RayC

What solutions are they? I read the article and glanced through Orban's speech but can't spot any proposals. Perhaps you could spell them out for me? Again, perhaps you could give some examples? It would take more than one member state to launch a mutiny but, what's your point? One member state appears to be unhappy? That's unfortunate. However, if Hungary feels so strongly about things they could always leave. After all, they need only look at the example of Brexit to see what opportunities present themselves outside of the EU.

Maybe don't post a link about an EU-Thailand deal in the first place then. Anything new to add or can we expect links to China Today, North Korea news, etc restating exactly the same article?

Thanks for posting that link. I wasn't aware of this. Good news for both the EU and Thailand. Any update on the UK-US trade deal that we were promised now that we've left the EU?

Sign an Agreement and promise to have the infrastructure and supporting processes and procedures in place within six months. Instead, renege on the deal almost before the ink has dried and state that they want to renegotiate the Agreement. Remind you of anything? That's the virtuous UK government of Johnson in case you had forgotten. Good faith?

Still clinging to "they need us more than we need them" narrative? It wasn't true in 2016 and it's not true in 2022 as the last six years have shown. Torrid time for the EU? Oh yes, everything's been peachy for the UK since 2016.

Maybe you missed the part where Barnier mentioned trade? That was the context in which he was speaking. I think that he was referring to the logistics of how trade was going to work on the island of Ireland post-Brexit. You know, how the bit in the EU (RoI) was going to trade with the bit that is in the UK (NI)???? Never let it be said that rational thought got in the way of emotion. Unlike you, I don't simply dismiss reports because they don't fit my narrative. Unfortunately, there is corruption within the EU institutions (although it is not unique in that). Hopefully, if these allegations are true, those responsible will be dealt with severely and lessons will be learnt in order to minimise the chances of it happening again.

"Strategic and tactical reason (to) use Ireland for the future negotiations". That's a lot different from an EU attempt to break up the UK. Note that Barnier also said 'Ireland', not 'Northern Ireland'. For someone who has stated that he doesn't rejoice in the EU's misfortune, you do a very good impersonation.

Started already. Championship has been back for a couple of weeks now????

We have polar opposite opinion about most things but, up to now, I haven't thought of you as a conspiracy theorist. However, the idea that the EU has tried to break up the UK post-referendum could have come straight out of the QAnon playbook. It is complete and utter nonsense. The EU has a - seemingly - permanent failed state (Russia) on its' doorstep and another (Ukraine) which has recently appeared through no fault of its' own. Why would it want yet another near neighbour - let alone, its' biggest trading partner - to collapse? A quick refresher seems to be in order. Firstly, the UK left the EU; the EU did not force - or want - the UK to leave. Once the divorce negotiation was set in motion, the Commission took its' instructions from the member states. It's main aim, unsurprisingly, was to get the best deal for the member states. It was always unlikely that the outcome envisaged by the EU and UK would be identical. At the outset, the UK's governments' negotiation strategy seemed to rest on the false, arrogant assumption that the UK held the upper hand in the negotiations. When it became obvious that this wasn't the case, there was no back-up strategy. Instead of hoping for the best outcome but planning for the worse, the UK negotiators appeared to ignore any planning. The entity responsible for the current mess is the the UK government and they should be held accountable for it The current corruption scandal is a failure on the EU's part. However, they have accepted this fact and, presumably, are working to ensure that such an event will not occur in the future.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am no good at solving cryptic puzzles. Why don't you simply repost the links and/or direct me to them? I will then reply if necessary.

Unfortunately also true but do two wrongs make a right?

Then how the hell do you expect me to refer to it and reply????? At last, we agree on something. Unless, or rather until, you acknowledge and accept data and facts, unfortunately, it is likely to remain so.

I had little time for Johnson as an individual or his administration, but he/ they deserved credit for their support of Ukraine. Hopefully, Sunak's government will continue in the same manner. However, It is untrue that the UK is second only to the US in sending aid to Ukraine: The total sent by the EU far exceeds that sent by the UK. (France and Germany possibly send more on an individual basis, but I have not crunched the numbers) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=The United States has by,than every other country combined. This is mostly just empty rhetoric and conjecture with no evidence to support any of the contentions. From the very little I know about NATO, it appears to me that (most of) the EU member states should do more to support the organisation. However, where is the evidence to suggest that the UK would be any more likely to be able to defend itself than the EU if it operated as one entity, let alone that it would effectively have to beg the UK for military aid/ support as you seem to imply? Another attempt to deflect attention away from the very real problems created by Brexit?

