RayC

The nerve of those new members wanting a say in the running of things????

Numerous links detailing the cost of Brexit have been posted countless times on other threads. Here's one example https://www.ft.com/content/e39d0315-fd5b-47c8-8560-04bb786f2c13

There's no mechanism for kicking member states out of the EU.

Not worse but ongoing. The £100m - and rising - loss to the UK economy caused by Brexit.

Looks like your estimate of 99.5% is way off the mark according to this government minister https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/05/uk-may-scrap-hundreds-not-thousands-eu-laws/

More left-wing bias from that bastion of Marxism, 'The Economist' (You may need to subscribe, which is free, to read the article): https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/01/05/assembling-a-better-british-relationship-with-europe

I don't think that was the case. Whatever her faults, May wouldn't have wanted the UK to fail. Imo her error was to pander to the Flat Earthers in the Tory party by quickly ruling out any possibility of the UK remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union although, in fairness, I suppose that she didn't have much choice given her precarious position. The problem was that the script appeared to be a blank piece of paper. I agree. I have a certain amount of sympathy for May.

You'll have to take out a subscription to find out. Please make a payment of £100m (subject to revision upwards) to "Sold a Pup Enterprises", Downing Street, London".

Playing Devil's Advocate and accepting what you say, it still doesn't absolve successive UK governments of blame. Surely this possibility must have occurred to the UK negotiators and they should have prepared for it? (Hope for the best, prepare for the worse). Instead what appeared to happen was that when the UK negotiators tipped up in Brussels for the first meeting, Davis said, "Right then, business as usual except that we won't pay anything, we don't implement any more EU laws and we'll get rid of the few of the existing ones as well". When, unsurprisingly, Barnier said, "I'm afraid that doesn't work for us", Davis looked nonplussed at this reaction and had no idea what to do next. Exaggerated for effect (but not overly).

No, not always and, of course, where that knowledge is unavailable within the EU then employers will be forced to look elsewhere. However, intuitively I'd suggest that these skillsets are more likely to found in a working age population of 327m (EU) than within a population of 42m (UK). In any event, recruiting 3rd country nationals will be more costly and time consuming for employers than recruiting from within the EU. It's also a fact that UK nationals are relatively disadvantaged now compared to 2019. Freedom of movement meant that Brits had an advantage over other native English speakers, not so now. Just as easy - or difficult - for an EU based organisation to now employ Aussies, Americans, Canadians, etc as it is Brits. Bottom line is that it's a long more hassle for both UK nationals to work in the EU and for EU organisations to employ Brits than it was.

There were but the lies about the NHS from Leave were the ones which struck home with the electorate. With a lot more difficulty than pre-Brexit I agree but Leavers didn't acknowledge that at the time. They have been acknowledged by no more than a handful of Leavers - including yourself - on this forum and certainly not for anything like 6 years. I'll use three categories of 'benefits': 1) Economic 2) Sovereignty 3) Immigration/ Control of borders (probably a sub-set of 2) but never mind) Please add to this list if you think that I missed anything. 1) Economic: You have acknowledged that there have been economic difficulties to date, so moving on to the future 'sunny uplands'. This is promised but there is little, if any, evidence to support their existence. When this is pointed out, the reply is that no one can predict the future - a reply so simplistic it isn't worth acknowledging - and/or that we need to have more faith, a strategy akin to a child closing their eyes and wishing really, really hard for something. Sovereignty: We have discussed this myth that the dastardly EU was subjecting the plucky UK to enact laws against its' will a number of times before. As I'm sure you will recall, the number of EU laws that had to be enacted by the UK against its' will prior to 2016 was 3%, similar to the figure for other members. The nature of an organisation such as the EU is that one member will never get its' way 100% of the time. Is it worth all this hassle to reclaim 3% of Sovereignty? Imo no. While we are at it .... Democracy: The EU is anti-democratic! Commissioners are too powerful! Possibly but there are moves to transfer more power to the directly elected EU parliament. Commissioners are not elected: Not directly no, but then neither are senior civil servants in the UK. Corruption: The current scandal in the EU is just that a scandal. Hopefully, all those involved in the wrongdoing will be brought to justice. But is the UK any better? What about Owen Pattison? What about the expenses' scandal. Sadly, corruption is present everywhere. Immigration: I'm pretty sure that you haven't made a xenophobic comment either directly or indirectly. Sadly, that is not true of some Leavers, for whom the reduction in the number of EU nationals in the UK is a cause for celebration in itself. That is xenophobia pure and simple and, as I'm sure you'd agree, hardly a valid argument against the EU. The justification on the grounds that restricting immigration would allow more UK nationals job opportunities has proved to be a false hope. Firstly, the UK has a labour shortage and those EU nationals would have come in handy. Secondly, UK nationals don't seem to be too enthusiastic about taking up certain jobs e.g. fruit picking. Again, those EU nationals might have come in handy. I'm sure they'll be some comeback. 200 here we come!

