ATTay

@iWalkOutdoors Just find the easiest, lowest stress public sector job possible if that happens 1) youll never be unemployed - the council HAVE to provide these jobs 2) you do nothing - just wander around a park as a "warden" or something. 3) you'll get paid more than you make now.

Green Party say they plan to ensure everyone has a minimum wage of £31,000pa. I run a business. I don’t earn that. I employ 2 people. They don’t earn that. The business I run doesn’t take in enough to pay that. I’d need to charge customers way more to afford that 🤷‍♂️. Or go bust.

@FennellJW @TerraOrBust Punishment.

@TerraOrBust But why? What was the motivation for wanting to increased migration, and was that calculus influenced by Brexit?

It seems pretty obvious that Brexit removed checks on uncontrolled immigration to the UK. However no doubt my timeline will be full of people explaining why this is not so.

@marcosagusstinn What a load of nonsense.

The UK’s exit from the EU single market has been an economic disaster. Most estimates now show: 1. UK GDP is around 4–6% lower than it otherwise would have been 2. Business investment fell roughly 10–15% below trend 3. Trade volumes and manufacturing competitiveness weakened sharply He was one of the main architects of this project. The damage to British industry, growth and long-term competitiveness is a direct consequence of that political choice

@thunderbear24 @kaldeqca @D162Michele Yes. Treaty of Nanking 1842.

@ATTay38411784 @kaldeqca @D162Michele No it's not. I have been to China 4 times. Did we have a treaty when it was taken off them?

I’m pretty sure the Brits did exactly that in China with Hong Kong.

@ros015 @anon_opin Because for them you were an immigrant but you were part of an ex-pat community. Do you still not see what the difference is?

@ATTay38411784 @anon_opin No, when I lived and worked in UK, they called me and all the members od our vibrante community inmigrants, that is what we were, this is what they are.

It's been said before, but bears repeating. If you're a UK citizen and live in Dubai/Spain/ anywhere not the UK, then you're not an "expat". You're an immigrant. Fucking double standard Daily Mail cunts.

@jay5672 @marcosagusstinn But....but....but the doppleganger where Covid never happened says we would have grown faster and the world's trade in goods wouldnt have been hit if Covid hadnt happened and +2%-3% inflation would be lower if not for war in Ukraine and Covid so obviously its Brexit!

Since Brexit: - GDP has kept pace with France, exceeded Germany's - Trade in goods AND services with EU has grown, on trend - Inflation is lower than EU since Brexit - UK is no 1 for AI/tech investment in Europe. EU is nowhere. Your analysis @marcosagusstinn is cherry-picked.

@ros015 @anon_opin They call themselves ex pats because they are part of an expatriate community. Similar communities exist all over the world. Theres a vibrant Portugese expat community here in London for example - people who are also immigrants, can also be expats.

@ATTay38411784 @anon_opin I was talking about callimg themselves expats, no they are inmigrants as the ones they want to remove from their country ( imcluding the ones from the country they are living)

@thunderbear24 @kaldeqca @D162Michele Why shouldnt it have been taken off them? It was ceded in perpetuity by treaty. Theres nothing wrong with treaties. On whats "bad" about it; the Chinese state is an autocratic surveillance state; it is qualitatively bad. It is worse for the people living there to be part of it.

@ATTay38411784 @kaldeqca @D162Michele What's bad about a country getting its city back, which shouldn't be taken off them in the first place?

@thunderbear24 @kaldeqca @D162Michele It is not good. It is very bad.

@kaldeqca @D162Michele How would you feel if your country was invaded, and having a city taken off you. China has HK back, which is good.

@arthistorynews @firasmodad @BijanOmrani They wish to sever our institutional memory in a vast range of spheres, from religion to culture. They've succeeded in many already.

@firasmodad @BijanOmrani ‘Institutional memory’. Come on.

Remember, they want to get rid of hereditary peers not for some sublime democratic reasons. They want to be the new aristocracy, and they hate that hereditary peers serve as an institutional memory tied to the nation and the land.

@ros015 @anon_opin Every county has the right to determine what type of immigrants it wants and from where they come from.

