RayC

Yeah. That's working a treat so far.

Combined value of the EU internal market = $14.52 trillion. Value of the UK market = $3.089 trillion. If you are India, China, the US or anyone else for that matter, it is pretty clear which market you would look to prioritise. You give the typical Brexiter response in saying that having left the EU, the UK will avoid a decline. However, again in typical Brexiter fashion, you offer no indication about how this is to be achieved. Even if your prediction about relative decline does prove to be correct, how long will it take for the size of the UK market to approach that of the EU? As I previously said, the UK's role on the international stage is diminished outside of the EU. The 'special relationship' with the US hasn't been so special since we left the EU. The UK is of use to the US due to our NATO membership, but our importance to the US is diminished now that we are outside of the EU. Irrespective of whether Harris or Trump wins the election, nothing is likely to chance wrt the US's relationship with the UK. The confrontational attitude towards the EU adopted by Johnson, which you appear to favour, has proven to be a dismal failure. Even the hapless Truss seemingly recognised this, as shown by her attending the first European Political Community summit and offering warm words to Macron. Sunak continued to repair the damage done by Johnson and it is to be hoped that Starmer can improve our relationship further.

Somehow foolish and/or weak people become influential within nations. One need look any further than the UK in the last decade to confirm that fact. The UK had the opportunity to restrict the number of immigrants from the countries which joined the EU in 2004 but chose not to. This restriction was lifted in 2011. Why should the EU have offered further concessions to the UK? I don't understand the point that you are trying to make about the Schengen Agreement. The opt-outs to the UK (and Ireland) were given in the 1990s! I already agreed that Brexit has affected the EU, but it has hurt the UK more. Very much a case of cutting off your nose to smike your face. Europe as a whole is a fading power. The US's focus is on the Asia-Pacific region. Nevertheless, Europe remains a significant player. Within that context, the EU far outweighs the UK in terms of importance. A fact recognised by the US, China, India and the rest of the world. The UK is currently, along with France, the most influencial defence player in Europe. However, things are changing rapidly. The EU and Germany in particular are now becoming more active in the defence sphere. I assume that you mean Ukraine? The UK deserves credit for its position regarding Ukraine but the fact remains that the amount of aid given by the EU is 3 times greater than that given by the UK. Tell me which UK leader - with the possible exception of John Major wrt Ireland - has put national interest before short term political gain over the past 50 years? Why do you hold the EU or other European countries to a higher standard than the UK? The UK left the EU. Fact. Why should the EU bend over backwards to accompany a nation which voluntarily decided to leave and where a significant proportion of its' politicians are still hostile to it? Moreover, if it were to give special treatment to the UK, other third countries would ask for similar concessions. Why should the EU cause problems for itself? As I implied in the last paragraph, doing so opens a Pandora's box for the EU. Why would they want to do so? The EU and the UK are in decline but the UK will decline quicker and further outside the EU than within.

How exactly are the EU limiting the freedoms of Switzerland, Norway and the Baltic States' to run things the way that they wish? EU Parliamentary elections are held every five years. The electorate in all EU member states are eligible to vote in these elections. Similarly, elections to the various national assemblies are held in the individual EU member states at various periodicity. Again, the respective national electorates are free to cast their vote for whomever they like. Therefore, I don't understand how and why you conclude that, "... asking the people is anathema to the EU"?

This can't be correct! Russia interfering in a neighbouring state's affairs? Say it ain't so, Vlad and we can then all rest easy.

You're right. The EU is weaker without the UK. As Michel Barnier said, "There are no winners with Brexit". However, what was utter lunacy was the nonsensical notion promulgated by the Flat Earth Brigade (the ERG) that, 'they (the EU) need us more than we need them': The UK has lost more than the EU. There is a wealth of evidence showing the negative economic effect of Brexit on the UK economy. In addition, the UK's standing on the world stage is diminished as a result of Brexit: Washington and Beijing bypass London nowadays and go straight to Berlin, Brussels and Paris. Let's not forgot that the UK left the EU, not vica versa, so it is natural to expect the UK to make the first move in any resetting of the relationship. In that regard, Starmer and, indeed, Sunak deserve credit for trying to repair the damage done by Johnson's foolhardy confrontational attitude to the EU.

