RayC

So a Romanian fruit-picker decides to go abroad to work next summer. The UK process: 3 months processing time minimum; may need an interview; needs a sponsor; may get refused and, oh yes, £259 application fee. The EU process: Tip up in one of 26 countries. Ask the local farmers if they have any work. Can't see the UK countryside being overrun by East Europeans next summer.

I'm making an assumption here, but given that you seem to have a certain disdain for East Europeans, I imagine that you are not over-keen on Algerians, Moroccans, Cameroonians, etc? Plenty of individuals from these nations and a fair few East Europeans in France. Looks like you had a narrow escape, and that Brexit did you a favour.

According to many Brexiters, xenophobia played no part in the referendum. Hmmmm.

While it might be morally just to expect Russia to pay for the cost of rebuilding Ukraine, it won't happen. Russia will pay something but it simply can't afford it to pay everything. The cost of rebuilding Ukraine is estimated at between $350 - $750billion. Russia's annual GDP is less than twice the higher figure. Any attempt to make Russia pay the full amount would cripple its' economy, lead to political instability and then who knows what would happen next. Imo there will have to be some sort of latter-day Marshall plan with the US and EU picking up a large part of the tab.

Now that we are out of the EU, British bananas are now free to be whatever shape, girth, length, etc that they choose to be. That's changed my mind. Brexit: It's all been worthwhile. #Freetheoppressedbritishbanana

Thanks a lot for the very quick reply and helpful advice.

Would be grateful for advice. I am travelling on a UK passport. I entered Thailand on a 90-day non-O visa which expires on 8 February 23. I plan to leave Thailand a day or two before that date. My question revolves around re-entering Thailand. I would like to re-enter Thailand on or around 16 February 23 and depart for the UK on 31 March 23. Can I (re)enter Thailand "visa exempt" for this +/-35 day period? If so, are there any additional requirements - other than having 20k baht - that I should be aware of? Thanks in advance for any confirmation/ clarification. I hope that I am just being paranoid in asking this question!! (In case it matters: As far as I'm aware I have a clean record with Thai Immigration).

Depends what you mean by Identity. As someone born and bred in Brixton, I've never known any different than being surrounded by people who were non-native and, in many cases, non-white. I suppose because it was my upbringing I didn't give it a second thought. Brixton was a <deleted>-hole in the 70s and 80s, and there were undoubtably a few bad apples but most people, whatever their colour, were decent, law-abiding citizens. One of the biggest problems was the racist, heavy-handed policing by the likes of the SPG. Your European friends who want to leave the EU are in the minority. I know very few who even toy with the idea. In any event, your post and mine prove nothing. It is all ancedotal evidence (but I find that it's good to get it off your chest every now and again).

As I said previously, unfortunately given the devastation, I imagine that there will be plenty of work to go around. Who pays for it may be a bigger issue. Again, the UK government deserves credit for the military support that it has provided but the humanitarian aid provided by Poland (1.5m refugees accommodated); Germany (1 m) and Czechia (.4m) shouldn't be forgotten.

The EU and NATO memberships may overlap but they are separate, independent entities and need to be analysed as such. The UK government deserves respect for the support that it has shown to Ukraine, but I doubt that it will mean much when it comes to handing out contracts for its' rebuilding. After all, Ukraine wants to succeed to the EU and a few strategically placed contracts with EU firms won't harm their prospects. In any event, unfortunately, it looks like there will be plenty of work to go around.

Thanks. Entertaining read. Imo Messi's quest is to replace Maradona as the greatest Argentinian footballer. This would, de facto, make him the greatest ever footballer. Doubt that he will manage it

That is just nonsense. As I inferred previously, the date of the Brexit vote was, and is, completely immaterial. Indeed it wasn't even known at the time (2004). The fact is that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for the 10 'new' members of the EU from 2004-11. There was nothing preventing them from doing so. It was their decision - and their's alone - not to do so. It really is as simple as that!

I answered this question earlier in this thread. If you say so. Any link confirming the actual numbers? You might be right but it doesn't actually address my point. There are now 27 members and a change in voting procedure is probably necessary. Excellent. We agree.

I still don't understand your point or, more specifically, the point(s) of mine which you object to. You, not me, are the one conflating the date of the Brexit referendum with the fact that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states.

What is your point?

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states. That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto. On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion. Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter. Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU.

You obviously didn't read @Candice's post. EU treaties don't suddenly just appear on the desks of the member states' heads of government. There are often years of negotiation involved. The final draft will have been given the seal of approval by the governments of the member states before it is presented for approval according to their individual constitutions. If the Danish or French governments had been so inclined then they could have informed the European Commission that, "Sorry, this isn't going to work", and that would have been the end of it (apart from 25 other disgruntled members). I'm dreaming but then I wake up and I'm still right.

Whether the EU should have expanded as quickly as it did is a moot point. However, once again the UK public should blame its' own government rather than Brussels for any problems. The UK could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states for up to 7 years if it had wanted to. Germany did this. The UK chose not to.

Seems like a good idea to me for the EU to speak, through a single person on the international stage, on matters such as the economy and international relations where the bloc is in agreement. There is no suggestion that either of these positions would replace similar posts at the national level. In any event, it is no way that it is a prelude to a "total European merge" (as you put it). That would require a new Treaty/ Treaty change, something that requires unanimous approval from the member states!

Two tangential and largely irrelevant statements. The fact that the UK has left the EU is completely irrelevant when it comes to the false statements being made about the EU by Brexiters. It's true that no UK political party has committed outright to rejoining the EU, but the LibDems have stated that they will rejoin the Single Market; the Labour party and the Greens would seek closer ties and the SNP see their future inside the EU (albeit outside of the UK).

Two more completely erroneous, factually incorrect and misleading statements. EU Treaties - or amendments to treaties - require unanimous approval from all member states: Any individual EU member state can veto Treaty change. Therefore, this idea that the UK - or any other member state - could have been (can be) dragged, kicking and screaming against their will into a United States of the EU is complete and utter nonsense. My original statement that the UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with still holds true.

Thank you. Maybe some of your fellow Brexiters will follow your lead (although I doubt it)? (Time for a sing along) ".. and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid ..." There is no evidence to support anything in your second paragraph.

You're telling me!!? They just keep coming no matter how many times they are factually rebuked. Some unkind souls might suggest that Brexiters were illogical.

What you say is correct - apart from the first sentence - but you should have read what was written more closely. I'll repeat it here for ease of reference: "The UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with." This is a true statement. It is a fact that between 1997 - 2014, the UK was forced to enact 3% of EU legislation which it had voted against. This, btw is a similar figure to Germany. In any organisation, there will almost inevitably be times when certain players find themselves in a minority. However, the notion that the UK was somehow a persecuted minority when it was an EU member is another fallacy. No matter how hard you try to wish away these statements, they will still remain correct when you reopen your eyes. I have posted a link supporting my statement about "the 3%" in direct reply to you on 3 previous occasions. I will not do so again. Some may argue that the chaos and negative economic effects which Brexit has caused to the UK over the past 6 years - and which looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future - is a price worth paying to regain this "3% of sovereignty". I strongly disagree.

Different wording but still a false argument.