RayC

So what's the total now? 3 or 4 serving MEPs out of 705. Three (or four?) too many for sure, but hardly a big enough number to indicate that the parliament as a whole is corrupt. Btw: Did you notice the political affiliation of Ms. Zambelli? Member of a party that until recently wanted Italy to leave the EU.

How on earth can you deduce that from my post? The reason that I support changing our 'act of consent' laws was stated clearly: Where possible - and I accept that there may be exceptions - the age at which you are considered an adult should be standardised; imo it would simplify matters. You don't see any inconsistency in the fact that you can be considered mature enough to enlist in the armed forces at 16, but you don't get a say in who runs the country or that you are not considered mature enough to buy an alcoholic drink? I don't know whether that age should be 16, 21 or somewhere in between. I'd leave it to the experts to decide. I see that you ended with your usual bit of racist/ xenophobic tripe.

What it indicates is what Barnier said all along: There are no winners with Brexit. Given that the overwhelming body of data demonstrates that - rather than bring economic benefit - Brexit has severely damaged the UK economy, Brexit supporters are now reduced to justifying it on the basis that the EU has also been adversely affected. It's a rational approach if you happen to be an economic sado-masochist.

But 16 is not old enough (legally) to smoke, gamble, vote, serve on a jury, etc. As you infer, we all mature biologically and emotionally at different rates, so it's impossible to define and decide what age adulthood begins, but imo the government should settle on an age and standardise matters rather than continue with this decades' long piecemeal arrangement.

A line from one of Frank Sinatra's songs springs to mind: " ... and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid ...."

You seen to be lapsing into the world of conspiracy theories (cabals and traitors), so I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that - despite all the evidence which clearly shows the detrimental economic effects of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union on the UK - you cling to the belief that we would have been better off going even further and leaving the EU with no deal and no plan for life post-Brexit. (Unfortunately Johnson demonstrated that he shared your view on the planning aspect).

for the for the brake to apply, power sharing at Stormont would have to be restored. That would require the DUP to allow the assembly to start sitting (by backing the election of a speaker) and to lift its boycott on participating in the power-sharing executive. If the DUP were to continue to boycott the executive, the “Stormont brake” would not apply. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rthern-ireland unclear to me : in the case EU law is blocked, I'm not sure what the UE will/can do This is where this new Agreement might fail. According to the BBC if the UK and EU cannot reach an agreement on a proposed new law, then the matter goes to an independent arbiter. But does this independent arbiter rank higher than the ECJ? It's hard to believe that the EU would agree to that possibility. (I assume that both the EU and UK are hoping that this independent arbiter is never called into action?). The other inconsistency is that the NI assembly has 90 members but only 30 MLAs are required to initiative the Stormont brake. Therefore, it is possible to have the bizarre situation whereby the NI Assembly passes a motion whilst at the same time refers the same motion to Westminster for possible further negotiation with the EU! BBC News - Brexit: What is the Stormont brake? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64795902

Err ... Brexit - specifically its' effect on the island of Ireland - is the topic under discussion in case you hadn't noticed.

How else would you describe Johnson's behaviour in ignoring the terms of an International Agreement which he willingly entered into, and then threatening legislation to unilaterally overturn the provisions of that Agreement?

Sunak deserves praise but so too do the EU. It would have been very easy - and perfectly understandable given the provacation from Johnson and the flat Earthers - for them to have simply refused to reopen negotiations. Fortunately - unlike the previous UK administrations - they acted like grown-up, pragmatic, solution orientated adults and an agreement was forthcoming. There may be tweaks here and there to this agreement but you're going to be sadly disappointed if you think that there will be any more significant changes. I doubt that Sunak is as duplicitous as Johnson and that he has signed an agreement knowing full well that he has no intention of keeping it, so hopefully we can look forward to better relations with the EU in the future. This is a major success for Sunak however, he still has the problem of trying to justify Brexit, something that looks increasingly difficult each passing day. I hope that he can find the 'sunny uplands' but currently that looks about as likely as finding the Holy Grail.

That the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter of EU law was never in question. It was (is?) about its' role in NI. Whether this apparently pragmatic compromise holds remains to be seen but it appears to be based on a partnership, rather than a master/ slave relationship as you suggest. Sunak deserves credit for repairing the fractious relationship which Johnson and Truss had created and developed.

Labour have promised to support any bill. The flat earth brigade only number +/-60 MPs, so the deal is effectively done. The cherry on the cake for me would be for Sunak to announce a 3-line whip for any vote. For the likes of Johnson, Rees-Moog, Francois, Cash, etc. to defy him and vote against the bill. For Sunak to then withdraw the whip and for them to be de-selected by their constituencies, and for parliament to be rid of them at the next election. Unfortunately, this is more hope than expectation.

Seems like it's all done and dusted. Sunnak to address parliament @18:30 (GMT). Can't imagine that he would convene a meeting to announce, "Sorry lads and lasses, nothing to report".

I don't think that there would be this amount of press coverage or that VdL would be coming to London unless the deal was effectively done. Sunak is taking a political risk in further alienating the flat-earthers in his party, but he's probably come to the conclusion that there's nothing that he can do or say - short of declaring war on the EU - which would satisfy them.

I don't think that's the case. Reports (FT, Times) say that the ECJ will remain the ultimate arbiter, but that there will be some speed bumps placed along the way to try to ensure that the ECJ's involvement is kept to a minimum.

I imagine that they hope to increase productivity as well. It's a goal for most organisations.

The unfortunate victim wasn't famous but she isn't the story. The story is the intrusiveness of the media, social influencers, etc into the lives of the victim's family and those in the local community, plus the flaws in police communications and the investigation.

Come on now, Congressman. This is no time for false modesty. Some of your lies were top notch.

My apologies. Sorry if I've spoilt your day.

You're right. But why have a dig at me? I've not accused you of anything - apart from being completely wrong about Trump being on the cusp of giving the UK a FTA. You too ought to direct your comment to the right quarters.

And my post was in direct response to JohnyF. If you want to accuse anyone of diversion and introducing off-topic subjects it might be best to direct your comment to the right person.

Is this meant to be a joke or a serious question? Either way, I don't understand it.

I can only reiterate my reply to Mac (see previous page). If you had bothered to read the whole thread you would found that JohnyF introduced Trump and Brexit into the conversation (1st page@10:04). Maybe your comment would be better directed to him rather than me, or does the fact that he's a fellow Brexiter rule that out?

Let's hope Sunak has the political courage to face down the flat earth brigade (ERG) and put country before party. If he does, he will deserve great credit.

Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall but the headline couldn't be clearer. Article from 'The Economist' in 2018: https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/05/the-promised-post-brexit-trade-deal-with-america-may-never-materialise