This article - which is almost entirely devoid of anything that might be considered a fact - was written by Lord David Frost: That's right, the very same David Frost who was Boris Johnson's Chief Brexit negotiator, and who was instrumental in negotiating the existing EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement, which almost everyone - Leaver or Remainer - agrees is a bad deal for the UK. The UK had a bad hand to play during the Brexit negotiations; Frost made that hand worse by his incorrect reading - and inept playing - of the situation. He now has the gall to lecture others on how to negotiate with the EU. You couldn't make this up if you tried.

Why the opposition to this proposal? It is very limited in its' scope. It does not form part of a broader immigration strategy. It merely offers youngsters the opportunity to have a different cultural experience ... oh, hold on ..... I might have answered my question: We don't want to run the risk of any of that dirty continental culture finding its' way into our pure British culture, do we?

Can you explain how?

Year the first Brexit benefit appears? If so, you are clearly more optimistic than Jacob Rees-Moog; he reckons that it was will take 70 years for the benefits to become obvious.

The direction of travel will be (largely) dictated by the cost. Maybe all will become clearer after the budget

I disagree completely. Where are these many proven examples? Where is the evidence that the Single Market has had a negative effect on flexibility(?), energy production and technology within the EU? Far from being a disaster, the Single Market has been an overwhelming success. The free movement of goods, services, capital and human resources have all stimulated economic growth. In addition, the combined value of the Single Market means that the EU has a far superior position compared to the UK when it comes to negotiating external trade deals. The EU model was not predicated on a "United States of Europe", and the very fact that it operates outside of this model proves that federalism is not a necessary condition for its' existence However, you do have a point wrt the ECB. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as to say that the ECB is "a dead flogged horse", it is certainly far from a Derby winner. The ECB has been largely successful in controlling inflation throughout its' existence, but it was almost completely ineffective when it came to regulatory matters for the first 15 years of irs' existence. It is now more proactive in this regard. The elephant in the ECB's room is not so much its' lack of fiscal tools but the single currency itself. The introduction and implementation of the Euro was completely blotched. Whether the fiscal and monetary rules governing the implementation of the Euro would have been sufficient to allow to be a success is highly debatable. What is incontestable is that having developed rules to then disregard them completely was an act of wanton irresponsibility, and the member states continue to pay the price today. ? You supply no evidence to support the rhetoric. Where and how has the UK economy diversified since Brexit? The UK is still reliant on services, in particular the Financial Services sector. Whilst it is true that some banks are re-locating their HQs back to the UK, during the period 2018 and 2021, there was an 18% decrease in financial services exports to the EU, with only a 4% increase in exports to non-EU countries to offset it. This is in addition to the exodus of capital in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. Wrt goods. There has been no significant upturn in manufacturing in the UK, and the much promised trade deals with the US, China, India, etc - which were supposedly going to be so simple to conclude outside of the EU - remain nothing more than a figment of a Brexiter's imagination. If this is success then the sooner the Labour government scupper it, the better.

