RayC

He - and others - were otherwise engaged; boozing it up at a Tory garden party.

Really? Any examples of the UK - when it was a member - being dictated to by France and Germany? Post-Brexit, France and Germany account for over 40% of the EU's GDP and nearly 50% of the Eurozone. Therefore, it seems reasonable and obvious that they would want - and have - between them a major voice in shaping the Eurozone and EU policy. Most of the time, the member states of the EU share a common goal and vision which promotes the common good However, it is a collection of sovereign nations who will also seek to promote and protect their own interests. If conflict arises, horse-trading and compromise is necessary. The UK when it was a member was, perhaps, the prime example of a member state protecting its' own interests. This issue pre-dates the Ukraine war. The initial EU agreement among member states - which Poland and the Visegrad group refuse to implement - dates back to 2015. The EU has launched infringement proceedings against Poland for this reason. Poland should be applauded for housing Ukrainian refugees, however, the EU has not punished Poland for doing so as you suggest. In fact, as of October '22, Poland has received €144m in EU contributions for housing Ukrainian refugees. No doubt the figure is significantly higher now. On the one hand, you criticise the EU for fining Poland for not implementing agreed EU refugee policy but, on the other, you criticise the EU for what you perceive as not doing enough to assist Greece and Italy. Doesn't seem very consistent. So there we have it. More unfounded EU bashing. "A federal state"? Clearly not. "A tangled bureaucracy"? A bureaucracy certainly; tangled? Perhaps. There is always room for improvement. I've addressed the national interest argument in a previous paragraph. If the laws were unwanted then they would not become laws: It really is as simple as that. Indeed. Many thanks to the 52% for the past 7 years of chaos. The question is, how many more do we have to endure?

I assume that your reference to ".. only 7 years ..." is sarcastic? If so, it is ironic that you then go on to rail against events that took place over 50 years ago! If your '7 year' comment is simply a statement of fact, then I withdraw my previous paragraph and apologise. However, whilst I accept that the changes (and any benefits) of Brexit might take time to materialize, the absence of any policies, strategy and projects to realise these benefits leads me to think that they may not exist. The UK fishing industry was in decline long before we joined the EEC. The treachery was that Heath's government - and Thatcher's in the '80s re the mining and steel industries - did nothing to replace the lost jobs in the areas affected. https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/sectors/agribusiness/who-killed-the-british-fishing-industry/#:~:text=Overfishing%2C geopolitics and the way,London's Centre for Food Policy. There is no mention of the creation of a federal state in the Werner Report; it is solely concerned with monetary union and what it views as the necessary fiscal policies e.g. alignment of VAT rates to enable this monetary union to take place. There is no mention of wider social, defence, foreign policy, etc. being centralised. I don't need your permission to keep voicing my discontent about Brexit. I can't see what points you are trying to make here, other than you have contempt for Heath and, apparently, homosexuals.

I agree but the important thing is to find conditions which are acceptable I think that views on the continent are a lot more nuanced than that. Ironically, there appears to be as much confusion about what "increasing integration" entails in practice as what "Brexit" looks like. Macron certainly appears to be in favour of greater integration, but he will not be in office if and when the UK applies to rejoin. If a Le Pen type figure is elected then the situation will change. I'm not sure what is Schultz's view on greater EU Integration but there is a sizeable minority against it. Imo that would be unlikely. UK tourism is important to Spain and I doubt that they would want to jeopardize it. I also doubt that the rest of the EU are keen to become embroiled in a major diplomatic row. Agreed. Imo it would certainly have made leaving even more difficult ... however, I'm not sure that necessarily follows. No doubt there will be areas of contention but are these problems insurmountable? Unless the RoI joins Schengen, then that's a non-issue: I've mentioned in previous posts how imo membership of the Euro could fudged (at least in the short term). Imo a common stance re immigration would be a positive step. Well the last two years don't seem to have benefitted either side.

I'm not sure David Davis knew what country he was in or what day of the week it was let alone anything else! https://qz.com/1032136/how-brexit-negotiations-are-going-in-one-photo

Some interesting points. I'll throw something else into the mix: Would France and Germany want a rejoining UK to adopt the Euro? Between them they effectively run the ECB and set monetary policy in the Eurozone. If the UK adopted the Euro, the UK government would obviously want us to have a strong say in matters Would the French and Germans want to see their influence diluted? (I know that this is all hypothetical)

I agree with all of that apart from the implication that the EU was somehow forcing us to remain ("Nigel pleading with the EU in Brussels to allow us to leave"). Having served Article 50, the UK would have ceased to be a member of the EU after two years if no agreement and/or request for an extension had been made. How the 'Irish question' and the UK's ongoing commitments to the EU (financial and otherwise) would have been sorted out if that had occurred is anyone's guess, but I'd have bet my bottom dollar it would have been even more chaotic and messy. I think that Candide has hit the nail on the head: One reason why successive UK governments made such a pig's ear of Brexit is that there was no particular project apart from leaving. Whether there is/ was a better way to do Brexit is highly debatable. Those shouting loudest such as the Flat Earthers (ERG) and Farage don't seem to offer much in the way of concrete proposals.

