RayC

Congratulations, Jonny. Even by your standards, it's impressive how you managed to weave your irrational anti-EU narrative into the discussion. Sorry to disappoint you but neither Italy nor Spain will be leaving the EU anytime soon.

I'll admit to personal interest and bias, but I just couldn't - and still can't - see the economic benefit of being outside of the Single Market and Customs Union. In addition, the idea - implied, if not directly stated by many on the 'Vote Leave' side - that a medium-sized country such as the UK could dictate the terms of any agreements with behemoths such as China and the US was, being generous, naive. It's a truism to say that member states of the EU delegate some sovereignty to the EU and that (very) occasionally, countries are forced to enact laws against their wishes. However, such examples are few and far between, not least because the policies and strategies of the EU are agreed in advance by the European Council (the group comprising of the Heads of government of the member states). I'd agree that some of the smaller states might be 'railroaded' into accepting a policy direction that they might disagree with, but that would not apply to the UK as it was one of the three 'big' players. In effect, the UK - along with France and Germany - had the power to veto EU policy at the initiation stage if it wanted to. So while sovereignty was a theoretical issue, I don't think that it was necessarily that much of a practical problem. I think that the likes of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg promised a bonfire of EU legislation. I'd suggest that there are three possible distinct, though not mutually exclusive, reasons for this not happening. Firstly, the realisation that some - the vast majority perhaps? - inherited EU law is, in fact, useful and should be retained. Secondly, that any 'bad' laws are not easily identifiable (and therefore, not that 'bad' perhaps?) and, thirdly that those in favour of retracting these 'bad' laws have little idea of how to go about this practically without vastly increasing the already large number of civil servants. Is/ Was that ever a practical objective? I don't think that there's much evidence to suggest that the Benelux countries and Italy are afforded higher status and/or privileges compared with other members: France and Germany - as the two biggest powers - certainly have more influence. 2015: I assume that you are referring to Merkel refusing to offer concessions to Cameron? She was probably acting as spokesperson for the other members 2019: I assume that this relates to the Brexit negotiations? Imo the EU held all the cards and it was inevitable that it would dictate the terms of any agreement. The (understandable) attempt by the UK to drive a wedge between the member states e.g. by playing on the threat to Ireland of a possible breakdown in the 'Good Friday' Agreement failed. Poor and weak leadership: Maybe. I'm not a fan of VDL, but I think that Šefčovič is very impressive. Wastefulness: Imo it could be a lot more efficient. Bad policies: Well, if so I think that the member states are to blame. They dictate the direction for EU policy. Fading Economies: Europe is declining as both an economic and political force. I'd suggest that the EU - the sum being greater than the parts - has actually slowed this decline, rather than accelerate it.

Now that you've heard about GB News does that mean the UK is no longer in trouble?

That 'wrong cause' being defending yourself against an invader?

Fair play to you for answering the question directly; that is more than any other poster complaining about a fudged Brexit has managed to do. I'm not sure that it would actually be possible to roll back the UK to pre-EC days but - assuming that it is - I'm even less convinced that it would be in anyone's interest to do so. Firstly, we would be trading under something worse than WTO rules. The difficulties and negative impact of trading under the current 'Withdrawal Agreement' has been plain to see. Introducing further barriers to trade e.g. tariffs, would make a bad situation worse which would be in no one's interests. A move such as you suggest would also presumably involve getting rid of all legislation inherited from the EU. Once again, there are obviously logistical problems associated with this approach but, yet again, I question the desirability of doing so. For every 'bendy banana' law that is despensed with, another relating to food safety would also go. No doubt, there are bad laws which have been inherited from the EU, but a wholesale withdrawal of all EU law from the UK Stature Book is, imo once again, in no one's interest. Imo Brexit has achieved two successes to date: 1) A reduced tariff rate on exports to the US vis-a-vis the EU and 2) A trade deal with India. Given the lack of detail regarding all US tariff deals, it remains to be seen just how big a win that success proves to be: In a similar vein, judgement may need to be revised about the India-UK deal if the EU and India can come to an agreement. In any event, I don't consider either event sufficient justification for Brexit. To conclude, imo the reason why Brexit has failed - and will continue to fail - is not due to a flawed implementation strategy, rather it is due to a flawed concept.

