nauseus

I'll only comment on your last question. Only if the EU was a fair-minded economic trading bloc, then joining that would be logical. But with the EU as it is then, no - IMOO the UK would end up with even less advantage than before, especially w.r.t to our own currency, plus the pre-Brexit surviving rebates and opt-outs would all be gone. All of the previous disadvantages would still exist.

I think this mess began long before the W word was first used.

You must have missed these recent salty comments and criticism on screen.

The return was in the cards anyway, unfortunately. Labour will probably speed it up, though.

Hungary secured its' borders by erecting a fence and policing its borders. I'm sure that the majority of EU citizens would not want this but as Jagger would sing "you can't always get what you want". At least border checks that people crossing there are indeed EU "citizens" would help, just as a properly policed internal purge of people smugglers within the EU would. I expect that this Schengen pillar will be one of the last of these to fall but the UK is not a member of the EU so any any costs of abolishing/ suspending it would need to be borne by the EU? What costs are you thinking of anyway and why on earth should the UK need to compensate EU states if Schengen were to be abolished? I understand the need for compassionate assistance for genuine refugees who have to flee danger (anywhere). To protect them, the UN policy exists and for true refugees, then I agree that safe countries should jointly share the job of accommodating them, at least until their native countries become safe again. But the high percentage of lone men seen arriving in these small boats, trucks and by other means, fairly suggests that these people are not refugees but rather economic migrants. I am familiar with the main routes and the methods used to move these migrants. The EU should protect its members with stronger external border controls but, because these are weak, that is why Italy, Greece and Spain became so much affected by the initial waves of landings from Africa and the ME. Yes, you can't blame overrun countries for wanting the migrants to move on but you can expect more of the EU to try to manage itself and its external borders better. After the UK, there is little choice for migrants to move on (northward) further and it looks like that it is a popular final destination for many, anyway. EU freedom FoM and Schengen should be EU internal only. The French seem not require a passport or any ID to allow for these non-EU migrants to enter and leave France (as they should) and even use their naval forces to escort these small boats to open sea. The UK has been affected by illegal migration but has not benefitted from it at all, as far as I can see. That is why this should have been one of the main benefits of the UK leaving the EU. The different path? As I said, it's way too late.

Replace manifesto with lies and you've cracked it.

Don't worry about it. It's all waffle - just like Starmer - no specifics or answers to real problems.

Schengen came into operation in 1986 for 5 EEC members but what matters now is that rejoining the EU Schengen is mandatory. Yes, it is obviously easier to move between nations with open borders. A big problem is that many people that have managed to illegally land within the Schengen Area are obviously not challenged when they start to move across EU borders. Europe's internal borders are not so large that they cannot be made reasonably secure - ask the Hungarians. Yes, Schengen has brought economic benefits to the EU but also at the likelihood of increasing numbers if illegal migrants accessing France and then landing in the UK, which never signed up to Schengen but now suffers extra financial and social costs partly because of it. Schengen is a system to be used to ease of movement of EU nationals only, but it has also eased movement of all. due to lack of control at EU internal borders and that is why "the end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving ..." ... Well Cameron and May fumbled Brexit before Johnson mishandled it. A different path needed to be taken for long-term benefit but there is no chance to see a true comparison now - it's way too late. As far as high UK immigration overall goes. then that trend can be tracked to the nineties and noughties, starting with Blair.

Rubbish.

Fishing was not the main benefit of leaving. The EU has retained significant control of it anyway and it will be years before that ends. Free movement has allowed significant migrant travel through continental Europe. For those determined to enter the UK, the Schengen Zone made this far easier than before for them to get as close as the Channel (beaches and ports) after 2015, which is when mass movement began. The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving but it has been seemingly willfully mishandled by the post Brexit Conservatives and now by this hopeless Labour mob. This migration is causing several problems in the UK and larger EU. It is now interesting to see that several EU states have now acknowledged this by applying border controls - temporary - I wonder? https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en Influence of the EU courts over the UK was the biggest reason for the leave vote - i.e. loss of UK sovereignty.

Well you said "as a result of Brexit" but with no mention of Covid at all.

So the Big Guy got the biggest slice of the pie - looks like more than 10% too!

Inflation, largely due to Covid, ignored yet again. The 20% drop you mention is the same as cumulative UK inflation over 5 years,

Given the lack of specifics within this "manifesto" that is a tough ask.

They were in the pile of mangos.

But paid by the Feds.

Impeccable timing!

Your post, Your problem. Own it.

But the difference (and drop) in the total the Dem POTUS candidate vote is exceptional. All from wiki: Biden 2020 81,283,501 Harris 2024 75,015,834

OK use wiki then, most sources seem to have different totals. But for 2024 even wiki on has a total vote of 152m (as popular vote for Trump then Harris 77,269,255 +74,983,555). But also from wiki (for 2020) total is 155+. Popular vote 81,283,501[1] 74,223,975[1] Percentage 51.3% 46.8%

Flawed> Easy for you to say. But not me. The number I gave is conservative. The quoted example shows a difference of 12 million: On Tuesday, November 5th, Americans went to the polls in large numbers. Some 143 million citizens cast ballots; 83 million of these during early voting. This compares to 155 million in 2020, which set a turnout record. (see below): https://osce.usmission.gov/on-the-results-of-the-general-elections-held-in-the-united-states-of-america-on-5-november-2024/

And? My feeling was always that it was fixed. And, before you ask, of course I can't prove it. And... how do you figure those bonus 10m+ extra total votes tallied in 2020 went AWOL again in 2024?

Slow down Tonto. This wasn't for person of the year either. Rather the opposite,

Not a surprise really - after all, everyone was talking about him for the whole year and more - whatever topic started any conversation.

You're right. Most of the money enabled vastly increased mail-in balloting in 2020. Oh, wait a sec! https://apnews.com/article/technology-elections-denver-mark-zuckerberg-election-2020-92257bbc1fefd9ed0e18861e5b5913f6