RayC

That the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter of EU law was never in question. It was (is?) about its' role in NI. Whether this apparently pragmatic compromise holds remains to be seen but it appears to be based on a partnership, rather than a master/ slave relationship as you suggest. Sunak deserves credit for repairing the fractious relationship which Johnson and Truss had created and developed.

Labour have promised to support any bill. The flat earth brigade only number +/-60 MPs, so the deal is effectively done. The cherry on the cake for me would be for Sunak to announce a 3-line whip for any vote. For the likes of Johnson, Rees-Moog, Francois, Cash, etc. to defy him and vote against the bill. For Sunak to then withdraw the whip and for them to be de-selected by their constituencies, and for parliament to be rid of them at the next election. Unfortunately, this is more hope than expectation.

Seems like it's all done and dusted. Sunnak to address parliament @18:30 (GMT). Can't imagine that he would convene a meeting to announce, "Sorry lads and lasses, nothing to report".

I don't think that there would be this amount of press coverage or that VdL would be coming to London unless the deal was effectively done. Sunak is taking a political risk in further alienating the flat-earthers in his party, but he's probably come to the conclusion that there's nothing that he can do or say - short of declaring war on the EU - which would satisfy them.

I don't think that's the case. Reports (FT, Times) say that the ECJ will remain the ultimate arbiter, but that there will be some speed bumps placed along the way to try to ensure that the ECJ's involvement is kept to a minimum.

I imagine that they hope to increase productivity as well. It's a goal for most organisations.

The unfortunate victim wasn't famous but she isn't the story. The story is the intrusiveness of the media, social influencers, etc into the lives of the victim's family and those in the local community, plus the flaws in police communications and the investigation.

Come on now, Congressman. This is no time for false modesty. Some of your lies were top notch.

My apologies. Sorry if I've spoilt your day.

You're right. But why have a dig at me? I've not accused you of anything - apart from being completely wrong about Trump being on the cusp of giving the UK a FTA. You too ought to direct your comment to the right quarters.

And my post was in direct response to JohnyF. If you want to accuse anyone of diversion and introducing off-topic subjects it might be best to direct your comment to the right person.

Is this meant to be a joke or a serious question? Either way, I don't understand it.

I can only reiterate my reply to Mac (see previous page). If you had bothered to read the whole thread you would found that JohnyF introduced Trump and Brexit into the conversation (1st page@10:04). Maybe your comment would be better directed to him rather than me, or does the fact that he's a fellow Brexiter rule that out?

Let's hope Sunak has the political courage to face down the flat earth brigade (ERG) and put country before party. If he does, he will deserve great credit.

Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall but the headline couldn't be clearer. Article from 'The Economist' in 2018: https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/05/the-promised-post-brexit-trade-deal-with-america-may-never-materialise

Or maybe the reason for Trump's golf courses losing money is that he misread the market. It's not as though golfers are short of courses to play in Scotland.

Perhaps it is, but wouldn't your comment be better directed at the person who introduced it into the discussion i.e. Johnny F?

So this week's fall guy for the failure of Brexit is Biden. Well I suppose that it makes a change from it all being down to the nasty EU.

Whatever one thinks of Sturgeon, I think that it has to be acknowledged that she has been a very successful politican. I don't mean that she has necessarily left Scotland in a better state than it was before she took office - those living in Scotland are best placed to make that judgement - but what she has done is keep the issue of Scottish independence in the news. I doubt that either would thank me for the comparison but - in this regard - she reminds me of Nigel Farage. Imo without Farage Brexit wouldn't have happened. Without Sturgeon, Scottish independence would be largely forgotten about by the English establishment and media (Blackford probably deserves an honorary mention as well).

All valid questions. Here's my opinion: If by 'on the sly', you mean that the elected UK government would choose to have closer ties with the EU without a referendum, then I agree. I would be surprised if any new states became EU members within the next 10 years. The current candidate countries are: Turkiye - Been a candidate since 1999. Many existing members, notably Germany, have reservations about Turkiye joining. In addition, it is conceivable that Erdagan might not agree to Brussels' terms. Serbia - Political closeness to Russia and Putin probably does for them North Macadonia - Ongoing issues with Greece will probably delay any accession. Bosnia and Herzegovina - There are discussions about the nation splitting into two. I doubt that the EU would sanction entry until that issue is resolved. Albania - The problems are well-documented. Imo no chance of joining anytime soon. Ukraine - Possibly but obviously an awful lot of problems to overcome. Moldova - Again possibly but a new candidate and a lot of investigation needed before accession. Also would antagonise Russia and Putin, so that's a problem for them. Would have to be negotiated but I imagine that the terms would almost certainly be less favourable than those which we had. It peaked at 300k in 2016. Many factors to consider, not least, how well the UK economy is doing in general, and the state of the UK labour market in particular relative to other member states. Could be more than 300k, could be less who knows? Probably less than it does now, but almost certainly the EU will still remain (no pun intended) our biggest trading partner. In terms of trade deals, currently we don't many more (substantial) deals with the Pacific region than the EU. CPTPP is a 'work in progress' and there is no guarantee that either (1) we will join and/or (2) it will succeed, so there might be nothing to abandon. We might not have to. Yes, member states have to agree to adopt the Euro once the conditions for doing so are met, but there is a get-out clause which Sweden successfully invokes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro Neither the Commission or the ECB appears to be overly concerned by Sweden's reluctance to join the Eurozone. I imagine that we would have to. The 'Single Market' covers the free movement of services and capital as well as goods. Financial services are one area where the Brexiter's mantra, 'they need us more, etc' may ring true for the time being at least. In the short term, the EU is reliant on London's financial market for certain services e.g. settling the majority of Euro-denominated derivative transactions, however the Commission is trying to get activities such as these moved within the Eurozone. It's true that this has always been a goal of the ECB, but when we were an EU member the Commission did not become involved as that would have meant discriminating against a member state, however they have no such qualms now. I think - I'm not certain - that there is something in the Withdrawal Agreement about service provisions remaining as they were until 2024(?). After that agreement runs out, the gloves may come off. Given that services account for +/-80% of the UK's GDP there could be greater problems ahead. I think that you only need to look at the problems on the island of Ireland, or ask a small business who has EU customers and/or suppliers to get an idea of the benefit of being within a Customs Union. Presumably yes in both cases. The question is not relevant as individual member states are responsible for their own foreign and security policies. The Brexit deal was not subject to a referendum, so why should the terms for rejoining be subject to one? If the EU wanted the UK to rejoin, why would it make the terms so onerous that no UK government could agree to them? If a UK government felt that it couldn't refuse the deal whatever the conditions, that would simply be an admission that Brexit had been a complete failure.

Let's not forget that Stewart played Sun City during the apartheid era. However, better late than never to discover a moral compass.

And by the same token, a handful of individuals (allegedly) acting illegally does not make an organisation corrupt. Likewise, the idea that there should be greater integration in certain areas does not make one a federalist. Why is necessarily bad for an organisation to be technocratic?

So you'd trust an unqualified quack with your health and an unsuccessful gambler with your wealth?

I see that you are still peddling that old chestnut about "them needing us more than we need them". Not according to the OBR, FT, LSE, The Economist. But hey, never believe the experts.

An all-out trade war with the EU? I doubt that Sunak is that stupid but, if he is, I wonder how long - and much it will cost - before the markets force him to U-turn?