RayC

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?????

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!????