RayC

I agree broadly with most of what you say. It will be no surprise that I believe that the UK loses economically, culturally and politically by it's absence from the EU, therefore the sooner we rejoin the better as far as I'm concerned. Nevertheless, I accept that is not going to happen anytime soon. I am against referendums in principle as I believe that we elect governments to govern, but I accept that it will be difficult for any party to stand on a platform of rejoining the EU without committing to one. My timescales for any referendum are actually slightly longer than yours. Assuming a UK government lasts 4 years, there will be an election in 2032. By then, we should be in a position to see what the medium-term effects of Brexit have been and to have an indication of the long-term prospects. Imo any pro-EU party should commit to negotiating the terms of re-admission with the EU over the 2032-34 period with a view to a referendum being held sometime in 2034-36. We would then re-join immediately if the vote is in favour of doing so. (All this is, of course, dependent on the EU agreeing). Your checklist of questions isn't imo exhaustive (you didn't claim it was) but it is useful and the answers should be clearly stated in any future referendum literature. Just a shame that the inept Remain campaign didn't think to press the Leave campaign with like-minded questions in the run-up to the 2016 referendum. NB. Cameron and May were (are still?) Remainers. Sunak was - and appears still is - a Brexiter. Johnson is an opportunist. Truss is a 'poacher turned gamekeeper' - Remainer turned Brexiter - amongst many other things.

He would probably have enjoyed that. After all, he was seen grabbing his crotch during the game.

What we can say is up to now Brexit hasn't delivered the benefits promised. When will be the right time to make a judgement? I agree that the post-Brexit governments have been inept however, it was never - and still isn't - clear what they were meant to implement because Brexit politicans either 1) hadn't given it much thought or 2) had differing ideas about what it should look like. Brexit was all about leaving the EU. There was - and isn't - a plan for what comes next. Imo the negotiations about the conditions for rejoining would have to take place before any referendum. The public could then make an informed opinion about how they wish to vote unlike last time.

See explanation. Rule applies to all 3rd countries (non-EU countries), so nothing to do with EU being sore at the UK for leaving. https://trans.info/uk-government-drivers-entering-eu-to-be-prohibited-from-taking-cheese-or-ham-sandwiches-214431

How has/ is the EU being unreasonable?

And there we have it. Conclusive proof that Brexit has been beneficial for the UK????

1st paragraph from the BBC match report: "England's wait to win a first Women's World Cup title goes on after Spain deservedly triumphed in the final in Sydney." I would contend that this is a view held by most English fans including myself. Which bit of this demonstrates arrogance and being a bad loser? She's won a European title and reached the WC final. Yeah, good idea. Let's sack her???? It's a turn of phrase. The first paragraph seems pretty clear. Spain played well and deserved to win. If you seriously believe the claim made in that article 'proves' that the codified version of football which is played worldwide today has its' origins in Scotland, then you are as deluded as the "leading historian"???? who suggested this nonsensical proposal. https://www.britannica.com/sports/football-soccer/Professionalism Maybe try to push your xenophobic bias to one side.

The EU is so "notoriously left wing" that the president of the Commission is a Christian Democrat (v.d. Leyen), the president of the parliament is from a centre-right party (Metsola) and the president of the Council is a Liberal (Michel). Yet another example of your irrational paranoia when it comes to the EU.

Tbf that article appears to refer to a match between two teams of mainly vets players. The English WSL is only a few years old and the quality seems to improve season by season. Nevertheless, as you say there doesn't seem to be a great deal of strength in depth below the top level. Hopefully, it will come in time. I do get frustrated by some of the BBC's coverage of women's football (and cricket). Almost every example of a good piece of play is lauded as if nothing like it has been seen before, whereas mistakes are either ignored or some flimsy (and usually erroneous) excuse is made (e.g "the ball bobbled", "that missed catch looks worse than what it is", etc.). Call it for what it is; the viewer can (mostly) see what happened. Careful what you wish for. The only alternative to the female commentaters appears to be Jonathan Pearce!????

That rather depends what you mean by dependent. Less than 1 in 5 people in the EU work in the public sector and the provision of many service utilities e.g. electricity, transport, communications, etc are, at least partly, owned by private or stock exchange listed companies. However, it's true that there is greater provision of centralised, publicly funded welfare services - such as medical care - in the EU/ UK than in the US. Imo such provision is a good thing but that's a discussion for another thread. (Bold text is unintentional)

You might be right, but as I mentioned previously, it is also no easier trying to turn back the tide (no pun intended) at the Channel or en route. The simple fact is that it is a very difficult problem to solve. I don't know whether that is true. (The following paragraph is not directed at you) However even allowing that it may be, I wonder what the view of those in the UK who favour unilaterally returning intercepted illegal immigrants to France would be if the boot was on the other foot i.e. crossings were made in the opposite direction (from England to France). Would they be keen to spend money on what would become a problem for France and/or accept returnees? Imo it will take a crisis on an unprecedented scale for the EU (states) to consider amending Schengen. Each member state is responsible for defining its' policy(ies) wrt illegal immigrants. Perhaps, an EU-wide policy would be beneficial but it's I'd suggest that it's unlikely that the likes of Hungary would cede their authority. Postscript: I am writing this while watching the 6 o'clock news. There was a piece about the Channel crossings. Doesn't say anything new but reinforces my view that there are no easy, quick-fixes. I imagine that some will make their own way; others will pay smugglers but I think that you knew this already.

