RayC

Spoken like a true Boris apologist. I'm pleased that your UK family are ok. My family (all in UK) are also well (but cheesed off with the government).

But if I stand next to an obese bloke eating a cheeseburger who then has a heart attack, I'm not going to catch his obesity and succumb to a heart attack myself.

Sorry still unclear. Are you saying that the UK PM should be held responsible and accountable for their actions or not? If not, does this apply to all PMs or is Johnson some special case?

So as PM he shouldn't be held responsible and accountable for his actions?

Difference is that 2.5 years ago there was a lot less data and knowledge of the virus, and there was no vaccine.

This link might be useful https://idrinkvybes.com/blogs/news/do-cbd-infused-drinks-get-you-high#:~:text=In general%2C you can be,or high feelings to develop.

I assume that you omitted the word 'voted' (3rd line)? In any event, whether the word is included or not, the statement is nonsense: The members of the Union vote in the leadership of their Union. How is that undemocratic? It appears that you would deny individuals the right to withdraw their labour? Not all the public are in favour of the strike, so it is a risky strategy if opposition MPs see it as courting favour with the electorate, hence the reason that Starmer has warned against them being seen on the picket line. Maybe those opposition MPs who defy Starmer on this matter are simply there because they believe in the RMT's case. It appears that your version of democracy comprises a government - of which you approve - with no dissent permitted. Now that is a strange version of a free, democratic society.

71% of those balloted took part in the vote with 89% voting in favour of strike action and only 11% voting against. So 63% of the membership in favour of the strike. Union had no choice but to implement the results of the ballot. After all, that's what democracy is all about, isn't it?

The EU certainly don't want States to leave the bloc and it might be argued that some changes to the implementation of the Agreement can be implemented relatively easily e.g. a 'green' lane for trusted traders. However, the UK entered into the Agreement freely; if it is unable and/or unwilling to comply with the terms of the Agreement it was either incompetent - as it did not understand what it was signing - or dishonest, as it had no intention of complying with the terms of the Agreement in the medium/ long term in the first place. The UK government has no one but itself to blame for the current situation. (There is an intensive debate about this topic in a couple of other threads).

What to do given the role of 'Ethics advisor' is "virtually important"? I know simply rewrite the job description, so that there is no mention of honesty, integrity or ethical behaviour. Problem solved.

I'm certainly no Tory supporter but the government really is facing a perfect storm - falling demand but increasing supply costs - and is caught between a rock and hard place with most inflationary factors outside of their control. A reduction in fuel duty would certainly help industry but how much of that reduction in cost would find its' way to the end consumer? Your suggestion amounts - other things being equal - to a +/-5% cut in government revenue which would - according to my back-of-a-fag packet calculations - cost the Exchequer +/-£2-3 billion. A direct subsidy of this magnitude to, say, the poorest 10% of the population might have a greater macro economic impact? In any event, I wouldn't want Sunak's job at this moment.

Tbf I think that they did cut fuel duty by 5p/ litre in the Spring statement. Also it can be argued that a cut in fuel duty wouldn't help the poorest as they are less likely to own a car.

The superior form of democracy that is the UK version looks likely to throw up a situation whereby the elected government proposes legislation, which may be in breach of international law, only to find that the proposed legislation is likely to be returned to them by an unelected second chamber. Oh, the irony! Perhaps 'Whitehall Farce' should be renamed 'Westminster Farce'?

Whereas those posters proclaiming that the UK government is in compliance with international law are fully qualified experts with degrees from the world renowned institution 'The University of Daily Express'.

Brexit, 2nd Scottish referendum, pound tanking. Is this 2022 or 2017?

The single market and the war in Ukraine are two distinct matters. This UK government was so worried about ensuring peace on the island of Ireland that it completely ignored the well publicised concerns and objections of its' (former) ally and the easily foreseeable consequences of doing so. Or alternatively the true nature of insular opportunists is made plain to see.

My reply crossed with your post but to reiterate. Maybe just accept you won, take responsibility and accountability for your decision, act in accordance with Agreements that you willingly signed and stop whining about it being other people's fault when the government you support is unable and/or unwilling to meet its' obligations. I think that it's you who needs to read and understand The Withdrawal Agreement. Enacting Article 16 does not abrogate the Agreement which remans subject to international law

In a multi-national organisation, why should that be surprising? Discussed in another post. In reality, UK MPs also have very, very limited legislative powers. The concept of directly elected Commissioners is one that I would support. However, in defence of the existing system, Commissioners are nominated by their respective governments, who presumably select individuals who they feel will also best represent their country. See previous paragraph You're right. Brexiters won. As you again rightly say: 'Deal with it'. Take accountability and responsibility for your decision. Stop pointing the finger at others for your inability to deliver what was promised. A good start might be to try and implement a Agreement which Brexiters lauded as 'Getting Brexit done', rather than try to rewrite a Protocol which, it appears, the majority of the public most affected (NI electorate) have no desire to be rewritten.

Except that in reality, a backbench MP has a very slim chance of getting any bill debated in the House, and a snowball's chance in hell of it actually becoming law. Covered by others. I would just add that you ignore the fact that the European Parliament can table amendments to proposed legislation. No different to the UK - especially opposition - MPs then, which is presumably how the government likes it. You infer that the UK form of democracy is better but what about the fact that a single party government can be formed by a party securing less than 50% of votes cast? What about the fact that a vote cast for an opposition party in a Labour/ Tory stronghold is effectively meaningless? What about the fact that an completely unelected second chamber can propose new legislation and block legislation from the lower chamber. Hardly democratic, is it? As is clear, there are different forms of democratic government. There are pros and cons associated with them all. You can continue with pretence that the UK form is superior if you like.

Can the Commission pass new legislation itself? No! It works on researching and drafting prospective legislation in the same way the UK Civil Service does.

The UK is in a difficult place (of its own making). It's certainly true that hard-line Unionists will not accept the current Protocol, but it's less clear that this is the prevailing view amongst the general public in NI. The majority of the Assembly and business leaders favour it. I'm not normally in favour of referendums but one could be held on this issue. If the vote was in favour of keeping the Protocol, there would be enormous moral and public pressure on the DUP and its' allies to accept it. A 'Reject' vote would mean the EU would come under similar pressure to renegotiate.

Yes. Thanks Typo. "... do NOT govern ..." I agree entirely. Facts appear to be an irrelevant to Brexiters as is the ability to take any accountability and responsibility for what they voted for

But the Commission is not a legislative body. To argue that EU states are governed by the Commission is like arguing that the UK is governed by the Civil Service. The Commission and Civil Service undoubtedly both have an influence but they do govern.

Charles is, of course, entitled to an opinion like anyone else however, the problem is that, as heir to the throne, his opinion is widely publicised and the government have to address it. I remember in the '80s and '90s, ministers complaining about the volume of letters he was sending on trivial matters e.g. his view from Buckingham Palace would be spoiled if a building was erected. Joe Public would receive a cursory 'The Minister thanks you for your letter ...' type reply but because it was Charles, a fully researched reply would have to be sent. He should refrain from commenting on matters if there is a chance that his views are made public.

Another step along the path to Global Britain' .... sorry, I meant 'Insular England'.