RayC

The Fijians changed the ball/ used the same ball throughout; had the sun at their backs/ didn't have the sun at their backs; (add to list of excuses as necessary), otherwise the Aussies would have won by 20 points.

The very same article also contains the following: that the ONS had previously revised 2020 GDP down by 1.7 percentage points in changes last year. So effectively no change to the estimates published at the beginning of 2022. Moreover, this revision was not due to an increase in consumer demand, but to companies not running down stock levels as much as previously thought.

Your opinion. My opinion is that is utter nonsense. How? What's the template? ASEAN? If so, any semblance of quality control, product integrity, etc goes by the wayside. Alternatively, bi-lateral agreements? So each of the current EU member states' enters into individual agreements with each other (+/-350 agreements in total). Not so simple. I would have thought that the difficulties experienced since the referendum result would serve as enough of a reminder. If more evidence of the foolishness of the 2016 decision is needed you could start with the above and add plenty more.

Then I'd return that crystal ball if I were you as it's clearly faulty. (I assume that you are not into self-harm and supported Brexit in the mistaken belief that it would be beneficial for the UK). Rarely. Occasional posts about Thailand and sport. I prefer to stick to subjects where I can tell fact from wishful thinking????

I think you are confused, Trans. The UK did not vote to leave the Federal Republic of Germany for the simple reason that it has never been a member. The UK electorate voted to leave the EU in a referendum in 2016. (Sarcasm alert) Since that decision was made, relations with our biggest trading partner have gone swimmingly and the sunlight uplands, which we were promised, have been permanently lit.

In terms of 'pay out', I think that the UK pension scheme lags many (most?) other European schemes. However - as you infer - the big advantage for ex-pat Brits is the ability to make voluntary payments at what are ridiculously low rates in order to preserve their pension entitlements. I'm not aware of any other state backed pension scheme where this provision is open to all expats.

There's little doubt that EU enlargement - especially eastwards - will present some challenges. However, in her speech yesterday V.d. Leyden pulled back from the 2030 target which Michel has proposed.

Some examples of Sweet FA are shown in the attached article. It's from 2016 and some of the predictions made about Brexit were undeniably overly pessimistic, however, what is interesting is how many have proved correct. https://theconversation.com/what-has-the-eu-ever-done-for-us-57248 Replace 'member states' with 'the public' and it's a complaint probably heard in every country. In any event, what restrictive laws has the UK abandoned since we left the EU? What tangible benefits have they given to the UK public? The common market was an inferior version of the current EU single market. A good example of the difference is illustrated in this thread. Under the common market, you would have very little idea - and a very difficult job in finding out - whether the fruit and veg you brought which originated in, say, Spain was treated with pesticides outlawed in the UK. Under the single market, you would have a lot less to worry about due to common standards (Actually, this was a bad example: I imagine that Spanish agricultural standards are higher than the UK nowadays). I note that you are unable to answer my original question: How will leaving the Single Market and Customs Union improve the German economy?

Imo it probably means that there will be difficult discussions during forthcoming EU budget negotiations among the member states. Now explain how dissolving the Single Market and Customs Union is going to help in this context?

Behind a paywall. In any event, no doubt full of Brexiter wishful thinking.

Funnily enough. I can't see you jesters making a world football final or winning a cricket Test series in England anytime soon either.

Actually Blair was in favour of joining the Euro and Brown was against. An alternative scenario of what might have happened if we had joined. https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/02/britain-euro-what-if-joined

It's not just Thailand. Unfortunately, nowadays the UK Embassies do not apparently provide basic services such as passport renewal anywhere in the world. I was living in BKK in the early '90s. If I remember correctly, in order to renew my passport I trotted along to the Embassy in Wireless Road - can't remember if I needed an appointment - filled out a form, gave them some cash and was told to come back in 2/3 weeks to collect new passport. All worked perfectly. (I believe a similar service was available at the Chang Mai consulate): A similar process occurred when I went to renew my passport in Brussels 10 years later. All changed in early 2010s. Tried to renew my passport at UK Embassy in Brussels once again and was informed that they no longer provide passport services and that I would need to go to London or Paris to do so. Told that it was due to cost cutting. My suggestion that they might like to think about combining the three independent diplomatic missions which the UK had in Brussels - one to the EU; one to NATO and one to Belgium - under one administrative and physical roof in order to save money seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Thanks for posting. For completeness, Part 2

So both Biden and Trump to be jailed. Why not house Congress and the Supreme Court in the same facility? Capital Hill and the White House could then either be turned into social housing or a theme park. Selfishly, my preference is for the second option. I'm always here to help????