Unless being a native English speaker is part of the job description - and there are increasing few of those types of jobs - the likelihood is that EU organisations will fill job vacancies from the EU workforce.

Oh yes. 100 up????

The decision to leave the EU brought me insecurity and (some) stress overnight, so 'yes' I was - and remain - bitter. This bitterness might have evaporated if I could identify some overall benefits but, sadly, I can't. You mentioned that you run a business in the UK. Do you import from/ export to the EU now and did you do so pre-Brexit? If so, what effect has Brexit had on your business either financially or otherwise. What sector are you involved in? (Will understand if you do not want to share information).

I'd forgotten all about NHS cards until you mentioned them!

That is a very good question. Emergency treatment will, no doubt, be available but by definition that isn't planned. Would known conditions e.g. cancer be treated quickly? Sorry to hear about your mate; if his example is anything to go by then the answer is 'No'.

???? I have full confidence that between you, you; Chomper and Placeholder will see it through. Don't let us down, lads. The UK, EU (and ASEAN) are relying on you????

Touch wood I haven't needed to visit a UK hospital as a patient for 40-odd years, but do they really play '20 questions' before they treat you? If you visit A&E and there is a need for a follow-up consultation isn't it just a case of name, address, email address and phone number and then, 'Right, we'll be in touch'? As @Proton suggests, ID (cards) is the easiest way to safeguard against this type of fraud: No ID, no treatment (other than emergency care).

Shouldn't you tell us how many differences we are looking for?????

???????? You shouldn't have said that! Did you learn nothing from my exchange with Mac? I've done my stint. I'm afraid that you're on your own - unless some other reckless soul is brave enough to help you out.

They might but on the other hand they might not. Obviously there would have to be preparation - and maybe, a transition period - but it is usually easier to destroy barriers than create them.

Err .... You sure that you are replying to the right post (and person)?????

I'd acknowledged them all along. But thanks for your appreciation. Ah, such blissful innocence! (see my reply to Mac).

As has been explained countless times that is not necessarily the case. And of course, the UK government is such a paradigm of virtue that it is inconceivable that it could possibly act in an immortal, underhand way? Imo that's a touch naïve. In any event, as I outlined in my example, there are ways to circumvent these rules. Which of the two example requirements which I gave is illegal and why? Another completely illogical conclusion. Again, are you really that naïve? Ever heard of lawyers, tax accountants, etc? Where did I say that I gained anything personally? As of 2019, there were 560,000 UK civil servants. No doubt you know each and every one of them personally and can vouch for their character. As an aside, interesting how you know I would get some personal benefit but none of the 560,000 civil servants would. Crystal ball working overtime? Once the tender had been issued that would most likely would had been the case. However, I would have thought that it was intuitively obvious that I was talking about the period before issue. Clearly I was wrong. (Note: I have seen some bids which didn't fulfill the mandatory requirements. Don't ask me why they were submitted) Again, not necessarily the case. The government could still have chosen another bidder so long as they could have justified their decision. To be SEEN to be complying with the rules: Yes. The government couldn't be deceitful? Naivety again. I'd suggest that it's a lot easier to take on a small business than a government. If you had any experience in this field, you would know that any organisation can be creative when it comes to tenders. However, the vast majority of the time it is unnecessary because organisations do not have a hidden agenda. Their objective is to find the best (value for money) bid.

I agree That is less likely in my opinion. Your later post - quoting the LSE blog - that support in the region of 60%+ over several years would probably be sufficient for the EU to open negotiations on re-entry ALL funding? I imagine all voters in the negatively affected areas wouldn't be happy with that regardless of how they voted. Imo there will always be some inequality. I don't think that will be necessary but, personally speaking, I feel that investment in infrastructure projects outside of London is long overdue. (The culling of HS2 would free up some funds but all that's for another thread). Again, debatable We'll, it would only be fair???? I agree