because i am one of the lower state pensioners (pre april 2016) and receiving £100 per month less than pensioners (april 2016) new pensioners !!!

The result of the 2016 EU Referendum is a United Kingdom that isn’t so united anymore, and an intensely divided country that finds itself facing the prospect of losing power, jobs, wealth, international standing and influence as a result of a hasty decision that is only supported by a narrow majority of voters. What if, for example, ‘Leave’ had won by 120,000 votes instead of 1.2 million? What if the margin had been much smaller? Does it really make sense to implement something that will have a fundamental, historic impact on the British Isles and Europe based on such a small majority? Of course it doesn't ! No other major democracy is so cavalier with the security of it's Constitution and Peoples' rights. For example, Amendments to the Constitution of the USA require 2/3 majority votes in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and a nationwide referendum that must win in 75% of the States. The United Kingdom deserves better than this !

It’s important that those who voted for politicians are not let down by their mps changing sides. There should always be a fresh election.

In more recent times we have seen a relatively large number of MP's who were elected under Conservative, Labour, Liberal party etc banner/manifesto switch allegiance to other parties and still remain as MP's. Surely as those individuals were elected by the public to serve under a particular party manifesto it is wrong for them to switch to another party thereby denying their electorate of representation under the terms for which they were elected. Quite recently at least two sitting MP's have switched alegiance twice whilst holding onto their seats. This can not be right....can it? It is clear that MP's will not always agree with the party line. In that case they can abstain from voting on a particular issue. However if they find that they fundamentally disagree with the party then surely the proceedure should be to trigger a by-election and seek re-election under the banner of their now preferred party? The ability to 'jump ship', seemingly at an individuals whim, alters the balance in Parliament, does a disservice to the electorate and allows MP's to cross to 'the other side' with impunity. It needs to be stopped.

If the BBC is forced to pay this benefit, should not all broadcasters share the cost. Streaming services included.

Taking more money from people that are already struggling to live well all in the name of immigration status is unfair on people. I see this as exploitation.

This is important because people are tired of tax year to tax year rhetoric, they need a vision of a future to work towards, and would instill a sense of purpose and hope to tackle the challenges we all face.

The new EU Settlement Scheme is not fit for purpose for EU Citizens who have lived here for a long time.

In 1972 Britain left the European Free Trade Association to join what has become the European Union. The current four members, of EFTA, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Leichtenstein all enjoy a high standard of living. They can trade with both Europe and with other countries. Iceland and Norway have their coastal fishing rights. EFTA is part of the EuropeanThe Single Market but not of the Customs Union Britain and Ireland have both opted out of the.Schengen agreement. This means we can maintain our borders and passports as present. There would be no need for any Irish border There would be a charge, but this is less than half the cost of leaving the EU. This path could be acceptable to both remainers and to leavers Many English and Scottish MPs already accept this to be a solution

Many think tanks interviewed or quoted in the news present themselves as independent researchers acting in the interest of the general public, when in fact the opinions and research they put forward serve the interests of a corporate rich and powerful elite.

The country is facing a crisis. It would seem that the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is intent on forcing through a no deal Brexit which would be disastrous in a number of ways, including: · Serious damage to both the UK economy and to that of our European neighbours. · The potential loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. · The potential shortages of medicines with the potential for people to die. · Potentially hundreds of businesses folding. · Adverse environmental consequences including increased carbon emissions from people increasing trade with non EU countries (in general, much further away). It is clearly much more sensible and environmentally efficient to trade with our near neighbours. Given that we are facing a climate crisis this is particularly important. · Further uncertainty and anxiety for both EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in EU countries. · Subsequent to a no deal, all areas of our relationship with the EU would have to be worked through at a micro rather than a macro level, creating a massive amount of work for both the UK and our European partners. One of the factors potentially making no deal more likely would seem to be the lack of parliamentary time available between now and 31st October. Given the urgency of the situation, I believe that Parliament should be recalled as soon as possible to allow sufficient time for MPs to discuss and agree alternative options. No deal has the potential to be disastrous for the country so every effort needs to be made to avoid this.

Because there is a climate and environmental emergency. The government's first responsibility is to protect its people. The UK Government is clearly not doing this in respect to the current climate crisis.. Given the urgency of the situation as described by the IPCC we need to put the climate crisis at the top of the political agenda.