RayC

I don't know what point you are trying to make? In any event, I'd suggest that it's naive to think that the King has no political influence. Although he has no direct role in the day-to-day governing of the UK, he does have a constitutional role and, as a result, the ability to plunge the country into constitutional crisis e.g. if he withheld Royal Ascent. Yes, unlikely to happen but why should these powers lay with an individual who owes his position to an accident of birth? In addition, the King's weekly audiences afford him the opportunity to make his views known directly to the PM (a privilege not open to any other of his countrymen). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/08/king-charles-iii-monarchy-mother-nation

I've not suggested anywhere that the UK government is NOT held accountable and responsible. Ministers are accountable to Parliament in the first instance. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/ministerial-accountability

I've not suggested anywhere that the British Royal Family do govern the UK. My points were that imo 1) the HoS - whether it be a ceremonial or political position - should be elected 2) Presidents Trump and Macron were elected by a democratic process and therefore have/had a mandate to govern. Those governing should be held accountable and responsible for their actions (good or bad).

Imo irrespective of whether the role of President/HoS is purely ceremonial or a more active political one is largely irrelevant; it is a question of democracy (and accountability). Whatever the merits of Presidents Trump and Macron, they were both elected by a democratic process and therefore had/have a mandate to govern.

Sounds like a good argument for having an elected HoS.

He should probably be paid for his sacrifice and service ..... oh wait .....

I knew a bloke who smoked close to 40/day for most of his life and he lived to be 90. So obviously smoking is good for you! So you don't believe that improvements in nutrition and hygiene; the introduction of the welfare state; the virtual elimination of certain diseases; a greater number of vaccines; improved treatment and cures for other diseases, etc has improved life expectancy? Or are those of us who do believe this being duped?

Life expectancy in the UK has been on an upward trajectory since records began https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/

Being cared for by the state, rather than the family, is a recent phenomenon. Imo society has an obligation to look after its' elderly but I wouldn't label retirement, "a human right".

You're right, of course. The problem is that making reforms such as 'means testing' state pensions amounts to an electoral suicide note for a political party.

What an incredibly damning clip. It shows that Braverman's proposal is unworkable and might actually encourage those desperate enough to seek out the traffickers, as there is no legal route to asylum open to them. As an aside, I bet "the team" were delighted about being thrown under a bus!

I'm not sure if organized human trafficking is THE main reason, but there's no denying it's a major problem. Human trafficking is illegal everywhere. It's not a question of controlling it. It needs to be eradicated. Question is how. Is human trafficking "well controlled" in the UK? That is not what happened. If anything it showed the exact opposite to what you suggest i.e that Germany does not and cannot control the EU singlehandedly. If you recall, Merkel opened the German borders to refugees; a move that was widely criticized by Sarkozy amongst others. Merkel also wanted an EU-wide quota system for re-housing refugees. This idea was adopted by the Commission and became EU law. However, the system was opposed - and never implemented - by many central/ Eastern European member states. A couple of years later the quota system was dropped. A failure which shows flaws both in policy and implementation on the part of the EU? Almost certainly but not for the reason you suggest. What do you know, we (almost) finish in agreement. Given the result of the referendum, I wouldn't phrase things in that way but I agree with the gist of your argument.

Wolves the football team wouldn't be in Europe ????

Nothing new here. If I remember correctly there was a pack roaming the Limburg border a few years ago?

I'm all in favour of trying to rehabilitate offenders but there must come a point when it becomes that rehabilitation isn't going to happen. Seems like this is the case here.

A recognition that certain EU member states e.g. Greece, Italy might be overburdened by an influx of refugees and illegal migrants from outside of the EU - and that some action might be needed at an EU level to help mitigate the effects on those members - has absolutely nothing to do with intra-EU FOM. The demonstrations in Ireland do not seem to be about migrants from outside the EU; they ARE about non-EU migration. These demonstrations weren't caused by "EU internal arrangements" (whatever that means?), they are a result of the Irish government's decision to establish refugee centres in certain parts of the country.

