RayC

Even if the UK HoS was essentially a ceremonial role, it does not justify it being 'by appointment' let alone, hereditary. The fact, as I have pointed out previously, is that the UK monarch is not apolitical. Imo the sooner we become a republic the better (not that I expect it to happen anytime soon unfortunately).

And the reason why immigration is to be slashed by 300k is what? We no longer need the manpower? Our universities are no longer able and/or willing to educate overseas students? And not allowing spouses to join their partners will achieve what exactly?

So are you suggesting that the UK (and Europe as a whole) would have been better off if Hitler had been victorious?

Putin's cheerleader is in full flow today. Yep, an "all round good result" if you think that rewarding an aggressor, eradicating a nation and increasing the tension on an entire continent is something to cheer about.

Can you elaborate please?

The idea that the British Royal Family is apolitical is nonsense. The very fact that the PM has to brief the Monarch on a weekly basis illustrates that. Why can't Charles get the news through the same channels as the rest of us? Moreover, because of his position Charles has a platform from where he broadcasts his views, a fact he demonstrated yet again at the latest COP meeting. Charles has been continuously interfering in political matters since his youth and governments are forced to spend time considering matters. He has disproportionate influence and it is undemocratic. If we must have a HoS who is not the PM, let us elect him or her. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

Same old, same old from the board's biggest Putin supporter. Many of us have torn apart his pro-Russian stance but, unfortunately, it has no effect and he still peddles the same old nonsense.

Macron was elected in a free and fair election, Charles was not. It's ironic that you continually rail against the "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" and complain vehemently about what you perceive as a lack of democracy in the EU, but are happy to champion this anachronism which places an individual as the HoS on purely hereditary grounds, and has nothing at all to do with meritocracy. Such a system has no place in a 21st century democracy.

I wouldn't vote for any of them but I didn't vote for Johnson and had no say in Charles becoming HoS, so I don't understand what is your point? In any event, why group those four individuals together? Democratically speaking, they fall into two groups: Macron and Trump were democratically elected so where's the problem? Putin and Xi were not elected by way of a free and fair election.

48,000 UK Family Visas were issued in 2022. Is it really that big a problem to accommodate this number of individuals in order to keep a family together? Moreover, it's not as though making it more difficult will lead to any significant cost savings. According to Stephanie Flanders speaking on the Iain Dale show, the government itself expects savings of +/-£5m/annum which, in the big scheme of things, is a drop in the ocean.

It would be better still if the UK became a republic with an elected Head of State.

You over-simplify things again. If the US were to leave NATO tomorrow then Europe would be very vulnerable as, currently, it doesn't have the capability to defend itself: France and the UK are the only European nations with significant defence forces and both are dwarfed by Russia. Europe could, and imo should, be more self-sufficient in terms of its' own defence. However, matters are complicated by a number of factors. Firstly, even allowing for Putin's imperialist intentions, Russia is not seen as a direct threat by many Southern European states hence, secondly, their ongoing reluctant to commit anything like 2% of GDP on defence spending (as demanded by NATO). Thirdly, there is the historical context: Until very recently, no European country would be happy to see a rearmed Germany. Likewise, there are some countries e.g. Spain, Portugal, Greece where a military dictatorship was a thing of the recent past, hence the caution in increasing the military's power. Fourthly, until recently, US administrations of both colours were against the idea of a European army, as it was believed that it would undermine NATO (and presumably US influence in Europe). There are probably a plethora of other reasons. The above might be seen as an excuse for European states to do nothing but he bottom line is even if a plan to form a European army was agreed tomorrow, imo it would probably take the best part of a decade before it could be deployed. NATO (including the US) is still needed to ensure Western Europe's security.

So extremists and the problems of diversity are uniquely Islamist and French? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-supremacists-behind-over-80-extremism-related-us-murders-2022-2023-02-23/

Europe has greatly reduced its' dependency on Russian gas but imo more could be done to make economic sanctions on Russia bite. However, this would probably require all members of the G20 to agree upon what needs to be done which appears unlikely: The effect of the EU and UK placing sanctions on Russia is undermined by the likes of China and India increasing their imports. Switching to nuclear or other forms of energy is not a short-term option. If appeasement of Putin and his methods is to be avoided, then we are in a war of attrition* *which I realise is easy for me to say from a position of relative safety and comfort

Presumably because these disorders were not deemed serious enough to detain him involuntarily. In hindsight, that appears to be a major error.

I hope that doesn't happen as it will be a reward for Putin's aggression.

😂That's a corker😂

I would agree if they were setting lower standards for themselves but the opposite is the case here. If those who represent us wish to apply higher standards for themselves than they expect of us, then I'm all for it.

A good man. Died too soon and retired from front line politics too soon.

Have a look at the Ukraine thread, Mike. In summary, Russia gets to keep the Crimea and Donbass. A reward for aggression. When challenged on his pro-Putin views, he resorts to outright lies e.g. wgt post-WW2 Yalta conference; the acceptance of Ukraine's borders post break-up of the Soviet Union.

Execute a corpse? Well, I suppose you can never be too sure🤷

No. How does this article fit your pattern? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/oct/20/a-lot-of-pain-europes-jews-fear-rising-antisemitism-after-hamas-attack

I won't go to Wonderland so you bring your alter ego, the Hatter, to see me. How kind! I have no idea how that answers my question but please🙏 don't bother trying to explain. Thanks. As I mentioned previously, l agree with you: I can't tell the difference between legal and illegal immigration.

It would have. £120m plus £20 - £30m per refugee rehoused in Rwanda.

Data relating to the UK economy has changed; it has been revised downwards. I imagine that the IMF will also revise their forecast for UK growth downwards. https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-november-2023/#chapter-1