RayC

Difficult to argue with the view that British governance has been (largely) incompetent for a long time but, due to our obligations under bi-lateral agreements with Belgium (and France), I'm not sure that we had any alternative but to enter WW1. However, the cost to individual families and the nation was enormous.

In what way has Brexit turned out pretty good for us (France?) and the EU? I think the opposite. For example, like their British counterparts, European businesses - especially the smaller ones - have suffered as a result of Brexit. What specific problems did the UK's membership of the EU create for the bloc? Being outside of the Eurozone was an issue but was manageable. Sure they were times when the UK had different views about policy and strategy, but that is no different to any other member state and imo inevitable within a bloc of 27/28 members. It's no as if these differences in opinion disappeared when the UK left the bloc. Spain would, no doubt, try to use Gibraltar as a bargaining tool but I very much doubt that it would prove to be a show stopper. Hungary,under Orban, would probably throw obstacles in the way for no other reason than to make mischief. Obviously, the terms of rejoining would be (all) important, but what member states would object to the UK rejoining as a matter of principle ? Having said that, I agree with your next paragraph (at least for the next 10 years or so). Agreed If you are suggesting that Johnson was a charlatan, then you will get no argument from me. However, what are these WTO procedures that the UK supposedly doesn't adhere to? Agreed. There was nothing pragmatic about a vote to Leave. The idea that the UK could as an independent nation dictate the terms of its' trading, and be a major voice in deciding how the world looked was imo totally unpragmatic and was rooted in a craving for 'times lost' i.e. the Empire. The reality since Brexit has shown this to have been delusional.

I rest my case

You really don't like being challenged do you Jonny? You criticised the government for not putting a figure on absolute numbers of immigrants and implying it was oh, so simple to do so - "You won't set a numerical cap because this is all one big dog and pony show. Lip service" - now it's, "Obviously it's difficult to put a specific number on it". Oh, what a difference a couple of hours makes. To be fair, the difficulty of calculating a precise figure didn't faze you and after, no doubt, intensive research you came up with 4,999 immigrants per year as being the optimum number. Bravo. Now I know that my 'back of a fag packet' calculation couldn't possibly compete with your through investigation, but 25-30,000 immigrants arrived each year between 2020 -23 to work as carers. I would have thought that an attrition rate of 10% would be a reasonable assumption, so that would mean 2,500 - 3,000 leaving the industry each year. So that's 2 - 2,500 immigrants per year to work in all the other industries. I suppose at the same time as working as a doctor, these individuals could double up as hospital porters.

So what should that number be?

I agree but unfortunately, the ERG didn't and they were the ones who Teresa May had to listen to, which is why we've ended up where we have.

Heaven forbid that the UK government should try to forge a better diplomatic and trading relationship with our closest neighbours.

Whinging and whining about an event which didn't happen (and was a non-starter from the outset).

😂 Says the bloke who dismissed the findings of a survey without any good reason simply because it doesn't fit his narrative. Some things you just can't make up.

Absolute tosh. What did you expect to happen? That we would wake up on 24 June 2016, and we would be out of the EU and everything would be sorted? In any event, we now have Brexit but some of the loudest moaners about it are not remainers but Brexiters.

Imo the overwhelming majority of EU member states would welcome the UK's readmission. They would be foolish not to. Amongst other things, the UK is the world's 6th biggest economy (by GDP) and a significant military power in Europe. To paraphrase Michel Barnier: 'There were no winners with Brexit'.

The 'confused' emoji should never have been removed.

2+2=5. Your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of this latest poll.

Not without an outcry from the French and German banking sectors, and the considerable risk of negative effects to the EU economy.

What type of regulation have you in mind? Can you give a specific example? The EU can only regulate the affairs of its' member states or companies which wish to operate within the bloc. If the EU makes it more difficult for third country companies to do business within the EU, they will either look outside the bloc or, alternatively, pass on the opportunity. Neither outcome is in the EU's interest. Moreover, how could an EU regulation prevent US and Japanese financial companies, negotiating a settlement in Euros, doing so through London if they so wished? I don't see how applying increased regulation to EU financial institutions will improve their competitiveness and increase market share.

If the EU increases financial regulation it will apply equally to the US financial sector. Far from driving business from London to Frankfurt, it may well either aid London's position or, alternatively, lead to US financial companies downsizing their European operations. Clearly, neither outcome is in Frankfurt's best interests.

