is a surprise that other parties are unwilling to engage with the FP.

That's for adding more evidence to support my view👍

Now calm down, dear. Just sit there quietly for a little while. I'll get you a nice drink. "I've given him a sedative, nurse. Hopefully, it will give us some respite".

Actuality: You didn't address my point but instead introduced yet another nonsensical theory. I refused to engage because I have no wish to disappear down yet another rabbit hole. So you agree. You do adore Trump! Oh dear! Touched a nerve, did I? And I'm the one who's incoherent? Nurse!!! Quick! We need some help here.

You consider that a rebuttal? It would be laughable? It would be laughable if it wasn't so vacuous and pretentious. "Ive got Trump". These are the first words of your post from 2 hours ago. Only one liar here. TRUTH? The truth was plain for all to see. A mob stormed the capital building because they could not accept the result of a election. I have no idea whether any of the morons thought that their rioting would result in a coup, but the very fact that you cannot bring yourself to condemn their actions speaks volumes. Your knowledge of National Socialism is almost non-existant but it doesn't prevent you posting hare-brained theories about it. I didn't mention anything about the Reichstag in my previous reply to you. Stop lying to cover up the inadequacies of your argument.

Or Hitler. Add one more to the list.

That's because some right-wing posters on this forum are unable to see things in anything other than 'black and white' terms. A right-of-centre US president seemingly having a cordial relationship with a left-of-centre UK PM has confused them no end and thrown their world into disarray. Poor dears

Yes, shameful on Blair's part but I doubt that the Trump - Starmer relationship will be that close. However, time will tell.

You borrowed TransAm's crystal ball? Whether there would be a different campaign if the rules were changed is completely irrelevant. The FACT remains that in 2016, Trump won the Presidency having polled fewer votes than Clinton. Any system that placed him in the White House under those circumstances is flawed and undemocratic. 'This guy' hadn't even thought about that because it is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

" .... we will have Greenland" No respect for the sovereignty of other nations. Echoes of Nazi Germany's attitude towards Central/ Eastern European nations in the '30s. "So what. We rule": As above plus the idea that 'Might is right' and democracy can be swept aside. Adoration of the Leader: Nazis adored Hitler. Trump's your love interest. Did you support/ condone the events of January 6? If so, add that to the charge sheet and list of similarities with the Nazis.

If you mean Brits, then some do, some don't. In any event, he's President of the US so needs must.

You mean to say that you hate this accent and no longer sound like this?😉 https://youtu.be/B_rVzBt20N0?feature=shared