Apologies in my previous post there was a rather important omission. The sentence in question should have read "The majority decision is NOT necessarily the right decision". Agreed. Member states can't 'cherry pick' which EU legislation they want to adopt. The bloc could not function if that were the case. Does EU legislation lead to the most optimal outcome? I imagine that the answer is 'Rarely if ever'. Does EU legislation lead to the best compromise outcome for 27 diverse nations? Hopefully, the answer is 'Yes more often than not'. Agreed. Disagree. The EEC had little to say about standards and regulations. Perhaps not when it comes to immigration from non-member states, but it does require freedom of movement of labour and capital within the bloc. That's a much bigger question than Brexit. See above although I disagree with your premise. Once again, I disagree with your assertion but, again, this topic is much wider in scope than Brexit. Power breeds corruption in some individuals, not all. There are those in powerful positions everywhere (including Brussels) who seek to strengthen their position for mainly egotistical reasons. There are other individuals who operate mainly for altruistic purposes. Disagree completely. As I stated previously, the greater the commonality in standards and regulations - and as much of a 'level playing field' as possible - the more integrated, efficient and fairer the 'Single Market' will be. A Common market existed. A Single Market did not. It is an important distinction. For some individuals and groups this is no doubt true but it is not the prevailing view and has very limited support within the member states themselves therefore, I doubt that this will happen anytime soon if ever. Well, I suppose by definition if a nation ceases to exist then it cannot have a national identity. I don't follow developments in the US as closely as I should but there certainly appears to be division. However, haven't there always been differences in values, norms and culture at a regional - if not state level - within the US, while at the same time the 50 states possessing a set of common core values, norms and culture? Moreover, I don't hear anything about individual states wanting to leave the union. Having said all that, I don't really understand what relevance this has for the EU/ Europe? Agreed. Agreed I don't understand your point? Really? How do you jump from a common currency to concluding that a common language will follow? I guess that depends on how long you live for????. Hopefully, you will have a long life. So do I. Undoubtedly there is a lot of bitterness and division in the UK at the moment. I agree. Imo the EU will almost certainly not allow the UK to rejoin on the same favourable terms which it had when it left.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Firstly, the majority of the public in the other 27 EU member states prefer to remain in the bloc. Secondly, the majority decision is necessarily the best decision. I agree. Is that really the case? People, societies and cultures change. Just as our parents' had trouble understanding some of our pastimes and views, we now find ourselves shaking our heads at some of our kids' activities. In any event, how much have national identities really changed? I travel to Belgium and France fairly regularly and wouldn't mistake either for the other. All my opinion of course. Imo this is myth. It is undeniable that the amount of regulation has increased but the EU - and the rest of the world - is more interconnected than it was 50 years ago. Moreover, if the Single Market is function as efficiently as possible then it requires a 'level playing field', and this inevitably, requires more legislation.

You believe that the EU acted belligerently during the Brexit negotiations. You stated this. I think that you are mistaken. What's your point? I didn't say that the EU didn't have a plan. Actually, I think the opposite. The EU negotiators were well prepared and had a clear idea of what they were willing to consider and at what price. If ever a picture painted a story it was the attached. One side prepared, the other ... It's unreasonable to expect that there would be. The 27 member states are all unique. There would need be 28 unique individual plans. For example, Hungary is probably going to be almost completely indifferent to anything to do with the Common Fisheries policy. On the other hand, it will be of major import to e.g. France and Spain

Fortunately, physical health is good. Could have done without the unnecessary stress when living in Belgium which was a direct result of the referendum outcome but all resolved now. No choice but to move on but feel sorry for those younger than me for their loss of opportunity.

Really? Didn't you have a picture of Johnson as your avatar for a while? Weren't you just a little bit smitten?????

I'll get over it when the UK government starts to deliver on the promises made about the benefits of Brexit and when Brexiters start taking responsibility and accountability for the mess they voted for. Until that happens, I'll keep complaining

I think that we can be pretty sure that if the UK had asked for a deal based on, say, the Swiss model and the EU had refused to play ball then we would have been inundated with stories in the Telegraph, Mail and Express berating the EU for its' intransigence, and quoting 'sources close to the UK negotiators'. The fact that no such stories appeared speaks volumes. The fact that the 'Chequers Deal' and the one that was eventually signed were largely dictated by the EU should be no surprise. It was merely a demonstration of the balance of power and that, contrary to what the 'Leave campaign' stated, "They need us more than we need them", the actuality is the exact opposite. In so far as (successive) UK governments had any sort of plan during the Brexit negotiations, it amounted to we want all the benefits of EU membership without any of the costs or responsibilities. You appear to hold the belief which appears common amongst Brexiters that the refusal of the EU to accept this proposal can be seen as proof of their belligerence.

Nothing was off the table during the Brexit negotiations. May coined the phrase, 'Brexit means Brexit' and ruled out remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union. Deals such as 'Swiss', 'Canadian', 'Norway', 'Norway +', etc were all touted - and rejected by the UK - at one stage or another. One cause of the friction during the negotiations was that the UK government had no idea what it wanted and how much it was willing to pay for it.

How about because 1) in layman's terms, the closer a nation is to its' export markets together with 2) the removal of barriers to (market) entry i.e. through the EU Single Market and Customs Union, the greater the volume of trade and increase in economic output (numerous links e.g. UK OBR report provided in the past). Maybe the dopes are those who choose to ignore traditional economic theory and data?

Even the male ones?????