RayC

I agree with almost everything in 'The Economist' article. My only quibble would be with the title. I agree that Europe has emerged as the winner in the head-to-head with the UK but - as I have mentioned previously - I am firmly in the Barnier camp here: There are no winners, only losers. Perhaps, a better headline would be something like: "Brexit has caused more pain to the UK than the EU".

Yes, that's what I wrote. And?

Another interesting interpretation of one of my comments. I won't ask you to explain how you arrived at your conclusion. I doubt that it will make things any clearer

Sorry don't know. Probably not but that's more of a guess. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/joining-the-euro-area/convergence-criteria/

Two wrongs, etc. Data or gut? We seem to differ on what's best again.

They don't. It's a condition of entry into the EU and once a country meets the requirements, it is meant to join the Eurozone Trick is to mimic the Swedes; they have no intention of joining the Eurozone and have used the ERM as an excuse not to.

Bit narrow-minded and self-defeating don't you think? I quite often have a glance at 'The Mail' and 'The Express'. Doing so, almost invariably confirms that my initial thoughts were correct!

I agree that it is difficult and one such difficulty is deciding what matters should be subject to a referendum? What criteria make membership of the EU worthy of a referendum and a decision to go to war not? Obviously, not all relevant information is available in the public domain in the latter case so it could be used as an explanation. However, in the case of Brexit, the sheer volume and complexity of data which needed to be analysed to make an informed choice - one way or the another - meant that imo people ultimately voted on 'gut instinct'. Surely that is not a good way in which to reach a decision on a matter of such import?

I agree with your conclusion but surely monetary (and fiscal) union are prerequisites for a federal state?

Is a US of Europe a bad thing per sec? Imo no. Is it desirable? Debatable. Is it it inevitable? Imo no. Firstly, contrary to what its' supporters might claim, there is little enthusiasm among the European public for a federal Europe. https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-of-europe-germans-french-most-in-favor-poll/ (I accept that this poll is dated and that support for a federal Europe may well have increased due to the war in Ukraine, but I doubt that there is anything approaching a majority in favour even now). Secondly, there are the practical problems to overcome. For example, The single currency has been successful in making cross-border transactions easier for businesses and travellers, but at a macro-level it has been a failure. It has been close to collapse on several occasions. The ECB faces a seemingly impossible task in trying to reconcile the monetary policy requirements of 20 national economies. Simply changing the label so it reads: 'Greece; region of the USE' rather than simply 'Greece' won't change that. Here is imo a balanced view of the pros and cons of federalism. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/federal-eu/

The British people were asked via the usual process of a General Election. The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the government is mandated to make decisions on the public's behalf and that's what it should do. MPs should also be better equipped to make informed decisions than the general public, although I accept that is open to debate wrt certain MPs. As you can tell, I am against referendums! (And yes, I would say the same thing had 'Remain' won. Yes, I was against a 2nd referendum. Yes, I am against another referendum about rejoining <although I feel that it is inevitable at some point>). Me too and I agree. I agree about the direction of travel but I don't think that there is any inevitability about a federal Europe (I will elaborate on this point in a reply to Brewster).

I agree that the EC in the 1980s and the EU in the 2020s are two completely different entities. It was inevitable that they would be; the world is a completely different place nowadays. One consequence of this is greater regulation within the EU and, yes, closer political union. Is that necessarily a bad thing and is federalism inevitable? We obviously have different opinions about those matters.

<deleted>! That headline has ruined my enjoyment of the inevitable forthcoming TV mini-series!

I agree that no one is totally objective. The challenge is to suppress one's subjective bias and look at the evidence impartially. Unfortunately, you are not doing this at the moment. If there are "solid facts" to support your argument then you have failed to produce them. Instead - and I will repeat myself - the supporting evidence consists of a clip from a 40+-year old TV series (albeit a very good TV series) and two opinion pieces from committed federalists, one of which - the article by Andrew Duff in the FT - is almost completely devoid of fact. I am not going to critique all the points raised in the two pieces but will make the following points. Ms. Fabre implies that the UK's misgivings about the CAP were a major reason for its' delayed entry into the EU and friction within the EU once it joined. Let's accept this argument. It then begs the question: Did the UK have a point? I would suggest that the answer is 'Yes'. The CAP has noble intentions i.e. to provide food security across Europe amongst other things, but its' implementation and operation is a wasteful, inefficient mess. This is seen - not just by the UK - but more widely by other (current) member states. However, attempts to reform the CAP are invariably stymied by France! Who's the drag on the EU in this instance? The article by Mr. Duff basically amounts to federalism good (with no justification necessary) and any barriers to its' implementation, bad. Firstly, he berates the UK government for seeking to protect the City of London. I would have thought that any UK government would be failing in its' duty if it didn't seek to protect a key industry but, presumably it must be sacrificed in the interests of federalism, the greater good as he would no doubt view it. Mr. Duff goes on to discuss, what he sees as the need for greater fiscal union. He acknowledges that many members of the Eurozone have reservations about total fiscal union and that such a development requires unanimity at Council level which will not be forthcoming. However, this is just another barrier to be swept aside without discussion. By the use of clever legal manoeuvres, the need for Council involvement might be by-passed! I would argue that it is this type of arrogant disregard for any form of dissent and need for discussion which was a contributory factor in the 'Leave' vote in the Brexit referendum, and it is just this type of attitude that continues to fuel anti-EU sentiment throughout Europe today. Europe is not one homogenous entity that can be molded to fit the desires of an elite who happen to believe in federalism. It is a collection of nations who share many goals and have much in common, however it is also culturally, economically and politically diverse. The sooner the federalists accept this, the sooner the EU wil be able to progress further still. Again opinion based on the belief that the federalisation of the EU is, by definition, good, necessary and inevitable (see my comments above).

