nauseus

I disagree with most of your post but especially with this: 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. The Commission proposes all EU legislation and that proposal can be offered after a simple majority vote of the Commissioners. Once EU legislation has been submitted to the Council and Parliament, then it rarely fails to pass into EU law. Therefore, a single member cannot necessarily choose its "level of input" or influence on this process. That is the reality of this system.

The bill is there to help deal with the ridiculously high volume of at least 2,400 items of REUL still on the books, in a reasonably timely manner. It is still a bill which needs to go through all the normal parliamentary processes of readings, votes, consideration for amendments and assent, just as any other in our own sovereign UK parliament. So as not to have this pile of RUEL festering around for decades, then yes, I support this bill. .

Not the point I was making, of course. One point deduction for deflection.

I am quite aware of RUEL thanks, I referenced to this on one of these Brexit threads a few weeks ago. But this bill only exists now because we have left the EU.

Hotel California, I know. However, I think that refusing to honour treaty law and refusing to accept EU legislation into UK law would gave given the EU little choice but to find a way to expel a member state.

Active role, or passive participation? You try to make it sound like all EU law and regulation was proposed and wanted by the UK, which actually had decreasing overall sway over the EU as it expanded to 28 countries. The UK's right to veto and overall influence was eroded more and more during the last two or three decades by the EU ramping up the use of QMV. In any event, the residual (originally EU) laws that do not suit the UK now, should be binned.

I wish we had tried to veto them - then we would have been kicked out decades ago and a referendum would have not been necessary.

nuff said

There haven't been any more presidential elections either.

Two years on but no desire to learn lessons from this. Hopeless.

Well that post has disappeared too now so I can't check. OK think I found the post - again, there is no vdo or description in there that matches what I saw on the day.

Oh no. The return of Confucius. I'm away for my wine. Goodnight boys and girls.

I did not dismiss it - I said it was a different scene - the scene I watched is no longer available on the internet. That's it.

I did not ignore it. It was a different scene, as I have said.

Can't you see that's exactly what you are doing now? Trivial? See my post above where I say this: My motivation for this particular issue is that the presence of even a modestly larger security detail, better prepared, equipped and with significant backup/reinforcements available standing by close at hand would have probably controlled the situation and prevented the breech of the Capitol, along with the death, injury and damage that it caused.

My motivation for this particular issue is that the presence of even a modestly larger security detail, better prepared, equipped and with significant backup/reinforcements available standing by close at hand would have probably controlled the situation and prevented the breech of the Capitol, along with the death, injury and damage that it caused. Is my "record" of supporting GOP and MAGA positions on file somewhere? Oh Jeepers! Here is my position: I am not signed up or allied to the GOP. MAGA is a gimmick but I have no problem with America being great - I see that greatness as a necessary foil to the other "great" contenders in the world right now. I was not a real fan of Trump before 2016 but I was certainly no fan of the alternative then, at all. I think as President, Trump did better job than Biden has done or will do but right after the 2020 election, I think that Trump would have done much better to just concede and prepare to hand over - I've said this on here already but maybe that detail is missing from my "record". It is not surprising that these "other posters" come up with assumptions. That's what they do all the time!

If you actually look at what I've said then you might see that I have not condoned nor tried to excuse any behaviour that led to death or injury. Just because I've recently been focusing on one aspect of the day, that doesn't mean I'm ignoring all of the others.

I responded to your links claim already with: Nothing here disproves what I saw. The VDO segments that do open are different scenes. The particular issue I'd like resolved concerns the question of Capitol security arrangements on the day and who was responsible for those. End of.

Nah. That's not what I said at all. But you knew that.

Thankyou. I think what is important is what was known about "it" at the time, and in the days and weeks prior to J6. According to your link then these 20 separate intelligence items were known of by at least one law enforcement or security agency, and there was at least some pooling of this info before J6. This just tells me to ask the same question as before: why Capitol security was so weak on the day??

Nothing here disproves what I saw. The VDO segments that do open are different scenes.

I know what I saw, that's it. I have no reason to make things up or lie. I'm not trying to defend anybody but I am interested to know why Capitol security was so weak on the day. Take it or leave it. I don't care.

OK, your sarcastic post has worked, so I'll take the bait. On J6, I was monitoring several live TV channels, in turn, as the event was unfolding. Some of the footage transmitted looked to have been relayed from mobile phone VDO feeds and it was one of these that showed a policeman (uniformed but without riot gear) unlocking a pair of double doors, opening them and moving aside as some protesters walked in - yes, walked - I don't have a count but in this case only a few protesters, at least initially. That scene (above) stopped after that and I can't find the same segment any more, just as I can't find a lot of stuff now. It looks like there were at least two breaches about the same time - I know that the west side one was much worse, with more people, noise, violence and damage from the Proud Boys, or whoever they were. I think the scene of easier entry was somewhere on the east side. In both cases the police forces were undermanned, especially considering the warning signs from the preceding days and it took far too long for support to arrive.

I told you why. It is a pain doing these reruns, of which there have been many. And the reality is that it won't make a difference - that much I have leaned after so long - I don't really want another opportunity to waste my time. Thanks.

I'm sure you could mange that.