What is ludicrous is the casual manner in which you imply that Russia's historical attitude to Ukraine has no bearing on Russian foreign policy when, in fact, the exact opposite is the case. The article is extremely balanced. It acknowledges "The West's" involvement in Ukraine, however what it doesn't do - as you imply in the section which you quote - is that the current conflict is the fault of "The West". The following paragraph is more relevant of the overall tone of the article: "There can be little doubt that NATO expansion irritated Russia and that Putin’s approach to democracy, to Ukraine and to the West did not help, but they cannot have been the root causes of the tension that was present from the moment of Ukraine’s independence. This was rooted more fundamentally in Russia’s conception of its national identity, its borders, and its role in the region." Based on the evidence presented throughout the article, the authors logically conclude that: " .... Russia’s desire to limit Ukraine’s independence and to retake control of at least some part of Crimea did not emerge during the Putin era. Rather they were there from the very beginning. Second, the example set by the Orange Revolution was seen as threatening to Russia because such a revolution might be replicated in Russia. Democracy in Ukraine would undermine the claim that democracy could not work in Russia and would undermine Russia’s geopolitical position. The first point is significant because it undermines two arguments about the source of the 2014 conflict that are made both by critics of the West and by critics of Putin. Critics of the West assert that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was the West’s fault. The central support for this is that NATO enlargement (beginning in 1997) and NATO support for Ukrainian membership (enunciated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit) left Russia little choice but to respond. There is room for considerable debate concerning the wisdom of US, European and NATO policy after 1991, but it cannot be the source of Russia’s designs on Ukraine, which very clearly predated any of the policies that critics point to."

There you go. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/26/russia-west-ukraine-triangle-of-competition-1991-2013/

Imo Assange is an egotistical narcissist. He used every trick in the book - both legal illegal - to avoid extradition to face the charges of rape and sexual assault in Sweden. The Wikipedia entry about the case is damning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#:~:text=On 18 November 2010%2C Marianne,Arrest Warrant to execute it.

I agree with your conclusion, and I'd like to believe your premise that Corbyn's election as leader of the Labour Party was part of some underhand Tory strategy. Unfortunately I think that this act of destruction was self-imposed and no outside influence was at play. Fortunately for Labour, the Tories decided to import this type of political masochism themselves.

Again, we agree: We Yes, we have been through this before and no, it was not until after 2008 that Putin began to target Ukraine. While the attached link offers a very condensed timeline, it makes clear that Russian interference in Ukraine's internal affairs started before 2008. Also note Putin's remark to Bush at the NATO summit in 2008, "Ukraine is not even a nation-state". https://www.cfr.org/timeline/ukraines-struggle-independence-russias-shadow

And you consider this post to be evidence in support of what exactly?

Sweden asked the UK to extradite Assange to Sweden to face charges of rape and sexual assault. Perfectly legitimate behaviour between two countries who both believe in the rule of law. Assange made a conscious decision not to take the opportunity to clear his name but, instead to go on the run and play the victim (as he seemingly continues to do).

I doubt that Nawalny felt safe in Germany given Putin's propensity to assassinate opponents outside of Russia. Perhaps, Nawalny reasoned that he would be safer in full view i.e. in Russia?

This idea that the MSM is left-leaning is hardly supported by the evidence. In the UK, the Sun, Express, Mail and Telegraph are all right-of-centre with only the Mirror and Guardian on the left. I can't claim to know to know that much about newspapers in Europe as a whole but I do not from my time in Belgium that, at least, two of the major dailies are centre-right , namely 'Le Soir' and 'La Libre Belgique'. Wrt the inconsistency in labelling of 'far-right' and 'far-left', it appears that some posters are suffering from selective memory loss. It wasn't that long ago when Corbyn was Labour leader, and there wasn't a day that went by without there being a warning about him being a 'far-left, Marxist radical' who was a danger to society.

For once we agree on something: You do have to look at the bigger picture. Since Putin assumed power in 2000, he has continual/ continuously interfered in the affairs of Ukraine (and other neighbouring states). I doubt that scenario formed part of any NATO/ Russia agreements discussed in the '90s. The whole analysis is flawed for that reason alone.

Navalny was 47; married; 2 kids. Very few people in that position have any great desire to be imprisoned, tortured and murdered.

So nothing to see here? We should consider it perfectly normal for a State to murder its' citizens?

You have highlighted yet another problem with the FPTP system. Not only does it return a government which fails to win a majority of the votes cast, many (most?) of the individual MPs have the support of less than 50% of their constituants: The system is inherently flawed and undemocratic. Had the election been run under PR, the UK would probably now have a coalition government comprising of Labour, Lib-Dems and the Greens. No way of knowing, of course, but I doubt that the Winter Fuel cut (and subsequent debacle) would have happened in those circumstances.