Maybe not 40 years but imo the UK's reentry into the EU is not going to happen anytime soon. 2040?

???? You win! Thanks for posting the clip. Great TV series.

Opinion pieces by the former Presidents of the Union of European Federalists and the Secretary General of the European Federalists (France) hardly constitute objective sources of information. It's akin to quoting Nigel Farage as evidence in support of a piece entitled 'Why Brexit is a good thing'!

Given the number of times I have made this following point, I think that I might stumble across an absolute value of infinity in the near future. Between 1997 - 2016, the UK was 'forced' to enact 3% of EU regulation which it had voted against. This is a similar figure to France and Germany, and unsurprising in a collaborative, democratic organisation. If you think that regaining 3% of 'lost' sovereignty is worth all this turmoil, fair enough. I don't. (I have posted links numerous times in the past. I am not going to do so again). @Hi from France amongst others would disagree with you. Actually, I agree with your first point. The EU has also been a loser due to Brexit. Your second comment is nonsense. So the effect on the economy is secondary to the greater goal? Who says that people don't vote to become poorer. You and Hi seem to agree on this point. Most of this is just empty rhetoric but to paraphrase Keynes, "In the long run, we are all dead". Of course, Covid and the war in Ukraine had a major effect on economies worldwide. No one is denying that but it is also used as a cloak to hide behind. Although it would be too much to expect trade deals to be concluded during Covid, there was no reason why preparatory work and meetings (over Zoom) could not continue. Where is the evidence to suggest that we are any closer to securing any meaningful deals than we were 2 years ago? Although I would have expected some green shoots to have started appearing, a 5-year time horizon seems reasonable. My crystal ball tells me that now that we have grown-up politicians in charge of the 2 main parties, relations with the EU will have improved. Unfortunately, there's still no sign of those post-Brexit 'sunny uplands' and new trade deals.

Again you leap to an illogical conclusion. Where have I stated or even inferred that the EU has no political power? In fact, my posts lead most people to reach the completely opposite conclusion. Playing Devil's Advocate, you accept that there is nothing wrong per sec with the pursuit of economic growth, but at the same time state that the UK's focus on it is a reason for excluding it from the EU! Once again, a completely illogical argument and conclusion. More of the same: "we were .. taken for a ride."; ".. the British influence was detrimental." But nothing to support these contentions. EFTA/ EEA might be used (and useful) as a staging post for full EU membership but I can't see much appeal from a UK perspective of making it a permanent home. The cost of membership would be probably be high with likely limited influence over EU regulation of the Single Market and input in the decision making of the various programmes. This is becoming very repetitive. Where is the evidence to support your conclusions that "all of these major advances would have been watered down or vetoed by the brits."? Evangelical EUrophiles have, at least, one thing in common with fundamentalist Brexiters: a seemingly total disregard for economic consequences and reality. Evidence? Agreed Apparently so. Good news.

A misplaced, incorrect over-generalisation to ascribe one viewpoint to all Brits. In any event, no mistake on my part. It is easier to discuss economic costs and benefits as they are quantitative unlike the political, social and cultural aspects which are qualitative. The European project may well be about defending common interests and liberal democracy, but that doesn't mean that a nation has to be a member of the EU in order to do so: The UK, Switzerland and Norway are all liberal democracies and all are outside the EU. Indeed, being an EU member does not, unfortunately, guarantee liberal democracy. One need only look at the erosion of civil rights in Hungary to see that. These are bold statements but you offer no supporting evidence Again, a bold statement with nothing to support it. You should, perhaps, read the link posted by @JonnyF earlier in the thread about the impact of Brexit on the EU: This article suggests that the net effect of Brexit on the EU has been negative. It is only recently that populist politicians have held sway in the UK and recent events offer hope that their influence might wane. In any event, the UK is hardly unique in this regard. One need only look at your own country, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc. to see that populism is alive and kicking - and arguably, more influential - in mainland Europe. We can agree on that at least.

Please don't go all philosophical on me, Grasshopper ????????

Better in than out eh, Nauseus? Glad that you have seen the light????

You are making a very persuasive case for re-criminalising cannabis in Thailand.

I'm unsure if that's a good or bad thing. Beware the enemy within.

I'm still trying to decide whether you deliberately misinterpret posts in order to provoke or are simply unable to comprehend: In either case, it's tiresome having to respond to correct your misrepresentation of my view. My comment " .. usual bit of racist/ xenophobic tripe ..." was in direct response to your remark: "Enoch is right". I assume that you meant Enoch Powell, who I consider as being a racist and xenophobe. If you want to discuss Powell, open a thread and I'll participate.