Left: Conservative Mims Davies claims we got the covid vaccine because we left the EU Right: Dr June Raine says UK vaccine program ran while the UK was still legally within the EU and under EU law My view: Every time a Brexit politician claims Britain got the Covid vaccine first because we left the EU, they run into the same inconvenient fact: we were still bound by EU law when the vaccine was approved. The UK authorised the Pfizer vaccine on 2 December 2020. The first vaccinations followed on 8 December. The Brexit transition period did not end until 31 December, so EU law still applied. And MHRA chief executive Dr June Raine said the approval used Regulation 174, a provision under European law that remained available until 1 January. The UK had left the EU politically in January, but that did not mean it had escaped EU rules by December. The early approval came through a regulatory route available under those rules. Brexit politicians are taking credit for a decision made while those rules still governed us, and the regulator was explaining exactly that. That is what makes this claim so shameless. They take a genuine achievement by scientists, regulators and the NHS, erase the legal timeline, and sell it as proof Brexit delivered something it did not. It wasn’t Brexit that made the vaccine possible. The official responsible for authorising it said the legal basis was European law.

George Monbiot explains why the UK should rejoin the EU, "There's a reason why Russia tried to intervene in the Brexit vote, they knew that it would harm the UK and the EU if we left" "They were very clear about that and boy have they been proved right" "It has damaged our economic life, our social and cultural life" "Wales alone has lost £1 billion net in regional and social funding which it would have received from the EU" "And it has greatly weakened the opportunities particularly for young people, to work abroad, live abroad, to have the freedoms we had before" "We could rejoin the Customs Union, or the Single Market, but if we did that alone we would be rule takers, we have to accept whatever the EU handed down because we would not be at the table negotiating and making decisions alongside other nations" "As an audience member pointed out, yes the EU is changing. But that's not a reason not to rejoin, but that's a reason to be there in case it changes into a direction we don't like. We can help it be the kind of EU that we want it to be" "I don't think there's any option but to rejoin fully" My view: Brexit was sold as a way to take back control. In practice, it has often meant giving up influence over decisions that still affect us. Our businesses have to navigate rules shaped in Brussels, but Britain has no vote in setting them. That is not meaningful sovereignty; it is distance from the table. Rejoining would give the UK a voice in the institutions where shared rules are debated and agreed. It would also restore a closer, more predictable relationship with our largest nearby market, making it easier for businesses to trade, invest and plan. Those gains would not erase every problem facing the country, but they would remove barriers we chose to put in our own way. The case is about more than trade. It is about making it easier for people to study, work and build lives across Europe; cooperating on research, energy, climate and security; and giving communities and regions access to shared opportunities. These are practical freedoms and partnerships that matter in people’s everyday lives. A halfway arrangement could reduce some friction, but it would leave Britain following many common rules without full representation in shaping them. If the UK wants influence over the direction of European cooperation, membership is the route that provides it. Rejoining would not mean surrendering every national choice; it would mean choosing to make some decisions together, with a seat, a vote and the ability to argue for the outcome we want. The question is not whether the EU is perfect. It is whether Britain is better placed to shape its future from within, alongside its neighbours, or to stand outside while decisions with consequences for us are made without us. After the experience of Brexit, there is a strong case for choosing influence, cooperation and closer ties again. And since Britain left, no other EU member state has followed it out. Instead, the Union has grown to 27 members, while 10 aspiring members are currently in the accession process. That does not prove the EU is perfect or that membership suits every country. But it does show that countries see real value in joining: access to a huge shared market, stronger economic links and greater stability. European Commission They are not signing up because the EU has no problems; they are choosing to take part in a shared project that can bring investment, opportunity and a stronger voice in decisions affecting their future. If countries across Europe are working to join, Britain should ask why it chose to walk away, and whether standing outside has made us better placed to shape what comes next.

The full report from ITV News at Ten Exposing the racist and sexist behaviour of Reform UK councillors and a candidate to be MP I don't want to type out the racist, sexist language. Click play, but be warned, it's uncensored. The full expose will be broadcast on October 18th at 10:20pm My view: The comments are awful and disgusting. But what’s almost as disturbing is how familiar they sound. This kind of racism and sexism is not confined to private chats or fringe political circles; people encounter it every day on social media. When it’s said in person and broadcast on television, the reaction is immediate: shock, condemnation and demands for answers. But when people face the same abuse online, the response is often far quieter. Non-white Labour MPs have repeatedly described the racist abuse directed at them on social media. Their experiences should prompt more than a statement of support after each new case. Successive Conservative governments, and now Labour, have had years to confront the way online platforms enable this behaviour. Legislation exists, but people are still left to deal with torrents of abuse while platforms profit from engagement and enforcement remains inadequate. Why should racism and sexism be treated as intolerable when a camera captures it in a room, yet accepted as part of everyday life when it appears on a screen? If these comments are shocking on television, they should be shocking wherever they are made. Keir Starmer wasted two years not making online a safer space, will Andy Burnham continue his legacy, or show some leadership and take action?

In 2016 Nigel Farage said that leaving the EU would mean fewer (white) migrants from the European Union. Suggesting we would have more (black and brown) migrants from Commonwealth/other countries. So when Brexiters are upset at th emigration mix, not only were the told this, but they voted for it.