WanWizard 🇪🇺 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🇳🇱

You clearly aren't a dual or foreign national resident in the UK, otherwise you would know the nightmare of living in the UK after Brexit.

1. You can not get an ETA on a UK address. So you'll have to lie, which is breaking the law.
2. Only if they travel on a UK passport
3. ETA is checked on departure, you will not be allowed to travel, you'll never get to UK Border Control.

Now, tourists need a tourist visa (ETA, which is an eVISA), ordered in advance, and you can't get an ETA if you are a resident of the UK, whether you have UK nationality or not.

So everyone residing in the UK need to use either their UK passport or their resident VISA to enther the UK. 2/2

The problem is not "there is a law that forces people to use their UK passports", the problem is, there is no alternative anymore.

Until now, you could enter the UK with your second nationality passport, and be allowed in as a tourist. Even though you are a UK citizen als resident of the UK. 1/2

A message outlining Reform’s objectionable views on abortion and women’s reproductive rights

#gortonanddenton

If he comes to my front door, I will refuse him access too.

Let’s stop calling them donations and call them what they really are… bribes!

Ah come on. We have a single "His majesty's opposition", we have a one-on-one at PMQs, we have a population that still see a two-party system, we have one "shadow cabinet", and the House of Lords is a paper tiger that can be ignored and overruled.

And this topic is about a Royal as head of state.

We are in agreement on that, but this topic was exactly about replacing the Royal as head of state. So that is what I responded to.

And in the UK with FPTP and a 2-party system, that is complicated, as chances are an elected President will be of the same party as the majority in Parliament, which will defacto give the President absolute power, like in the US, and like Hitler had.

That is not the case in countries like France.

Again, you're not reading past your own made up mind.

I never said that with replacing a Royal you will get a despot.

I have said that the transition needs to be so that that will forever be avoided.

Yes, you are. You are so focused on getting the Royals out that you're not thinking about what to replace them with, and how that should be done.

If you did, you'd know how complicated that will be, and how long that will take. And England is a conservative country, so expect lots of opposition.

It is not either/or.

You can have a Royal head of state without them having the current privileges, and you can have a president that is largely ceremonial, without political power.

Either way you have to deal with the current situation.

No, I don't. You're staring yourself blind on this without thinking about possible consequences, and don't read what I write.

All I'm saying is, if you don't think about it properly, and legislate it properly, the cure could be worse than the disease.

You don't want a Trump or a Hitler instead.

It possibly also a British thing. I come from a country that also has a ceremonial Royal head of state. But when they do somethink wrong, we deal with it. Same as in politics, Dutch parliament is known to have sacked a minister (here: secretary of state) because of missing receipts. Unthinkable here

Not debating that, just arguing not to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

It is perfectly possible to keep a royal as ceremonial head of state, while ending their privileges. Just like it is possible to have a president as head of state that doesn't have any real power (see Germany for example)

I didn't say things don't need changing (they do), I only said that replacing a royal by a president (as a general rule) is not always a good idea.

I have nothing against a president, I have everything against a president with (near) absolute power, something the royal in question doesn't have.

Not going to happen. Being poor is for "other" people.

You can't just compare "any" Royal Familiy, and their position and relevance in a country, with the UK Royal Family and their position in UK society.

And the same it true with their suggested replacements, one president isn't the same as another.

Would you prefer a Charles or a Trump or a Putin?

In the eyes of Reform, perfectly suited then.

It says a lot abiut the intellectual heft of Farage fans that 13% of them want to reverse his only policy achievement.

How I long for the moment I can calculate Furlongs per Fortnight again...

"Britain is broken, and we in Reform broke it for you".

Here, fixed your headline.

Reform = Brexit enablers + far right Tories, both responsible for most things broken (granted, breaking things goes back to Thatcher, they have year of experience doing it).

"Senile pensioner visits dad with dementia in care home".

Fixed the caption for you.

Guardian view on Sir Jim Ratcliffe: Britain does not need political lectures from a billionaire tax exile | Editorial Editorial: Comments on the ‘colonisation of the UK’ by the co-owner of Manchester United were erroneous, crass and a gif

In 2020, Jim Ratcliffe moved his fortune to Monaco, saving himself an estimated £4 billion in tax.

In the same year, immigrants in the UK contributed around £20 billion in tax.

That says it all.

Ellie Chowns, "Reform UK, before it was the Brexit Party, before when it was UKIP, has been busy for many years fermenting this idea that immigration is the problem in this country"

"It's completely untrue"

"Inequality is the problem in this country"

Labour: respecting the law only when it serves existing ideology.

It's nothing new, history is littered with people in power enriching themselfs at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

And he has very rich friends with deep pockets who all want a slice of that, and has no problem accepting money from them to make sure he succeeds.

He doesn't believe it himself. It is all a big distraction, while everyone is focussing on immigration, he and his rich cronies will rob us blind.