@ATTay38411784 @anon_opin Because those people, don't hesitate to remove inmigrants fron their country, and thy feel they are better

@dispeptic @TheCtAmerican @grey4626 Indeed. That was the deal we made to defeat Nazism. We knew what we were signing up to. We could have sat there, and remained your superior, handing over Europe to the Germans, but we didn't. Part of the deal was you act responsibly.

@ATTay38411784 @TheCtAmerican @grey4626 And yet we are the super power.

No British government ever imagined an American president might finally tell the truth about the “special relationship.” Until now. Spare me the pearl-clutching obituary from The Economist, that decaying salon of transatlantic nostalgia where the ghost of Churchill is still being pimped out like a rent-boy for Davos subscriptions. Your precious bunting of flags in the bin isn’t some tragic metaphor for Trump’s “betrayal.” It’s the autopsy photo of a one-way parasitic bargain that America has carried on its back like a drunk uncle for eighty goddamn years. And the drunk finally woke up, looked around, and said: Fuck this. This isn’t “turning his back.” This is a sovereign nation refusing to keep subsidizing a continent of strategic eunuchs who have spent decades castrating their own militaries, hollowing out their industrial bases, and importing the very pathologies that make them security liabilities rather than allies. You want the special relationship? Earn it. Reciprocate it. Stop treating the United States like an ATM with nuclear weapons. Geopolitically and militarily, the numbers don’t lie and they never have. The United States still shoulders roughly sixty percent of total NATO defense spending...$845 billion out of a collective $1.4 trillion last year. Most of your European “partners” couldn’t hit the 2% GDP target even after Russia parked tanks on Ukraine’s border and started lobbing missiles at civilian infrastructure. Britain under Starmer talks a big game about “global Britain” while quietly slashing capability, courting CCP-linked cash, and letting its own streets burn under the weight of demographic transformation and speech codes that make the old East German Stasi look libertarian. You lecture us about values while your own government criminalizes tweets and turns Rotherham into a cautionary tale the media still refuses to fully autopsy. Historically, the ledger is even more damning. We bled for you in 1917 and 1941 when your empires were on the ropes. We bankrolled your reconstruction, anchored your defense for the entire Cold War, and let you punch above your weight on the world stage because sentimental Anglosphere nostalgia still meant something. In return? Suez 1956, where you expected us to back imperial nostalgia while we were trying to contain Soviet expansion. Vietnam, where you sat it out. Iraq, where you half-assed it and then spent the next twenty years sneering at us in your broadsheets. And every single time an American president dared put America First, your commentariat wailed like Victorian widows about the death of the alliance...as if the alliance was ever meant to be a suicide pact. You’ve internalized a victimhood narrative so profound it borders on the clinical...projecting your own national decline, your own loss of agency, your own self-inflicted castration onto the one country that still possesses the will to act like a great power. Trump doesn’t “deprioritize” the relationship; he simply refuses to indulge the delusion any longer. He sees what you refuse to admit: the United Kingdom of 2026 is no longer the reliable offshore balancer of 1945. It’s a mid-tier European power wrestling with internal entropy, elite disconnect, and a demographic trajectory that makes long-term strategic partnership… let’s just say, complicated. We are sick of it. Sick of the free ride. Sick of the lectures from people whose capitals are turning into no-go zones while their defense ministers beg Washington for more F-35s and more carrier groups to patrol waters they can no longer secure themselves. Sick of the pomp, the pageantry, the royal visits, and the hand-wringing editorials that treat American self-interest as some kind of moral failing. The special relationship isn’t dead. It’s being stress-tested by reality. And reality, Mr. Economist, is a vicious bitch with a ledger in one hand and a mirror in the other. Look into it. 💀⚖️🗡️

@job_west_ @Clint_Davey1 Other way round.

@Clint_Davey1 Only the Puritan is English. The Cavalier is a Globalist.

