RayC

Heaven forbid that the UK government should try to forge a better diplomatic and trading relationship with our closest neighbours.

Whinging and whining about an event which didn't happen (and was a non-starter from the outset).

😂 Says the bloke who dismissed the findings of a survey without any good reason simply because it doesn't fit his narrative. Some things you just can't make up.

Absolute tosh. What did you expect to happen? That we would wake up on 24 June 2016, and we would be out of the EU and everything would be sorted? In any event, we now have Brexit but some of the loudest moaners about it are not remainers but Brexiters.

Imo the overwhelming majority of EU member states would welcome the UK's readmission. They would be foolish not to. Amongst other things, the UK is the world's 6th biggest economy (by GDP) and a significant military power in Europe. To paraphrase Michel Barnier: 'There were no winners with Brexit'.

The 'confused' emoji should never have been removed.

2+2=5. Your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of this latest poll.

Not without an outcry from the French and German banking sectors, and the considerable risk of negative effects to the EU economy.

What type of regulation have you in mind? Can you give a specific example? The EU can only regulate the affairs of its' member states or companies which wish to operate within the bloc. If the EU makes it more difficult for third country companies to do business within the EU, they will either look outside the bloc or, alternatively, pass on the opportunity. Neither outcome is in the EU's interest. Moreover, how could an EU regulation prevent US and Japanese financial companies, negotiating a settlement in Euros, doing so through London if they so wished? I don't see how applying increased regulation to EU financial institutions will improve their competitiveness and increase market share.

If the EU increases financial regulation it will apply equally to the US financial sector. Far from driving business from London to Frankfurt, it may well either aid London's position or, alternatively, lead to US financial companies downsizing their European operations. Clearly, neither outcome is in Frankfurt's best interests.

Maybe in time Asian financial centres will gain at London's expense but, in the short/medium term, London's position as the world's second most important financial centre looks reasonably secure.

Nonsense. Surveys are not foolproof but reputable organisations such as YouGov use valid sampling techniques. You can't dismiss the findings of a survey simply because you don't like its' findings.

An attempt to stifle the City of London by regulation by the EU might also have the undesired effect of driving US institutions away. The only winner then will be New York. There certainly was a lot of fear about passporting, but Armageddon has been avoided (up to now). The EU realises that it is not in their best interests for the City of London to fail. Yes, there has been some peripheral damage. We agree. I'd say it was the reverse. There are pockets of severe decay but most places are fine. The major conurbations such as London and Manchester are much better places to live now compared with 40 years ago. For reasons which I have stated previously, I don't believe that there will be a major relocation of financial services from London to Frankfurt. However, playing devil's advocate, if this were to occur the effect would be huge. Why would major financial institutions feel the need to keep a presence in London? In all probability, London would become akin to what Leeds is now and provide a few niche financial services. Pharma is an important industry in the UK but its' presence would do nothing to mitigate against the effects of the demise of the City of London. I don't doubt for one minute that the UK needs the EU and US more than they need us, however, to casually dismiss a major downturn in the UK economy as insignificant - especially to the EU - is over-simplifying matters. What we see from events in the US is that even the world's largest economy cannot dictate the terms under which world trade is conducted.

55% of people in the UK now think that Brexit was a mistake, compared with 30% who think it was the right thing to do. If Starmer loses very soon it won't be because of a Brexit reset.

Not so for any number of reasons. Many EU financial centres e.g Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris have tried - and largely failed - to entice financial institutions to relocate from the City of London. This highlights the first reason why a major relocation has not occurred: Intra-EU competition. A second reason is that many (most?) of the major financial institutions already had a presence in continental Europe, therefore the City's loss of passporting rights meant that the impact was limited: Some functions were relocated but the hub remained in London. Thirdly, London has a dominant position in some markets e.g. foreign exchange trading where 38% of global transactions are conducted. Fourthly, the intellectual expertise and infrastructure cannot simply be replicated overnight in Frankfurt, etc: There is also the 'human element'. It appears that US financial executives simply prefer London as a city to its' continental counterparts. I could go on but you get the gist. Again, not true. There can be no doubt that the UK has problems - which country doesn't? - but it is far from a failed state and it is - contrary to what some of the ex-pat doom mongers on ASEAN now might suggest - still a fairly decent place to live for the majority of people. However, having said that the loss of a significant proportion of the financial service sector would be a major blow to the country as financial related services contribute about 12% to the UK's total economic output (gross value added), or £275 billion. This represents around 3.4% of UK GDP and contributed 10.1% of total UK tax receipts (Source: Google AI). Yet again, not the case. Notwithstanding the fact that the 'transfer' of functions may not be a simple and smooth process, as I stated in the previous paragraph the effect that this would have the UK economy would be significant, and the knock-on effect for the EU economy sizeable; 13% (+/-$330bn) of EU exports and 9% (+/-$180bn) of EU imports go to/ come from the UK. A reduction of say, 10%, in these figures - due to the loss of purchasing power on the part of the British consumer/ manufacturer would be significant for the EU. As I showed above, if the EU were to regulate the UK out of existence, it would be a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face. I credit them with more savvy than that.

I am not making out you wrote something which you didn't. Your words: "Some people might claim that vandalism and destruction of property is in some way a creative expression of something.", and that's what I commented on: Imo it's not unreasonable to think that on a thread about a court case concerned with the felling of a tree that the posts might be related to that subject. Anyway, enjoy your weekend.

If you are not suggesting that the possibility that this tree caused offence to these individuals' sense of aesthetic beauty and, therefore, should in some way be considered as mitigating circumstances, then what is your point? That we all have a subjective concept of beauty? Yes, agreed. And?

You wrote, "Some people might claim that vandalism and destruction of property is in some way a creative expression of something." Sounds a lot a way of excusing the act; in other words, a defence.

In other word, 'They need us more than we need them'. I heard that before somewhere🤔😂

I'm not sure whether the EU could have (or can) destroyed the City of London, and less convinced whether it would be in its' best interests to do so. Financial services account for +/-10% of UK GDP, and the destruction of this sector would obviously severely damage the UK. Why would the EU welcome this outcome? They would have to deal with the effects of having a large failed state on its' doorstep. An interesting academic discussion on the effects of Brexit on the City of London can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949694224000051#:~:text=The only significant financial power that the,shared with the EU was financial regulation.&text=Despite some relocations from London%2C Brexit has,to London as an international financial centre.

Hardly a credible defence. The fact that I consider (most) brutalist architecture to be an eyesore doesn't permit me to hire a crane and wrecking ball and destroy some South London housing estates.

Didn't Northern Ireland and Wales recognise Indian and Pakistani independence?

I'm not sure what specific national English - as opposed to regional English - issues there might be. In any event, there is already devolution to the metropolitan and county councils in England. There might be a case for transferring more responsibility and powers to these entities but I do see the need for an English parliament.

What would be the point of an English parliament? There isn't really a "democratic deficit", as 85% of Westminster MPs represent English constituencies. An English Assembly would simply be an (almost) exact replica of Westminster.

How long before Trump claims that his depiction as Pope swung the election for Prevost?