RayC

Or maybe the reason for Trump's golf courses losing money is that he misread the market. It's not as though golfers are short of courses to play in Scotland.

Perhaps it is, but wouldn't your comment be better directed at the person who introduced it into the discussion i.e. Johnny F?

So this week's fall guy for the failure of Brexit is Biden. Well I suppose that it makes a change from it all being down to the nasty EU.

Whatever one thinks of Sturgeon, I think that it has to be acknowledged that she has been a very successful politican. I don't mean that she has necessarily left Scotland in a better state than it was before she took office - those living in Scotland are best placed to make that judgement - but what she has done is keep the issue of Scottish independence in the news. I doubt that either would thank me for the comparison but - in this regard - she reminds me of Nigel Farage. Imo without Farage Brexit wouldn't have happened. Without Sturgeon, Scottish independence would be largely forgotten about by the English establishment and media (Blackford probably deserves an honorary mention as well).

All valid questions. Here's my opinion: If by 'on the sly', you mean that the elected UK government would choose to have closer ties with the EU without a referendum, then I agree. I would be surprised if any new states became EU members within the next 10 years. The current candidate countries are: Turkiye - Been a candidate since 1999. Many existing members, notably Germany, have reservations about Turkiye joining. In addition, it is conceivable that Erdagan might not agree to Brussels' terms. Serbia - Political closeness to Russia and Putin probably does for them North Macadonia - Ongoing issues with Greece will probably delay any accession. Bosnia and Herzegovina - There are discussions about the nation splitting into two. I doubt that the EU would sanction entry until that issue is resolved. Albania - The problems are well-documented. Imo no chance of joining anytime soon. Ukraine - Possibly but obviously an awful lot of problems to overcome. Moldova - Again possibly but a new candidate and a lot of investigation needed before accession. Also would antagonise Russia and Putin, so that's a problem for them. Would have to be negotiated but I imagine that the terms would almost certainly be less favourable than those which we had. It peaked at 300k in 2016. Many factors to consider, not least, how well the UK economy is doing in general, and the state of the UK labour market in particular relative to other member states. Could be more than 300k, could be less who knows? Probably less than it does now, but almost certainly the EU will still remain (no pun intended) our biggest trading partner. In terms of trade deals, currently we don't many more (substantial) deals with the Pacific region than the EU. CPTPP is a 'work in progress' and there is no guarantee that either (1) we will join and/or (2) it will succeed, so there might be nothing to abandon. We might not have to. Yes, member states have to agree to adopt the Euro once the conditions for doing so are met, but there is a get-out clause which Sweden successfully invokes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro Neither the Commission or the ECB appears to be overly concerned by Sweden's reluctance to join the Eurozone. I imagine that we would have to. The 'Single Market' covers the free movement of services and capital as well as goods. Financial services are one area where the Brexiter's mantra, 'they need us more, etc' may ring true for the time being at least. In the short term, the EU is reliant on London's financial market for certain services e.g. settling the majority of Euro-denominated derivative transactions, however the Commission is trying to get activities such as these moved within the Eurozone. It's true that this has always been a goal of the ECB, but when we were an EU member the Commission did not become involved as that would have meant discriminating against a member state, however they have no such qualms now. I think - I'm not certain - that there is something in the Withdrawal Agreement about service provisions remaining as they were until 2024(?). After that agreement runs out, the gloves may come off. Given that services account for +/-80% of the UK's GDP there could be greater problems ahead. I think that you only need to look at the problems on the island of Ireland, or ask a small business who has EU customers and/or suppliers to get an idea of the benefit of being within a Customs Union. Presumably yes in both cases. The question is not relevant as individual member states are responsible for their own foreign and security policies. The Brexit deal was not subject to a referendum, so why should the terms for rejoining be subject to one? If the EU wanted the UK to rejoin, why would it make the terms so onerous that no UK government could agree to them? If a UK government felt that it couldn't refuse the deal whatever the conditions, that would simply be an admission that Brexit had been a complete failure.

Let's not forget that Stewart played Sun City during the apartheid era. However, better late than never to discover a moral compass.

And by the same token, a handful of individuals (allegedly) acting illegally does not make an organisation corrupt. Likewise, the idea that there should be greater integration in certain areas does not make one a federalist. Why is necessarily bad for an organisation to be technocratic?

So you'd trust an unqualified quack with your health and an unsuccessful gambler with your wealth?

I see that you are still peddling that old chestnut about "them needing us more than we need them". Not according to the OBR, FT, LSE, The Economist. But hey, never believe the experts.

An all-out trade war with the EU? I doubt that Sunak is that stupid but, if he is, I wonder how long - and much it will cost - before the markets force him to U-turn?

One is underwhelmed.

Rab C. Nesbitt once saw a pink elephant in a doctor's surgery of all places. It was on the telly, so it must be true! Just thought that I'd mention it.

That's Richard Dawkins.

A supergroup whose members were Stevie Winwood, Eric Clapton, Ric Grech and Ginger Baker.

Charity 1. An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need. 2. The voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need. Nothing in those definitions about charity being based around race or religion.

Are you sure that's what Genesis 1.27 says?????????

Whoever is transporting the sunny uplands must be on (permanent) strike.

Not for the first time I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Between 1997 - 2016, the UK supported 97% of the legislation originating from Brussels, so hardly "... telling us what to do ...". (Link posted numerous times in the past. You'll find it on the fullfacts site somewhere)

Oh dear. Reduced to insults. Still probably to be expected of someone unable to formulate a coherent argument.

It appears that the Institute of Directors (IoD) have a more nuanced and objective take on things. https://www.iod.com/news/global-business/flying-the-flag-for-global-britain-how-valuable-is-cptpp-for-the-uk-really/ Who's opinion could be considered more relevant? Daily Express or the IoD? Tricky one that!

I look forward to your rebuttal of statistical theory. (Please show your workings).

Thought that one of your strong beliefs was that no one can predict the future?

Why should I get over it when I had no say in a matter that directly affected me (I was living in Belgium at the time), while some others - who were thousands of miles away and had no intention of returning to live in the UK - did? Bitter? Too bloody right I am. What's all these ways in which the UK is currently thriving?

So everyone voting Leave didn't believe the official 'Vote Leave' campaign when they said "UK trade will thrive after we leave the EU"? No mention of any negative effects. http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html #Soldapup