How does FOM between EU member states pressurise them to share the burden imposed by the large number of asylum seekers? In fact, it could be argued that the existing EU policy - whereby refugees are meant to remain in the first EU state in which they arrive until a decision on their status has been made - has exactly the opposite effect. The demonstrations in Ireland are nothing to do with intra-EU migration.

Freedom of movement between the member states of the EU still isn't much of an issue. The illegal migration of non-EU citizens is the issue. And Varadkar was talking about non-EU (illegal) migration not migration between EU member states. I didn't say that it was. You replied to a post quoting an article from 'The Independent' from 2013 about the RoI's government response to unemployment and inferring that it was inconsistent with the goals of 'Project Ireland 2040'. That may be the case but the explanation is simple: In 2013 Ireland was still suffering from the effects of the financial crisis of 2018: Forward 6 years to 2019 and it is one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, hence the change in government policy.

The issue has been discussed in the House. Whether Sunak was under a moral obligation to call a general election is obviously down to subjective opinion, but he was under no legal obligation to do so. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-09-16/debates/4835BC3D-E0BF-43E0-9A3B-9BCC5B77DF7F/AUKUS?utm_source=HOC+Library+-+Current+awareness+bulletins&utm_campaign=94c19a9737-Current_Awareness_IADS_17_09_2021&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f325cdbfdc-94c19a9737-103727630&mc_cid=94c19a9737&mc_eid=a8bed5b782#contribution-747B9DA5-2564-4787-B6BA-1ECA38F322C2

The conclusion that freedom of movement within the EU is past its' sell-by date certainly isn't supported by your argument. The article which you quote is mainly concerned with migration from outside the EU migration, which is also the subject of the demonstrations in Ireland. And btw that link from 'The Independent' is from December 2013!

Ideally yes, but in reality sport and politics have always been intertwined viz. the ancient Olympics.

Not a question of acceptance; I don't see an explanation. Perhaps you would be good enough to point out where it has been explained. Thanks. Evidence? Not sure what you are trying to say here? Your original contention was that the relaxation in the laws governing illegal immigrants in Germany has lead to an increase in the number of illegal boat crossings in the channel. Again, where is the evidence to support this claim? Traffickers aren't allowed to operate in the EU. They do so illegally.

Why and how? Moreover, unless this 'fast track' procedure has compromised security what's the problem? Re the graph: Other than show that Illegal boat crossings are on the up what does it prove? At best, you are confusing correlation with causation. If a border is open it is, by definition, easier to cross than one where controls operate. However, Germany has had an open border with all its' neighbours since 2007 - and to the West long before that - which predates Merkel's relaxing of restrictions. The continual easing of restrictions in Germany suggests that intuitively it would become a more attractive destination for illegal migrants. Why this relaxation of restrictions in Germany would, in turn, make the UK more attractive isn't clear to me? I strongly suspect that those attempting to reach the UK do so simply because it is the only country - for whatever reason - where they want to settle. To that end, for these people, what measures are taken in France, Germany or elsewhere is largely irrelevant; they will continue to try to reach the UK.

A citizen of an EU country was fully entitled to enter the UK when we were an EU member (as they are now). Their (former) status as a refugee is irrelevant. Merkel relaxing measures might have offered encouragement to the people smugglers but it isn't the root cause of the problem. Illegal economic migrants have been arriving in increasing numbers in the EU for many years. The solution is obvious: Stop the flow of illegal economic migrants at the source. Unfortunately, how the EU and/or the UK accomplish that goal is far from obvious.

I agree 10% is hyperbole. Who made this claim? I recall Osbourn mentioned 6%. They did but that is not what you wrote: "The Remain side went completely overboard on the pain. 10% drop in GDP ..." You're right: It is neither here nor there. The OBR attributed the 4% reduction in UK GDP solely to Brexit. Nothing to do with Covid, the war in Ukraine or anything else.