RayC

Good morning/ afternoon, Trans. Hope all is well? Raymond? Only my mother ever called me Raymond! PS 4am is a bit early for me????

I am not being churlish. I am disagreeing with your premise that in order to be a patriot, you also have to be a monarchist.

Goodwill will only come into play if the partners trust each other. It's hardly surprising that it was/is in short supply given that the UK backtracked - and continues to backtrack - on its commitments. Why should this be amusing? 27 other states remain independent within the EU as did the UK when it was a member.

Which basically consisted of the right wing press falsely stating that the EU forced rules on the unwilling UK when, in reality, up until the referendum the UK had to enact only 3% of EU legislation against its' wishes. I'd hardly call that better informed. (Please don't ask for a link. I have supplied it numerous times in the past. You should be able to find it somewhere on fullfacts.org). It is almost invariably the case that the senior partner in a bi-lateral negotiation dictates the process and outcome, so it was no surprise that the EU dictated matters. Not much May could have done about it (even if she could have dealt with the back-stabbing ERG members in her own party). You didn't fall for that old claptrap about the EU needing us more than we need them, did you? Probably because it didn't foresee a member state being stupid enough to want to leave. Why "typical EU"? The NI unionists were more than happy when they held the balance of power. They were also victims of May's ill-judged gamble to call an election. They probably knew that Johnson and the ERG would have no qualms about throwing them under a bus when the need arose. Completely disagree. The main concern of the Scottish loyalists is to remain part of the UK. If that meant staying in the EU then so be it. In 10 years time, there is the distinct possibility that a Scottish loyalist may find him/herself part of an independent Scotland within the EU. If so, it will be at least, partly due to the result of the vote to leave (the EU) and the subsequent deal. No unionist would have voted for that.

I'll play the pedant here. The majority of the electorate who could be bothered to vote, voted to leave. Nevertheless, you are correct. The result of the referendum was clear: The UK should leave the EU. However, were the majority of Britons better informed about the EU than they were in the '70s? Questionable. And if they were, was the information that they were provided with factually correct? Highly debatable? In any event, I doubt that many people - Leave or Remain - foresaw the type of deal that would be signed or its' effects. This leads to a number of questions. Would those in NI who voted 'Leave', do so now given the problems that have been created/(re)surfaced there? Would a 'Leave' voting Scottish loyalist have voted that way if s/he had realised that this would increase support, and lend a certain amount of legitimacy, to calls for another Scottish referendum? All hypothetical questions of course, and any answers are pure conjecture but I have my doubts.

I was being flippant. My apologies; it was totally misplaced. I agree that the West has to put on a strong, united front and hope that will be enough to see Putin back down. The removal of Putin might be the best option although as others have warned, there are individuals lurking in the shadows who are potentially even more dangerous than Putin. Worrying times.

I'm not sure that mutual destruction is the optimal outcome for anyone.

Again more right-wing arrogance. Those who don't share my views should leave the country. A philosophy straight out of the Dark Ages. It's perfectly possible to embrace and enhance the positive elements of our cultural heritage, while discarding the negative and/or outdated elements.

Fair enough. No it doesn't. You are basically saying that the constitution is fixed forever.

I agree that to suggest that the UK is in a poorer state solely because of Brexit is overstating things. Moreover, showing a casual link - as opposed to simple correlation - between events is extremely difficult. However, most economists agree that Brexit has already had a negative impact on the UK. The time when the perceived benefits of Brexit seems to disappear further into the distance all the time. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we are all dead". Any benefits won't be of much use to us then.

Each to his own. My tuppence worth. To me: Cameron is a privileged, entitled toff who views the country's politics as a toy with which he can amuse himself. May is a decent woman who acts with a sense of duty, and in a manner in which she thinks is in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately, she made strategic mistakes from which she could not recover. Johnson is similar to Cameron with the addition of being an opportunistic chancer, who (apparently) would stop at nothing to further his own personal cause. I have nothing but contempt for the man.

I didn't mention the size of Johnson's victory because it didn't seem relevant but, yes I agree it was a landside. I also agree that the Labour party's Brexit response was disjointed and that the Lib Dems call for a so-called 'Peoples Vote' was misguided. (I never supported it). However, is the current state of the country what the electorate wants? I assume that you are a Brexiter and a Tory supporter (apologies if I am wrong). Is the current situation what you envisaged in 2016 (or even 2019)? Are you happy with the current political state of affairs?