I have mixed feelings about advertisements such as these and also some of the media coverage which imo infers that elite women's football - and women's sport in general - is the equal of men's in terms of skill and quality. Imo in most sports - for whatever reasons - that is not the case, although I appreciate that they are trying to combat some of the more bigoted and misogynistic views among the (male) sporting public. I can't claim to have watched many of the matches at this WC in full but, based on the relatively small number which I have seen, I'd wager that the number of misplaced passes, for example, in this women's WC greatly outweighs the number seen in the last men's WC. Personally, I'd rather enjoy women's sport in it's own right and for what it is rather than measure it against the yardstick of men's sport and have the media pretend that it is something that it isn't.

I doubt that the French are very keen on having gangs of smugglers living and working on their territory and unauthorized immigrants living on their land. The border forces on both sides of the Channel face a thankless task. The coastline is +/-500km long. It is impossible to police it to the extent that it becomes impenetrable. Stop the boats departing from the area around the Calais region and they will simply move to another part of Normandy. The same problem exists at France's land borders. They are simply too long to police. Merkel's well-meaning but ill conceived 'open border' policy was a disaster and, as you rightly say, has made a bad situation, worse. The EU are not going to abandon Schengen, so imo the problem has to be tackled at source. How to do this is another matter. (I don't understand your point about revising French and EU immigration policies).

Now, now. Michel Barnier warned you that you wouldn't be allowed to cherry pick. The wider EU and Eurozone forecasts tell a different story. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2023/07/10/world-economic-outlook-update-july-2023#Projections https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/economic-forecast-and-surveys/economic-forecasts/winter-2023-economic-forecast-eu-economy-set-avoid-recession-headwinds-persist_en It's about time that you took off your blinkers, removed your earplugs and accepted that the overwhelming body of evidence from respected sources (selection below) indicate that Brexit has, to date, been an almost complete disaster. The links offer mainly quantifiable economic evidence. Things are just as bad on the qualitative side e.g. exclusive of UK from expert bodies such as Horizon. And where are the promised benefits? How have we used our new found sovereignty to improve matters? Where are the changes to the constitution and regulations to enhance our well-being that we were promised? The new trade deals and other economic benefits? Our increased standing on the world stage? https://www.ft.com/video/91b8a350-5817-4b40-a5ea-c62ec832aa9c https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions https://ukandeu.ac.uk/research-papers/?_sft_theme=brexit-the-eu-and-the-world (Take your pick of the reports from this last link. You might even find the odd Brexit benefit although, of course, any will be completely outweighed by the negatives)

But wasn't it to be expected? After all, the EU need us more than we need them. Only natural therefore that they should structure their policies and strategies to match the UK's. Probably only a matter of time before the EU asks to join the UK. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth ......

England were the better side and largely controlled proceedings throughout the 90 minutes. However, Australia probably had the more clear-cut chances. High quality match. Good advertisement for women's football.

Another sharp and incisive comment from a self-proclaimed independent mind.

And you talk about honouring commitments!???? The UK was almost inevitably going to have to accept what the EU offered during the Brexit negotiations as - contrary to what 'Vote Leave' would have us believe - we need them more than they need us. Of course, matters weren't helped by 1) the complete lack of a coherent UK negotiating strategy; however, this was to be expected given that Brexiters couldn't agree amongst themselves what Brexit actually meant/entailed and 2) the combative and hostile attitude shown by the likes of Lord Frost and the rest of his friends in the Flat Earth brigade during the negotiations. If the opposite had been the case, we might have got a slightly better deal. However, I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies as - hard as it may be to imagine - the problems caused by Brexit would probably have been even more pronounced if the UK negotiating team had adopted your stance. The bottom line is that (most) Brexiters refuse to accept accountability and responsibility for the mess created by their own hands; it's always someone's else's fault. Therefore, it shouldn't be any surprise that problems go unsolved and escalate.

Of course it is. The whole strategic vision of the EU is nowadays focussed on making the UK pay for having the temerity to leave the bloc. It's all they ever talk about in Brussels and the 27 member state capital cities.????

Obviously I engaged. That is a fact. Unfortunately, I worked on the assumption that you might have something of interest/ substance to offer on the subject. Clearly, my assumption was incorrect.

So you just threw the suggestion out there as a 'Discussion Point'? You have no opinion on the matter, and were simply encouraging the rest of us to engage in discourse? You - as became patently obvious - would offer nothing of substance to further the debate? If you decide to do this in future, could I please ask you to make it clear. I have no interest in engaging in a discussion revolving around pedantry, semantics and obfuscation, which is what you have turned this into. Thanks.

Many of your statements would suggest otherwise. People would be hard pushed to construe them as facts.

All of a sudden you start to believe in the results of polls ????

What a bizarre comment! Imo your time would be put to best use helping yourself.

Both sides should be able to find something here to support their respective views. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d8deac18-3a1d-11ee-81cd-1bf34cc855cb?shareToken=a4204c8f4447ed5504981a29076020b4