Not so. Many were Muslim.

That was possible when we were an EU member.

Given that you generally come across as a polite, helpful chap I'd be grateful if you could repeat the answer here. Thanks.

AN's version of 'Groundhog Day, Jonny, just on a more regular basis. You: This isn't the Brexit which I voted for Me: What should Brexit have looked like then? You: <Insert evasive non-answer here>

Thanks. I assume that I won this award for 'Most constructive comment'?

There are +/-10m non-native residents in the UK and +/-4m Muslims (UK and foreign-born). The overwhelming majority of both groups are both law-abiding and integrate as best they can.

I have asked this question so many times that I have lost count but, what exactly should have been done differently to ensure that Brexit would be a success?

And you consider your post constructive? (I added the second thumbs-down).

Conclusive proof. Close the thread🤦

As has been pointed out. It's normal for elections to be suspended during wartime No, Frank I have not forgotten how corrupt Ukraine was but that it no way either 1) proves that Zelenskyy is lying when he says that there was no deal for Johnson to scupper and/or 2) justifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine, especially given that Russia is equally - if not even more - corrupt

You're too late. Unfortunately, she apparently exploded and the EU is now a war zone as a result.

Frank, The article appears under the name, Volodymyr Zelenskyy who - as you know - is the President of Ukraine and one of the men who would have to agree to the terms of any peace deal. So when the very same Volodymr Zelenskyy states that Boris Johnson did not talk him out of a peace deal for the simple reason that a peace deal did not exist, the rational thing to do - in the absence of evidence showing that Zelenskyy is lying - is to accept the statements as fact. Whether the accounts of WMDs, Saddam's babies, Assad gassing his people, Anthrax, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Elvis being seen alive in a chip shop in Scunthorpe, etc, etc are true or not is completely irrelevant to this issue. Frank, for the sake of your sanity stop believing that - by definition - every conspiracy theory is true, and that every article which appears in the MSM is false.

On the other hand https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/12/zelenskyy-rejects-claim-boris-johnson-talked-him-out-of-2022-peace-deal And before you dismiss this article as more MSM bias, Frank, note who is the author of the piece.

Well said, Trans.

Private company (although maybe grants from the Aussie government?)

Irrelevant. The important thing is that the judge and jury understand the legal definition.

Is this an example of elitism or snobbery?🤔

Obviously our thresholds for "brillance" are yet another thing we differ about My apologies you haven't. I confused your posts with another member's. You have 'only' used this thread about sport i.e. the success of the England Women's football team to have a dig about such unrelated subjects as the Labour party; 'wokeness', the (perceived) two-tier justice system in the UK and women footballers making political statements, while at the same time suggesting "Keep the politics, demands, complaining and Wokery out of it (sport) ...". No Jonny, it's called unbiased analysis. There are pros and cons associated with almost all proposals. If I consider something to be logical and, in general, beneficial I will support that measure. I do not have an overly simplistic 'Black/ White' view of matters whereby anything originating from the Left; the EU; the Labour party, etc is automatically dismissed as 'bad', whereas anything proposed by Reform; Trump; the Right, etc is - by dint of its' origin - good. Yes, nice to agree on something [ (a), b) and c)]. I fear that you may be disappointed about future developments but I remain open to persuasion. If only I could say the same for you.

Err ... https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/fame-and-popularity-donald-trump

Fair point. You've stated time and time again throughout this thread how discriminated against you perceive yourself to be. My world view is seemingly more nuanced and less 'black and white' - oops, I mean monochrome - than yours, Jonny.