If you are an Englishman, inside you there are two competing archetypes. The Puritan and the Cavalier. The Puritan: morally upright, stiff upper lip, valuing righteousness and factual correctness above all else. Stern but loving. Bookish. Ascetic, Spartan even. Impeccable manners. Well groomed and not ostentatious. The Cavalier: love of hierarchy and tradition, boisterous, patriotic. Beer and wine swilling, partying. Fondness for gun and blade. Love military history and flashy uniforms. Quick witted. Fun. A dandy - even a cad. Both of these are beautiful in their own way.

@edwest Quite a pickle we've got ourselves into eh?

Let me guess: Came here as refugee Allocated free housing in an expensive area of London zones 1-3 Long term unemployed Long history of trouble with police. Repeatedly released after short spells in jail/mental health services despite troubling behaviour

@RichardGCorbett I dont pay anything for roaming. Just use a better provider.

Sadly not for Brits, due to Brexit

@TerraOrBust The man understood us better than we do even today.

In 1967 the French President of the time, Charles de Gaulle, blocked the UK application to join the EEC (the infant version of the now EU) for the second time. He wrote in 1963 about the reasons for his objections - and these reasons stand true today. Membership was never good.

@ramonagusta Grim.

Replaced by Mandelson, Hermer, Alli, Doyle... and Lord "Ahmed" of Rotherham...

@AndrewCStuart @KemiBadenoch They never bring anything back. Once its gone its gone forever for some reason in this country.

@KemiBadenoch Manifesto promise to bring them back??

In the midst of all the news today, and with Parliament prorogued, many people may not have noticed that this was the final time the hereditary peers sat in Parliament before being forced out by Labour. I want to pay an extra special tribute to them. Combined they had 1784 years of parliamentary experience, wisdom and service to this country. That is not something easily replaced, and it should not be casually discarded. Most were Conservatives. All were public servants. They have brought to public life judgment shaped over decades, deep expertise, institutional memory, and a sense of duty that has strengthened Parliament and, very often, improved legislation in ways the public will never fully see. Their record speaks for itself. They have served in war and peace, in government and opposition, in defence, diplomacy, farming, business, science and public service. They have not merely occupied seats in the Lords, they have contributed to the life of the nation. That is why what has happened matters. Hereditary peers are a living part of Britain’s constitutional inheritance that Labour is casually tearing up. Labour has rubbed away another part of our heritage, not to strengthen Parliament but to replace it with political appointees, four of whom it has already had to suspend the whip from because they were so inappropriate. That contrast says rather a lot. At a time when public trust in politics is fragile, I think it is worth saying plainly that experience, seriousness and tradition still matter. Service still matters. Duty still matters. So today, as an era closes, I want to put on record my profound gratitude and admiration for our hereditary peers. Britain has been better governed because of them. The Conservative Party has been stronger because of them. And Parliament will be poorer without them. Their contribution will long outlast the petty politics that has brought this moment about.

@LeighQuilter I like it. Simple. Should work well.

My proposals for a restored and reformed House of Lords in summary: House capped at 650 peers for symmetry with the Commons. 212 hereditary peers - the dignified bit 👑 200 appointed peers - the expert bit 📚 200 elected peers - the democratic bit 🗳️ 26 Lords Spiritual ✝️ 12 Law Lords ⚖️ Minimum age of 35 before being able to become a member. Hereditary peers become the largest and most senior group, but still nowhere near a majority thanks to the tripartite model. They would be chosen from among the pool of all hereditary peers by hereditary peers, as was the case until yesterday. Appointed peers serve for life as now, but thanks to the cap on numbers the Prime Minister will not have many opportunities to fill vacancies, so the temptation to use rare opportunities on cronies will be lessened. This will work in a similar way to the US President nominating Supreme Court vacancies. Elected peers will be chosen via regional proportional representation, with the aim being to grant power to geography and represent the nations and regions of the UK better. Each region would have 20 peers regardless of their population. These should roughly mirror ancient regions which could provide genuine local identity and would look something like the following: (Sussex/Kent, Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, Dyfed, Gwynedd, Strathclyde, Alba, Ulster). England has five regions and the other nations have five between them to balance English dominance. The idea is to avoid metropolitan dominance and so London and other major cities would not have their own regions. theradishreview.substack.com/p/a-traditiona…