Maybe in time Asian financial centres will gain at London's expense but, in the short/medium term, London's position as the world's second most important financial centre looks reasonably secure.

Nonsense. Surveys are not foolproof but reputable organisations such as YouGov use valid sampling techniques. You can't dismiss the findings of a survey simply because you don't like its' findings.

An attempt to stifle the City of London by regulation by the EU might also have the undesired effect of driving US institutions away. The only winner then will be New York. There certainly was a lot of fear about passporting, but Armageddon has been avoided (up to now). The EU realises that it is not in their best interests for the City of London to fail. Yes, there has been some peripheral damage. We agree. I'd say it was the reverse. There are pockets of severe decay but most places are fine. The major conurbations such as London and Manchester are much better places to live now compared with 40 years ago. For reasons which I have stated previously, I don't believe that there will be a major relocation of financial services from London to Frankfurt. However, playing devil's advocate, if this were to occur the effect would be huge. Why would major financial institutions feel the need to keep a presence in London? In all probability, London would become akin to what Leeds is now and provide a few niche financial services. Pharma is an important industry in the UK but its' presence would do nothing to mitigate against the effects of the demise of the City of London. I don't doubt for one minute that the UK needs the EU and US more than they need us, however, to casually dismiss a major downturn in the UK economy as insignificant - especially to the EU - is over-simplifying matters. What we see from events in the US is that even the world's largest economy cannot dictate the terms under which world trade is conducted.

55% of people in the UK now think that Brexit was a mistake, compared with 30% who think it was the right thing to do. If Starmer loses very soon it won't be because of a Brexit reset.

Not so for any number of reasons. Many EU financial centres e.g Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris have tried - and largely failed - to entice financial institutions to relocate from the City of London. This highlights the first reason why a major relocation has not occurred: Intra-EU competition. A second reason is that many (most?) of the major financial institutions already had a presence in continental Europe, therefore the City's loss of passporting rights meant that the impact was limited: Some functions were relocated but the hub remained in London. Thirdly, London has a dominant position in some markets e.g. foreign exchange trading where 38% of global transactions are conducted. Fourthly, the intellectual expertise and infrastructure cannot simply be replicated overnight in Frankfurt, etc: There is also the 'human element'. It appears that US financial executives simply prefer London as a city to its' continental counterparts. I could go on but you get the gist. Again, not true. There can be no doubt that the UK has problems - which country doesn't? - but it is far from a failed state and it is - contrary to what some of the ex-pat doom mongers on ASEAN now might suggest - still a fairly decent place to live for the majority of people. However, having said that the loss of a significant proportion of the financial service sector would be a major blow to the country as financial related services contribute about 12% to the UK's total economic output (gross value added), or £275 billion. This represents around 3.4% of UK GDP and contributed 10.1% of total UK tax receipts (Source: Google AI). Yet again, not the case. Notwithstanding the fact that the 'transfer' of functions may not be a simple and smooth process, as I stated in the previous paragraph the effect that this would have the UK economy would be significant, and the knock-on effect for the EU economy sizeable; 13% (+/-$330bn) of EU exports and 9% (+/-$180bn) of EU imports go to/ come from the UK. A reduction of say, 10%, in these figures - due to the loss of purchasing power on the part of the British consumer/ manufacturer would be significant for the EU. As I showed above, if the EU were to regulate the UK out of existence, it would be a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face. I credit them with more savvy than that.

I am not making out you wrote something which you didn't. Your words: "Some people might claim that vandalism and destruction of property is in some way a creative expression of something.", and that's what I commented on: Imo it's not unreasonable to think that on a thread about a court case concerned with the felling of a tree that the posts might be related to that subject. Anyway, enjoy your weekend.

If you are not suggesting that the possibility that this tree caused offence to these individuals' sense of aesthetic beauty and, therefore, should in some way be considered as mitigating circumstances, then what is your point? That we all have a subjective concept of beauty? Yes, agreed. And?

You wrote, "Some people might claim that vandalism and destruction of property is in some way a creative expression of something." Sounds a lot a way of excusing the act; in other words, a defence.

In other word, 'They need us more than we need them'. I heard that before somewhere🤔😂