I think that you make a good point. Personally, I hope that a federal Europe is neither absolutely necessary or inevitable although I struggle to see an alternative solution to the problems posed by monetary union. That said, I also struggle to understand the mechanics of the capital markets so, hopefully, there is another solution?????

Absolute arrogant right-wing tosh. The only true British patriot is a narrow-minded, insular zealot, eh? Just because I have a different vision of what I want the UK to look like doesn't make me any less of a patriot than you.

Yet again you've misunderstood and misinterpreted one of my posts. To (hopefully) avoid any further confusion on your part, here's my full(ish) view of the Brexit process. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to disagree with my analysis. (Strap yourself in. It's a long one). We can agree that Cameron campaigned for 'Remain' and therefore almost certainly voted that way. However, my point is that Cameron called the referendum when he didn't need to. Granted he was obliged to hold it once he won the 2014 general election as a commitment to do so had appeared in the Tories manifesto. However, it only appeared there because Cameron believed that 'Remain' would win. This would have quietened - at least temporarily - the Brexit element of his party. In essence, Cameron put his own political needs above those of the country. It was an unnecessary gamble made for personal gain. We all know the result: The gamble failed; the country's divided as a result and we are at loggerheads with the EU. May also gambled by calling a general election, which she hoped would strengthen her position. Again, the gamble failed. She then compounded this error by rejecting the possibility of the UK remaining in the Single market and/or Customs Union, thereby severely limiting her negotiating position. Johnson managed to make a bad situation worse. Despite warnings from his allies (the DUP) that they would not support the deal he intended to sign, he went ahead and did so. Almost every political commentator warned beforehand that this would result in the NI Assembly collapsing and threaten 25 years of peace on the island of Ireland. Lo and behold, this is what transpired. Johnson then threatened to tear up an international agreement which he had signed only a year before. The only conclusion one can make about Johnson is that he was either (1) incompetent or (2) a liar (as he had no intention of honouring the terms of an agreement which he had freely entered into) ..... Phew .... In summary, Cameron's decision to hold a referendum was the catalyst for this chaos and that is why I blame him. Truss will have to go some to make matters worse but who knows she might succeed. It is becoming clearer by the day that the 52% were sold a pup.

Not so according to someone who worked very closely with her https://www.dw.com/en/would-margaret-thatcher-be-in-favor-of-brexit/a-43252699 Cameron put his and the Tory party's needs (in that order) before those of the country. The actions of May and Johnson have made matters worse but imo the main culprit for the mess, that we find ourselves in is 'The Boy David'.

If Cameron had listened to Thatcher's advice regarding referendums, and been less concerned with bolstering his position within the Tory party, we would have avoided this Brexit fiasco.

The implication being that anyone who doesn't hold the same views as you doesn't support their country?

My original comment from Page 1: "I find it hard to believe that tourists visit the UK because they think that they are going to bump into the head of state on their travels." When placed in the wider context of the overall discussion, I am clearly exaggerating for effect. However, even taken literally I stand by the comment unless, of course, you want to tell me that you visit, say, the US in the belief that the President is going to invite you to the White House for afternoon tea? Feel free to send me your next one(s)

4 pages of examples in this thread if you care to (re) read it. ???? Please show me where my comments have changed

It was the (Tory) government's decision to hold a referendum. (Not sure how "the leader" of the country felt about that????)

I disagree. Imo the EU Single Market and Customs Union are success stories and have contributed significantly to member states' economic growth and the welfare of its' citizens. In addition, as a bloc, the 27 member states are much powerful economically (and politically) on the world stage, than they could ever hope to be individually. Sadly, the UK is discovering this as it labours to agree favourable trade deals with other nations and make its' voice heard on the international arena. I agree that at a macro-economic level, monetary union (the Euro) has been a failure. Imo the venture was ill conceived and it is difficult to see how the problems can be solved without complete monetary (and fiscal union).

???? No, sorry to disappoint. Two separate individuals who seem to have similar views about a number of issues. One other thing that we have in common: We have both put forward arguments in this thread that you seem unable to counter????????

Brexit wasn't enough for some people. Nothing less than the disintegration of the EU will do. Sadly that seems to be the view of many in the UK government. Is it any wonder that the relationship between the EU and UK is so bad?

If that's the case, then I can't see the point. Surely the PM has enough on his/her plate without attending non-essential meetings?