RayC

Maybe but maybe not. Imo if the only/ major stumbling block to the UK rejoining was the adoption of the Euro then I think that the 'Swedish compromise' would come into play. I don't think many EU countries are dragging their feet over adopting the Euro, most seem quite happy to do so. With the exception of those who haven't, most do not meet the conditions for doing so. In the case of Hungary, the EU is probably happy that they don't; most would probably prefer that they simply left the EU. All this is, of course, my opinion. The opt-outs are usually the result of horse-trading around the signing of new Treaties. For example, Major refused to sign the Maastricht Treaty unless the UK had an opt-out on the Social chapter.

Pure supposition with no evidence to support this view. The last country to adopt the Euro was Croatia at the beginning of this year. Prior to that the Kuna had traded within a relatively narrow range against the Euro for 10+ years.

Actually I'm trying to give you a bit of credit. Those who hold the 'They won't let us leave' view generally prescribe to the ridiculous notion that the UK could have remained a member of the Single Market and Customs Union, whilst at the same time, being free of the rules, regulations, processes and procedures governing these entities and, moreover, being free of any financial commitment. By not accepting these proposals, the EU was being unreasonable and therefore trying to prevent the UK from leaving the EU. If that's your view then don't bother replying. However, if you feel that's not the case - and the EU was somehow trying to stop the UK leaving in another way - then I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

The nightmare team of Farage and Johnson????: Now that really would be the time to switch off the lights and leave.

Unlikely is the short answer.

But as a recent senior bureaucrat and someone who is still vocal on EU matters, it's not unreasonable to assume that he might be indicative of the view in 'Brussels'.

How so?

If the UK rejoins the EU the Pound will be dead. Be careful what you wish for..... That is debatable. Yes, the UK would need to commit to joining the Euro. However, whether and when that would actually happen is another matter: Sweden has been obligated to join the Euro since the mid-90s but shows little sign of doing so.

When the UK decides to rejoin the EU, the pound will appreciate overnight by 10+% because of the boost to the economy brought about by, once again, being a part of the world's largest trading bloc. The pound will then increase to an all-time high vis-a-vis the baht within 6 months. (Please read the post to which I am replying before making any 'opinion not fact', 'predict the future', etc. replies?)

I think that it is very unfair of you to moke me. I inserted "likely" into the sentence to avoid incurring the wrath of (some of) your fellow Brexiters. You know how much they dislike predictions of the future and/or definite statements. Surely you haven't forgotten that Brexit is a seemingly endless process?????

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. Imo the author is too pessimistic. There would, undoubtedly, be issues in rejoining but the bottom line is that it would be in both parties' interests. The UK could start to repair the damage done to its' economy, reputation and international standing and the EU regains the benefits of having what is still - despite the damage down - the biggest European power currently outside the bloc (and, yes, the addition of a likely net contributor to the EU budget helps as well).

Any idea when they will come into view?

So when would be a suitable time to make a judgement? What criteria would you suggest using?

That might be true based on the previous two quarters but the difference in the respective growth rates is marginal. It may also be true that Brexit has had a negative effect on the EU economy, although I don't see that as a reason for celebration. It appears that Barnier's prediction that there are no winners from Brexit was quite perceptive. However, what is more telling is the performance of the EU and UK since Brexit and since the referendum. By most criteria, the UK has been harder hit. Didn't you Brexiters tell us remainers that they (the EU) need us (the UK) more than we need them. The medium-term data seems to indicate the opposite. https://www.newstatesman.com/chart-of-the-day/2022/06/uk-economy-fallen-behind-eu-since-brexit https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2022 https://www.civilservant.org.uk/eu-uk_economy_after_brexit_referendum.html

Being a non-Brit should not prevent you from having an opinion about Brexit. However, being unfamiliar with the facts does prevent you from having an informed opinion on the matter.

And yet SMEs thrive in EU countries such as Germany. UK SMEs, which export to the EU, now have the burden and cost of additional bureaucracy to contend with. I doubt many would agree that the business environment post-Brexit has brought benefits for them: That is, of course, an opinion.

Agreed. Not good news for the Eurozone. Although I'm not sure what new rules and regulations would help. Perhaps you could elaborate please? The +/-£10bn UK contribution to the EU would, no doubt, be welcomed by the ECB, but perhaps Jeremy Hunt had better hang on to the money himself. It will go a little way towards offsetting the £33bn loss in trade due to Brexit. As Barnier said, there are no winners from Brexit.