Then applying the same rationale, it is impossible for you to say that a tougher stance during the negotiations would have lead to a more favourable outcome for the UK.

So that's it? No matter if it becomes blindingly obvious that Brexit has made the country poorer - in every sense of the word - and/or opinion polls were to show, say, 70%+ support for rejoining, there's no going back? I accept that a decision was made to leave and that has happened. However, in a democracy, I am perfectly at liberty to voice my opinion that I believe the decision to have damaged the country, and that the sooner we try to undo that damage (by rejoining) the better. I have tried to support the decision to leave. I sometimes close my eyes and wish really, really hard that the US would sign a trade deal with us, and that the financial 'savings' in EU contributions will help improve services and infrastructure in the country. So far my efforts have been in vain. Must be my fault, I'm probably not praying long or hard enough

An alternative premise is that the negotiations conducted by May's government were not a failure. The deal she got was as good as it could have been, given the UK started in a weak negotiating position. Can you give some specific examples of what the UK could have done differently during the negotiations, and how that would have lead to a more favourable outcome?

Nations aspiring to become EU members do not have to adopt the Euro from Day 1, merely commit to adopting it at some point. Therefore, the fact that we would be rejoining makes no difference; the same criteria for adopting the Euro apply to both existing and aspiring EU member states, namely: 1) Price stability 2) Sound and sustainable public finances 3) Exchange rate stability 4) Long-term interest rates. I don't know which criterion(ia) Sweden fails to meet, but there appears plenty of scope for the a rejoining UK to 'fail' as well.

You either didn't read or didn't understand this paragraph in my original post. "(Please read the post to which I am replying before making any 'opinion not fact', 'predict the future', etc. replies?)" Some "interesting" logic applied.

Why?

You also didn't supply any evidence to support your conviction that the pound would suffer if the UK applied to rejoin the EU. In fact, if the most recent countries to accede to the EU e.g. Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, etc are anything to go by, then then the only conclusion is that there is no clear pattern (Data is available on the ECB website).

Maybe but maybe not. Imo if the only/ major stumbling block to the UK rejoining was the adoption of the Euro then I think that the 'Swedish compromise' would come into play. I don't think many EU countries are dragging their feet over adopting the Euro, most seem quite happy to do so. With the exception of those who haven't, most do not meet the conditions for doing so. In the case of Hungary, the EU is probably happy that they don't; most would probably prefer that they simply left the EU. All this is, of course, my opinion. The opt-outs are usually the result of horse-trading around the signing of new Treaties. For example, Major refused to sign the Maastricht Treaty unless the UK had an opt-out on the Social chapter.

Pure supposition with no evidence to support this view. The last country to adopt the Euro was Croatia at the beginning of this year. Prior to that the Kuna had traded within a relatively narrow range against the Euro for 10+ years.

Actually I'm trying to give you a bit of credit. Those who hold the 'They won't let us leave' view generally prescribe to the ridiculous notion that the UK could have remained a member of the Single Market and Customs Union, whilst at the same time, being free of the rules, regulations, processes and procedures governing these entities and, moreover, being free of any financial commitment. By not accepting these proposals, the EU was being unreasonable and therefore trying to prevent the UK from leaving the EU. If that's your view then don't bother replying. However, if you feel that's not the case - and the EU was somehow trying to stop the UK leaving in another way - then I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

The nightmare team of Farage and Johnson????: Now that really would be the time to switch off the lights and leave.

Unlikely is the short answer.

But as a recent senior bureaucrat and someone who is still vocal on EU matters, it's not unreasonable to assume that he might be indicative of the view in 'Brussels'.

How so?

If the UK rejoins the EU the Pound will be dead. Be careful what you wish for..... That is debatable. Yes, the UK would need to commit to joining the Euro. However, whether and when that would actually happen is another matter: Sweden has been obligated to join the Euro since the mid-90s but shows little sign of doing so.

When the UK decides to rejoin the EU, the pound will appreciate overnight by 10+% because of the boost to the economy brought about by, once again, being a part of the world's largest trading bloc. The pound will then increase to an all-time high vis-a-vis the baht within 6 months. (Please read the post to which I am replying before making any 'opinion not fact', 'predict the future', etc. replies?)

I think that it is very unfair of you to moke me. I inserted "likely" into the sentence to avoid incurring the wrath of (some of) your fellow Brexiters. You know how much they dislike predictions of the future and/or definite statements. Surely you haven't forgotten that Brexit is a seemingly endless process?????

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. Imo the author is too pessimistic. There would, undoubtedly, be issues in rejoining but the bottom line is that it would be in both parties' interests. The UK could start to repair the damage done to its' economy, reputation and international standing and the EU regains the benefits of having what is still - despite the damage down - the biggest European power currently outside the bloc (and, yes, the addition of a likely net contributor to the EU budget helps as well).