RayC

Not sure who you are legally obliged to inform but I would inform, at least, the following: 1) HMRC re tax 2) DWP re pension 3) Local authority re council tax. All the above assumes that you do not take other posters' advice and keep a UK address somewhere.

Why is their ethnicity important? As a Brit, I'm more interested in their honesty and competence in running the country.

Many British parliamentarians have names that are Norman in origin e.g. Johnson, Streeting. Bloody EU, eh? They won't let us leave!????

Your response is typical of many Brexiters. Correct me if my interpretation is incorrect but it seems to amount to, "Brexit has been a failure to date, but let's continue with it in the hope that things turn around." Given that no evidence is given to support this view that things will improve, I find this argument incomprehensible.

Deny and deflect all you like, the fact remains, Brexit has negatively affected the UK economy. As far as the video goes, I would have thought that the title says it all: The Brexit effect: how leaving the EU hit the UK

You'll find a good deal of data from around the 2'20" mark onwards (plus some business owners recounting the problems that Brexit have caused them).

... and failing miserably by the looks of things.

Thanks, Nigel. Very informative. Re the value of the baht vs. sterling in the future. I am 100% certain about my following prediction: it will either increase, decrease, or remain the same.

I'm sure that the UK government will clean up all the corruption in the EU after we rejoin .... or maybe we won't be allowed back in? After all, recent UK governments have set such high moral standards; the corrupt EU couldn't possibly match these levels of propriety. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/16/britain-going-rejoin-eu-farsooner-anyone-now-imagines/

Another tragedy. Hopefully, those who did this will be brought to justice. Re the argument about gun control. Imo the data says it all: In 2021, 35 people died in the UK from gun-related crimes. In the US, the figure was 14,000 (2018 figures; latest available). I doubt that anything like 14,000 people were "saved" as a result of them owning a gun.

Two of the pillars of the Brexiter argument are that 1) the EU is corrupt and 2) the EU is undemocratic. Re 1) the current scandal appears to indicate that certain individuals within the European parliament are corrupt. However, how widespread this corruption is remains to be seen. If it is an isolated incident involving a few individuals, then it is no worse than what has been seen at Westminster over the years. Sadly, imo it is impossible to completely eradicate corruption. Re 2) could the EU constitutional processes be improved. Almost certainly. But then those governing the UK constitution are far from perfect. The first-past-the-post system is heavily weighted against the smaller parties. There is an unelected second house, which is largely comprised of an unholy mix of individuals placed there because of their birth or because of their political patronage. Senior civil servants are chosen - or removed - by the government often because of their political leanings rather than their ability. And this is supposedly an improvement on the anti-democratic EU!?

And what scale is that? You clearly have no intention of waiting for the evidence to emerge before making your judgement. The enormity of the proven scale of this corruption investigation so far extends to 1 serving MEP, 1 former MEP, 1 parliamentary aide and 1 lobbyist. To date, €600k has been recovered. The seriousness of this scandal should not be downplayed, and it would be naive to think that further corruption will not be revealed; however, so far the sum involved is not much higher than recent scandals in the UK. Indeed, corruption involving one serving MEP is dwarfed by the number of Westminster MPs caught up in the Expenses scandal. And of course, EU citizens DIRECTLY vote for their MEPs. Incorrect. Commission proposals cannot become EU law unless they are passed by Parliament and the Council. (Typo). Greek citizens voted for Kaili as one of their MEPs. Her parliamentary colleagues voted her VP. How many UK citizens directly voted for Hunt as Chancellor or any other UK ministers? And the UK differs how exactly? Ah, Spiked! That bastion of individualism without any sense of responsibility or accountability (Anarchy) and a loose regard for the facts. If I remember correctly, they tried to blame the EU for Russia's invasion of Ukraine The only surprise is that they haven't blamed the EU for the Covid pandemic (or did I miss that?). Maybe they are still working that angle?

In order to be consistent, I assume that you are just as outraged by the corruption in the UK parliament?

Wishing the fellow a speedy recovery seems a bit lame, nevertheless 'Get well soon'. Kudos to all involved. Braver men than me.

I do There is undoubtedly a corruption scandal in the EU involving some MEPs at the moment. The scale of it remains to be seen. In hindsight, allowing Hungary - under the leadership of Orban - into the EU looks increasingly like a mistake. Unfortunately, as there is no mechanism for ejecting member states who flout the 'Copenhagen criteria', the EU are effectively stuck with them unless they decide to leave themselves. All the EU can do - and is doing - is to place appropriate sanctions on Hungary. And that's a cause for celebration? Each to their own I suppose.

Of course, all the EU countries - especially those Scandinavian ones. - are corrupt. Nothing untoward ever happens in the Palace of Westminster: Expenses scandal? Owen Paterson? Just administrative oversights; nothing to see there.

But don't you remember? There wasn't going to be any pain. We were told by some Brexiters that the EU need us, more than we need the EU.

An entré of xenophobia followed by a main course of racism. Not very appetizing.

Like almost all member states support for the EU is increasing in The Netherlands. https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2023/01/support-grows-in-the-netherlands-for-eu-membership/

Support for remaining in the EU at over 70% in most of the listed countries. Collapse of the EU? Doesn't seem very likely.

At last, some positive news about EU - UK relations https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64214603

Does anyone know how to apply for this 'Spare' role should a vacancy arise? I thought that my working days were behind me but I could be tempted out of retirement for this "challenging" position.

Especially those illegals. First thing that they do after getting out of the dingy is visit a car showroom.

Nothing you say disapproves my view. Firstly, the European Council (the Heads of government) defines the political and strategic direction of the European Union. The Commission then proposes legislation based on these instructions. If, when it was a member, the UK had vehemently objected to a strategic approach, then it's very unlikely that it would have gone forward. Secondly, legislation does not magically simply appear fully formed from the Commission in an instance. Drafts are subject to review and revision, often over many years. These reviews are an opportunity for member states to make their views known. This is also, incidentally, one of the reasons why relatively few proposals are rejected: The contents of the proposed legislation has effectively already been agreed to by the member states. In the rare event that legislation is put forward which is unacceptable it can - as you yourself acknowledge - be sent back by the Council of the EU and/or the European parliament. An individual member state can effectively choose how much input it has on the various legislation. That is the reality of the system. (Note: I'm not suggesting that all member states are equal. I doubt that e.g. Cyprus or Malta would - individually - be able to exert much influence, but the 'big beasts' <France, Germany and - formally - the UK> certainly could).

Hardly deflection and hidden behind the sarcasm (apologies ????) is a serious point. The EU doubled its' membership between 1995 - 2004. If it were to keep to a 'one state, one vote' system then, by definition, the UK's - and other individual states' - individual influence would be diluted. In a similar vein, the reduction of the areas where a veto could be used can be seen as pragmatic, if the organisation were to continue to function smoothly. There is - and always has been - the question of whether one member state should be able to hold all the others to ransom by (threatened) use of the veto? How much or how little input the UK made during the initiation, definition and drafting of EU legislation during the time it was a member, was entirely up to the UK government/ representatives. Nothing stopped them from actively participating. It should also be remembered that the 'European Council' defines the strategic policy objectives of the EU. If the UK had vehemently objected to an initiative, it's extremely unlikely - although not impossible - that the initiative would have been pursued. It remains to be seen whether this forthcoming 'Bonfire of the Vanities' event has any meaningful effect, or whether it is simply an expensive house-keeping exercise where the participants' efforts would be better used elsewhere.