Steven C. Schulz comments

In the U.S. tax avoidance is legal, but tax evasion is not. Don't know if it is the same in the U.K.

Avoidance - minimizing your tax obligations within the law - is always legal, but unpopular if you're exposed.

Evasion - hiding income or property so that it's not exposed to taxation - is always illegal.

Like she knows anything that's going on with her money.

i thought all racist incidents were caused by the culture Trump has created and his hateful rhetoric? But somehow no one has connected him to this?

He defected from Cuba last year. I think it has more to do with upbringing.

The Quadrilateral is back?

They'll freeze by comparison in Houston.

EU position makes much more sense to me; divorce & settlement agreement (financial, political etc) first then talks about a future relationship,

Since both sets of talks are inextricably linked, they really should be negotiated at the same time. It's all well and good for the EU to say no trade relationship without settlement, but for the UK it's "no settlement without trade relationship". So long as they're at cross-purposes, nothing will be agreed for anyone.

They can say whatever they want. In the end, if U.S. sanctions come back, European companies will have the choice of doing business in Iran or in the U.S - they won't allow both.

That may bite, but that's how it is.

Most of the world is content with Westminster parliamentarianism despite it inevitability leading to more-or-less temporary one-party rule. This is the consequence, for good or ill. Maybe the separation of powers in presidential systems aren't that bad - at least there's a chance of divided government.

I hope to see an independent Hong Kong as a friend to a democratic China within my lifetime.

The Supreme Court will reconvene in 99 days. The ban will end in 92 days. I have a feeling that the case will be tossed a moot and that we'll never see a substantive ruling on the issues.

Sanders supported the IRA. That's all that's needed to discredit him.

Star Fox 2 was never even finished.

I presume someone has gone back to finish and localize it?

@M3M3M3

Words written in the format are deprived of context.

And typically, I would agree with you regarding referendums. However, in the case of Parliament derogating powers away from itself (in Maastricht and Lisbon), in almost all practical ways, permanently, direct popular consent must be required. The referendum, should Remain have won, would have provided that consent. Instead, consent has been withdrawn retroactively, and while the government can do it's best to represent the interest of the Remain voters, the result must be upheld.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people who don't want to leave the EU. But the only way to completely satisfy them is to deny the voice of those who took the time to participate and made a majority decision.

Please, M3M3M3. Those 'youths' have no one to blame but themselves. There's an entire list of polls on the referendum's Wikipedia page, and for months, all but a few outliers showed a statistical dead heat.

With an extended campaign and extended registration period, there's no excuse for not voting that day. If their votes could have changed the result, then their loss is the result of their own apathy.

Remember the saying, "If you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about the result."

I think that the hesitance of firms to relocate to mainland Europe from Britain has, at least partially, something to do with the EU's financial transactions tax. It currently operates elsewhere in Europe under 'enhanced cooperation', but may likely become EU law after Brexit. It wouldn't be fiducially responsible to have all their business taxed instead of only what has to be traded in the EEA by law (euro securities, for example).

Federal land belongs to all the people of the U.S., not just the state the land is within.

On the contrary, state sovereignty over its land should be restricted against the federal government in a way so that the federal government may own no land.

Laws that only protect acceptable speech may eventually be used to restrict speech critical of the government. I'm not willing to give the government the power of censorship, no matter how disgusting the content is, bar the caveat above.

The only restriction on speech should be imminent threat to lawless action. Anything else is a form of censorship.

Theresa May needs to get 2/3rd approval from all the MP's in parliament.

Looks like she already has Corbyn on-side to trigger the vote. Even if half the party defied him and voted against, the 2/3 threshold would be reached.

Brilliant! With the condition Labour is in, we're looking at a repeat of 1983, if not '97.

It's over. RIP Turkish democracy.

Expel them from NATO and formally reject their EU application.

Kudos to a display of North American unity. But how do they handle the logistics of crossing between the three countries?

First, it's conflating nationality with race.

This is the case for pretty much every country outside the Americas. Race defined by physical features, especially skin pigmentation, is mainly a New World concept

The UN only exists to legitimize the Security Council. And it's only supported by the P5 because of that legitimacy, which is why the UN really only works in areas outside the P5's spheres of influence.

Let the UN do the good work it can for now, but if there comes a time where the P5 no longer have use for it, it will disappear like the League of Nations.

Obama conducted half the Libyan war without any input from Congress, and wasn't going to ask for it in Syria until the British did. This is just an expansion of his philosophy.

Because revolutions in the Middle East have been such unmitigated successes. Better the Saudis bring Yemen to heel.

Why hold a referendum with an immediate in or out? Why not hold a referendum to take to Brussels to say 'look, the vote is Brexit so now its time to renegotiate or we leave'?

The European Union doesn't negotiate. Or did you miss the punitive measures Greece had to accept after they said 'no' in their referendum and the EU machinery cut them off financially until they surrendered? What Cameron offered was the renegotiation, and the Commission said take it or get out. Tell me, what further opportunity was there?

But how can you totally disregard the 16.1M who wanted to Remain?

In a binary choice, the losers are going to be unhappy. You can feel slighted and helpless, and get nothing, or accept the outcome and try to influence the severity of Brexit when it happens. And I bet remainers would have told leavers to sit down, be quiet and accept 'the mandate' if they had one. The will of the people only matters when the 'right side of history' is chosen after all.

The Brexit vote was never a vote against the EU anyway. It was a UKIP-led zingoistic vote against anymore muslim immigration. And the only EU point for the voters was to stop anymore Polish or Romanian immigration. Nothing else counted for the 17M.

That's the attitude that caused Brexit and got Trump elected. Telling people that they're xenophobes and racists because the have concerns about the integrity of their borders just alienates them from your better arguments. It can't be about the right to screen entrants and control the flow to what society can handle - Leavers must want a fortress wall on the Dover cliffs, totally ignoring the call for increased immigration from Commonwealth states like India and Pakistan to make up the loss of EU migrants. And it's certainly an arrogant attitude for people like me who are willing to have free movement if it meant staying in the EEA, but don't want to be subject to a corrupt, centralizing force that wants to be the single government on a continent erased of nation states.

Why did Cameron and now May have to completely sever their links and divorce from the EU? With the huge economic threat that goes with it. Why couldn't a supposedly intelligent and educated government go to Brussels and say 'you need us, we need you, let's renegotiate our EU terms'?

The European Commission foreclosed that option. They said they wouldn't be blackmailed by a 'No' vote to renegotiate Britain's membership. They handed Cameron what they were willing to concede, and said 'take it or leave (it)'. Cameron gave that decision to the people.

And 52%/ 48% is not exactly a political landslide is it? The Brexit vote was basically a split decision.

Would you say that if the decision had been decided in the reverse by those numbers? If you would, good on you. But many people supporting 'remain' would take it as decisive if it had been the case.

The EU have already threatened to sue Britain should they refuse to pay its bill.

To the International Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction and decisions are non-binding. If all other talks fail the EU has no recourse to collect.

I'm still waiting for the 300-odd million quid a week to go into the NHS.

That promise wasn't made by the Government, so the Government has no obligation to deliver it. More the fool who voted for a campaign slogan.

The Scottish Parliament yesterday approved a second Independence Referendum by 69 votes to 59

Theresa May has already refused to authorize another referendum until 2021. By then, Brexit will be complete and a new Scottish Parliament will be elected. And with power-sharing collapsed, Northern Ireland will soon again be under direct rule.

Thank you for helping Marine Le Pen through your incompetence.