RayC

Couple of evasive non-answers as usual. You're consistent, I'll give you that!

My exchange with JonnyF was entirely about the UK/EU (EC/EEC/EEA) and I was replying to his comment that " ... for all the talk of the pound's demise, it's at the same level vs the EURO (my caps) that is was in 2010." Why do you then quote my post and reply with a comment about the £/baht rate, which neither of us have mentioned? Are you deliberately trying to confuse matters?

The EU is not a federalist project. One reason is to preserve a level playing field. Ignoring the moral argument for improving animal welfare, allowing a country to ignore minimal standards would give them a (cost of production) advantage over nations with higher standards. Minimal environmental standards are another example. These all have cost implications. (I accept that the introduction of such laws does not ensure a level playing field. In many areas, the UK has stricter animal welfare laws than those laid down by the EU which puts the British farmer at a disadvantage. However, that is not the fault of the EU, and it's a matter for the UK government, NFU and UK consumer to sort out). It's not unproven unless you do not accept the findings of the OBR. In which case, perhaps you could detail the flaws in their methodology. The longer the time horizon the less reliable the forecast. BUT where is the evidence to suggest that leaving the EU will lead to an improvement in the UK's economic performance over the next two decades? There is none So what? So were EU member states and all other nations. Pure supposition/ wishful thinking with not a sherd of evidence to support it. What long game are we playing? There is no plan because there is nothing to implement that will bring economic benefits. The pound may have been at today's levels back in 2010 but this is the longest sustained period where it has traded at this level. Moreover, the direction of travel is clear: downwards.

I can only repeat what I already said. In previous guises, the EU may have simply been a trading block. It has evolved with the times out of necessity and is now an economic and political entity. Clearly you think this a bad thing; I don't. As I said, never the twain ... The amount of money available to the UK government to be invested in your local area has been reduced as a result of the decision to leave the EU. How's that a good thing?

I don't agree with much of what you say but it is interesting to hear a view from someone outside of the UK and EU.

My criticism was focused (at vocational training). You can't claim that the system as a whole is working optimally if one component is sub-optimal.

Any idea how long we might have to wait? I know it's selfish, but this rich bounty of benefits won't be of much use to me when I'm pushing up the daisies!

You call it 'aspect', I call it 'component': It amounts to the same thing. How does saying that vocational training in the UK denigrate the work that teachers put in? In any event, even if that was the case, why should the education system be above criticism? Imo vocational training in the UK is not fit for purpose and lags behind some European peers e.g. Belgium, France, Germany. Whether that is because of the inherent flaws in the system, a lack of investment, poor teachers I don't know (probably a combination of these and other factors to varying degrees).

Someone living 6,000 miles away, largely unaffected by events, telling me to stop moaning about a decision which had a direct effect on my life because it annoys them. I'm so sorry for any upset that I may have caused you!

It's a failing component of the education system whatever way you phrase things

Of course, the UK would deploy the full force of the Border Control Agency to patrol the length and breadth of the UK coastline if the roles were reversed. However, I do agree that we have been down this road before. Imo it's no more than a symbolic, sticking plaster exercise: 100 more officers isn't going to make much difference.

Wasn't part of the justification for leaving that we could depart from the EU regulatory regime? If that happens presumably we'll have to renegotiate these 70-odd roll-over agreements? (And some people on this board claim that Brexit is done and dusted) It is. But perhaps some of the British people should have paid more attention to the voices of British industry who warned that Brexit would have negative economic effects. 50/60/70 years ago the world was a simpler place. The limited regulation associated with the EEC would not had been fit for purpose in 2022. This is just unsubstantiated, empty rhetoric. There are federalists in Europe but there are in the minority. There will not be a federal EU in my lifetime. Any such development would require treaty change and unanimous support from member states. Where is the evidence that Berlin and Paris would support this, let alone Budapest and Warsaw? Again more empty rhetoric. European technocrats do not pass EU legislation although they draft it (rather like UK civil servants). EU regulation has to be supported by elected EU parliamentarians and heads of government from the EU member states. If it isn't, it will not become law. As I have repeatedly stated previously, the UK had to implement 3% of EU legislation against its' will (a similar figure to Germany who supposedly run things). In any organisation, compromise has to be present. I think 'losing' 3% of sovereignty is a price worth paying for the benefits of EU membership. Maybe you don't. Never the twain .... And what is true democracy? The current UK electoral system? I don't think so. The ability to be 'Masters of our own destiny"? Well, that fallacy was laid to rest a few weeks ago.