I agree. Terrible timing and bad news often seems to come in batches. As an aside, I've never understood why some people appear to rejoice in others misfortune.

Where do you think that my quotes came from? (They were from your BBC link). To answer your question directly: Yes, I read the BBC link in its' entirety and the 'Introduction' and 'Conclusion' to the 'Parliamentary Report'. If I missed something pertinent in the main body of the report which supports your view please direct me to it because - as far I can be see - there is nothing in either link which supports your contention that "corruption (in the EU) is the rule rather than the exception". I can only think of 3 possible conclusions: (1) You didn't read the links before you posted them (2a) You read the links, but didn't understand the content (2b) You read the links and now realise that they do not support your assertion. Was this post to which I am replying an attempt at deflection by any chance?

Together with a sighting of the lesser spotted Brexit opportunity? Let's hope so but I'll not be holding my breath.

Did you read the content of your own link? If so then you will have seen the following: "The auditor's report stressed that 'errors' were not a euphemism for fraud" and that "our audit of the EU budget is not directly comparable to audits done by other organisations". Therefore, there is nothing in the link to support your assertion that "corruption (in the EU) is the rule rather than the exception". I assume that the tea leaves confirmed that there will be mismanagement in the future?

Argentina scored more penalties than France, so how was this match " .. decided, essentially, on a coin toss"? The penalties during normal time were also a match-up between Messi/ Lloris and Mbappe/ Martinez. Individual 'battles' within a team game. Just one of the many elements which help explain why football (soccer) is the world's most popular sport.

Cracking game. The type of match which explains why football is the most popular and best sport.

If you have some of this knowledge then perhaps, you would be kind enough to share it, and explain how the EU is an "undemocratic cabal"? How it - the institution rather than certain individuals - is corrupt (in its' design)? (Please don't reply with dictionary definitions of "corruption", "cabal", etc. I know the meaning of these words. Thanks).

So data is irrelevant and decisions should be made on blind faith? I would agree that in the case of Brexit, this seems to be the UK government's strategy to date. Innovation is necessary for progression but process, procedure and rules all have their place otherwise anarchy will prevail. In any event, being 'free' of EU bureaucracy has lead to UK scientists securing less funding from Horizon - the EU sponsored body which allocates research funding - thereby stifling innovation. In a similar vein, it is now more difficult for EU scientists to live and work in the UK, thereby having the opposite effect to what Brexit was (supposedly) meant to do i.e. attract the brightest, most highly skilled individuals to the UK. Six years after the vote to leave, there are few opportunities visible and the 'plan' to exploit them seems to consist of (1) create a minister for Brexit opportunities (2) ask said minister to close his/her eyes tight and wish really, really, really hard that everything works out well. Far from having no ambition, Remainers recognise that a collaborative, co-operative approach with fellow European states is far preferable and more productive than the insular, inward-looking world epitomised by Brexit. If the Tories win the next election, then it may prove that data is no more than history. Twelve - and counting - years of strategic government mismanagement would count for nothing. Unfortunately, I largely agree with you on two points: (1) The UK will not rejoin the EU in the near future. The best that we can hope for is a government that tries to build bridges with the EU rather than actively try to antagonise them (2) The war in Ukraine will have a lasting impact. However, imo this impact will be felt more in mainline Europe than the UK. So with reference to the topic heading, is it therefore possible that the UK will, in fact, suffer less than other countries? Unfortunately not. Until a future UK government is brave enough to acknowledge that Brexit was a collosal mistake and reverse the decision, this self-inflicted wound will outlast the effects of the war and this will mean that the UK will struggle more than our EU neighbours.

I'm puzzled by your reply as I've not mentioned that I lived in Thailand (Actually I did for 6 years but I left in '98). At the time of the Brexit referendum, I was living in Brussels. Life doesn't always go the way we want - irrespective of where we live - but I think that I should have been given the chance to have a say in a one-off vote on an individual issue which directly affected me.

No.

A truism in that such individuals will not have had personal experience of life in the UK post-Brexit, however, it's fairly meaningless unless you are suggesting that makes your opinion more valuable than someone who is based outside the UK. In that case, those of us who have lived in both the UK and EU (member states) both pre and post-referendum are therefore, presumably, even more qualified to comment?

It's all very interesting but it still does answer my questions. (Note: I can read and understand a balance sheet).