Really? We already had a plan for dealing with the Covid pandemic? Then it rather begs the question why the vast majority of governments throughout the world simply disregarded all this scientific evidence and pre-planning and have caused countless problems for themselves. To what end? Wrt masks specifically, I remember being surprised at the time (early 2020) that there was so little research conducted into their effectiveness, so I don't know on what basis you reach your conclusion. Whether the scientists - whose views you casually disregard - were "narcissistic and attention seeking" is besides the point. The fact remains that there was no indisputable "previously established" science on which decisions could have been made in early 2020. Personally, I was appalled by Johnson's cavalier, flippant attitude at the start of the pandemic. It was only his own brush with death that seemed to bring home the gravity of the situation to him. That is an altogether different matter. Imo the case for the second and third lockdowns was less strong. It will be interesting to (eventually) read the findings of the Covid inquiry. Which neatly avoids addressing my comment about whether the individual should be permitted to decide what laws they follow. Nevertheless, you completely miss the point regarding Johnson. He is not being punished (again) for eating cake and having a drink at a gathering. He has been found guilty by his peers of lying to parliament. That Johnson has a need to be loved and cannot handle being unpopular would appear to the case. Johnson (Eton, Oxford, Tory) is the very embodiment of the establishment so I find it hard to accept that they would want rid of him simply because he was not liked, especially as he delivered a resounding victory in the 2019 election. I don't know whether it was due to arrogance and/or nativity but Johnson acted in a way that put himself 'above the law'. Imo if he had simply admitted that events took place which shouldn't have under his watch, and then taken full accountability and responsibility for these events then he would still be PM today. Yes, he would have had a rough ride for a while, but imo the parliamentary Tory party would have rallied round him. Imo Johnson has no one but himself to blame for his political demise.

If China and Russia do not sign up to Western regulations, then they will not be able to sell their products in our markets. How is that disadvantageous for Western companies? Good that the UK has, to date, had little input into the discussion about possible regulation in our two biggest (export) markets? As you say, another Brexit benefit. Any evidence to support that claim? The recent 'Atlantic Declaration' suggests that Sunak thinks otherwise. Maybe the UK doesn't need help from outside in developing regulation, but the fact remains that if we diverge too far from EU and/or US regulation then we will not be able to export to their markets. Surely it is in our own interests to be involved as early as possible in developing that regulation? Regulation is not an end in itself but is a necessity on occasion It appears that some people disagree https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12162909/Rishi-Sunaks-tech-adviser-warns-world-got-two-years-tame-artificial-intelligence.html

Quite possibly but that doesn't make it right. This - together with your final paragraph - suggests that you do not care if our politicians are honest? I do. Moreover, given that they are our lawmakers, then imo they should be held to the highest moral standards (more so than 'Joe Public'). With the benefit of hindsight that might be a valid conclusion (although it depends what the purpose of the lockdown was in the first place). If memory serves wrt the first lockdown; the government was dealing with an unknown virus, where the rate of infection and fatalities were increasing exponentially, where the method of transmission was not fully understood and where the measures imposed up to then (worldwide) had proved ineffective. Given all that, imo a lockdown didn't seem so pointless and stupid at the time. Who defines what laws are stupid and pointless? Imo you can't leave it to the individual to decide. For example, I have friends who insist that they are fully capable of driving - and do so - after a few drinks. Hopefully, the Covid inquiry will address these - and other - issues. See my first paragraph.

Presumably we should therefore just let an unregulated market dictate where we go? Both the UK and US administrations - as well as the EU - seem to think this a bad idea. The EU and US have been holding bi-lateral discussions on AI regulation for some time. The UK, quite rightly, is keen to be involved but has largely been excluded as a result of Brexit.

Clearly you have a vivid imagination as there is nothing factual in your post: You also appear to lack an understanding of the process governing the making of EU law. No " ... unelected (French) beaurocrat (sic) is laying down the law for the rest of the EU..." The European Parliament - a group of 705 democratically elected MPs from 27 member states - voted by a majority to table a motion. This will now go to the European Council and European Commission for further discussion. As the (full) Guardian article implies, the final proposal is likely to be different to the original proposal. You've already contradicted yourself as clearly the MEPs have done something i.e. made this proposal. Any evidence to support your claim that the trip to Berlusconi's funeral by the right-wing block of MEPs was funded by the European parliament? Who would have thought that a Brexiter would let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to have a rant against the EU.

Divided party, divided country, economic decline, reduced standing in the world, etc. Yep, thanks for everything. I thought that Brexit was ongoing? Traitor: Revised ERG definition - Anyone who doesn't share their right-wing parochial worldview. "Political ideology"? You're got to be kidding! The only ideology Johnson knows is a self-serving one which, happily, it appears has brought about his downfall. As my dear old Dad used to say, "Bloke'll skin a turd for a sixpence". Somehow I don't think that Johnson will be making it on to an Honours list if Rishi has anything to do with it!

Surely that should be 'making my day'? The day wasn't over at the time of your - or this - post?

Johnson has no one to blame but himself for his downfall.