It's no different to any other form of investment e.g. regional 'aid' (poor choice of word) in the UK. Investing in the less developed areas will, hopefully, stimulate the local economy and make locals and investors wealthier.

Vocational training is sadly lacking in the UK especially when compared to our peers e.g. Germany.

I agree entirely that the UK should do a much better job in educating its' workforce. I also agree that allowing people to "rot on the dole" is a lazy, uneconomic and inefficient system however, generally speaking, the UK has always been dependent on migrant labour to fill some of its' job vacancies and I don't see any problem with that.

Then perhaps Carl - and others - should give things a bit more thought. The reduction in economic activity caused by Brexit will, most likely, eventually lead to a reduction in demand for his hod-carrying services.

Obviously overseas companies' (outside of the EEA) want to do business in the UK if it is profitable for them, but I'd suggest that they would much prefer it if the UK was part of the bloc as they now have to potentially deal with two separate points of entry and regulatory regimes. All adds to the costs and time, especially if goods are to be re-exported into the EU (or UK). In any event, EEA member states - some of whom happen to be our biggest trading partners - would almost certainly prefer us to be within the block. Undoubtedly true. But it is also equally true that reducing barriers such as quotas, tariffs and red tape tends to increase the level of trade.

Are we meant to deduce from that that being in the EU somehow prevented the UK from introducing these state-of-the-art passports? Who'd have thought that blue pigmentation could be so powerful?

CheapER labour. Isn't this how market economies are meant to function? New entrants to the market and all that. Isn't this also a variation of the protectionist argument that Brexiters are keen to level against the EU?

Then you shouldn't have taken the original post and used it out of context How on earth can you possibly reach this conclusion? (see my original post at the bottom of this post). It's in the bloody report!!! Unless someone is extracting the urine, the government thought that it was worth publishing. Maybe there is. As I keep saying, I gave up at p.20. Maybe you could point out any interesting bits further on in the document? Not for the first time, you are being selective and pedantic. It seems like you've also decided to throw flawed logic into the mix this time as well!! Please explain how you can accuse me of being deceptive based on my original post? (given below IN FULL, together with KhunLA's post for completeness) -------------- I started on p.5 and got to p.20 before giving up. Achievements include reintroducing blue passports; suggesting that imperial measurements might be used instead of metric and the 'jewel in the crown' (pun intended), enabling businesses to use a crown symbol on pint glasses. And to think that the government of the UK allowed such banality to be published under its' name.

(In future, could you please read previous posts in the thread. I have commented on this government publication earlier. Thanks.) Anyway ... Yes, it is cherry picking. However, feel free to pick something you consider more substantial from that document and I will try to address it. I'll repeat what I posted previously: I read pages 5 - 18. That was enough for me. There was little that was quantifiable in those 14 pages. Most of the items amounted to a 'Wish list'. Very little has been achieved. Presumably, this explains the need to pad out things with nonsense about crowns on pint glasses? Covered above.

And how does that address my initial question to Kwasaki, who inferred that the EU had problems trading with the rest of the world?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1054643/benefits-of-brexit.pdf (Originally posted by KhunLA two pages back)

I agree completely: It is a minor irrelevant point. However, my point is that the UK government deem it of sufficient worth to warrant a mention as an "achievement" in an official UK government publication! This Brexit supporting government is reduced to listing the re-introduction of blue passports, the printing of crowns on pint glasses and the deletion of the metric system as an essential form of measurement as justification for the chaos of the last six years. It beggars belief.

The irony isn't lost on me. In 2016 I had been living in Belgium for 15 years. I did not have a vote on an issue which had a direct impact on my life. A Brit living in Thailand for less than 5 years - the majority of whom seemed to be Brexiters - were eligible to vote. Am I still bitter? Yep. As has pointed out on numerous occasions, it is far from done and dusted e.g. the Protocol, the service industries, etc. That may be your experience. It's not mine. For the person working on the shop floor who never travels to the EU that might be true. Alternatively, that shop floor employee might have worked for a company trading with an EU member state. That business may have been negatively affected by Brexit and the employee might have been made redundant. Your part of the country must attract a different type of young European to mine (South London). Those I come into contact with are charming (although I agree, unfortunately, there appear to be fewer of them).