17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

At least you admit that's what is happening. Kudos. Most Europhiles deny this to be the case.

 

Is it a bad thing? Well, that's what the referendum was for. Britain decided it WAS a bad thing. Democratically.  

The variety of claims for what the Referendum was about grows by the day.

 

45 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's the thin end of the wedge. A creeping federalism. From the original common market to the current EU was a massive change and that change will continue/accelerate over the next couple of decades (assuming the EU lasts that long). The direction of travel is clear for all but the blindest to see. They are heading towards a United States of Europe run by unelected technocrats and many British, myself included did not want to be a part of it.

 

If you're in a bus accelerating towards a cliff edge, it's better to jump out before it's going so fast that it becomes life threatening to do so. Britain did that. We scraped our knees on the tarmac, couple of bruises here and there. But nothing that won't heal over time. Far better than the alternative, being ruled by "selected" rather than elected leaders like Juncker and Von Der Leyen.  

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.

 

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The variety of claims for what the Referendum was about grows by the day.

 

Only in your imagination.

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

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. 

And yet nobody asked the British people what they thought of this change, until 2016 of course.

 

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Is that necessarily a bad thing and is federalism inevitable? We obviously have different opinions about those matters.

 

I guess that depends on whether you support the concept of the nation state. Personally I do. I'd hate to see individual countries and cultures merge into some kind of dogs dinner where you can't tell the difference between Spain and Italy. Unfortunately, that's the way the EU is heading (and yes, I realize we are not there yet but I am talking about the direction of travel).

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

And yet nobody asked the British people what they thought of this change, until 2016 of course.

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>).

 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

I guess that depends on whether you support the concept of the nation state. Personally I do. I'd hate to see individual countries and cultures merge into some kind of dogs dinner where you can't tell the difference between Spain and Italy.

Me too and I agree.

 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Unfortunately, that's the way the EU is heading (and yes, I realize we are not there yet but I am talking about the direction of travel).

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).

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

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 a point of interest, Nigel Farage liked referendums so much that he was actually in favor of having 2 of them should the need arise: 

 

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

3 hours ago, RayC said:

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

20 or 40 years, this is a distant future, so right now it doesn't matter.

 

Regardless of the fact British public opinion is now one of the most pro-EU in Europe, the UK is out.

 

Issues we could discuss :

 

1.  "what happened to get us there", The Economist  just published a provocative article, that we can read / comment as a starting point (?)
2. "What is going to happen" in the medium term. Long term might be membership in a very federalist Europe or not, but it's too far away to really matter.

2 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Is this really a bad thing.  A United States of Europe will be able to compete with China and the declining USA.  I'm all for it.

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/

 

 

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

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/

 

 

As you know, what makes the EURO issue irrelevant in the case of the UK, is that it isn't required to adopt the EURO. In fact, Poland and Hungary, among others haven't adopted it either, even though they pledged that they would do it. But since no date is specefied, they've put that on hold indefinitely. "Indefinitely", is, I suspect in this case, their way of saying "never." Which is a wise course to follow.

55 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

 

It's difficult though isn't it. General elections are held on a great number of issues. Health, education etc. Similarly, sometimes we vote for a party based on a manifesto (like when I voted for Labour under Blair) and then the party goes and does something that had you known, you never would have voted for them (like going to war in Iraq based on WMD lies). 

 

That's why on huge issues like Brexit or Scottish Independence there really needs to be a separate vote to understand the direction that the electorate wants their country to go. 

 

Then, we need to respect that vote. 

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

From Oliver Twist, directly to Hard Times.

 

 

You never read about UK living conditions in Oliver Twist times then....

 

Now those were tough times, but thankfully for them, no smartphones to be trendy with, just a loaf of bread..........

16 minutes ago, transam said:

You never read about UK living conditions in Oliver Twist times then....

 

Now those were tough times, but thankfully for them, no smartphones to be trendy with, just a loaf of bread..........

Brexit was such a disaster, it's even caused Thailand problems. 

 

 

What's that you say? Global economic downturn? Covid? War in Ukraine? No No No, any issues in Britain are due to Brexit. ????

50 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Brexit was such a disaster, it's even caused Thailand problems. 

 

 

What's that you say? Global economic downturn? Covid? War in Ukraine? No No No, any issues in Britain are due to Brexit. ????

Up to your usual efforts to drag the discussion off track.

 

Perhaps we should pay attention to what Government ministers have to say about the impact of Brexit on the UK economy:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/feb/14/rishi-sunak-tory-conservatives-labour-china-latest-politics-news-updates

Johnson is not happy with the deal, but has he any political power left to do anything about it, he certainly appears to have accepted divergence isn’t going to happen.

 

The extremists in the ERG are oddly quiet and the DUP has yet to respond.

 

 

This is the problem with people who only know how to break things.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/rishi-sunak-brexit-deal-under-pressure-after-opposition-from-boris-johnson-and-dup

 

 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Johnson is not happy with the deal, but has he any political power left to do anything about it, he certainly appears to have accepted divergence isn’t going to happen.

 

The extremists in the ERG are oddly quiet and the DUP has yet to respond.

 

 

This is the problem with people who only know how to break things.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/rishi-sunak-brexit-deal-under-pressure-after-opposition-from-boris-johnson-and-dup

 

 

I don't read that lefty anti-UK everything rag......

On 3/2/2023 at 1:10 AM, JonnyF said:

We'll have a much clearer picture of the longer term economic impact 5 years from now.

the 5 year impact is there already since brexit started being taken into account by businesses in 2016.

 

.. so you meant "the 10-year impact?" 2026 ? Besides immediate issues like tomatoes and the like, there is a very simple way to know where the British economy is headed : investment.

 

Investment made today and in recent years give a very accurate picture of what the next years will be, the future

 

 

I suppose you acknowledge Brexit has erected manpower and trade barriers for UK businesses ? And also for foreign companies that used Britain as a European base? Brexit been contributing to labor shortages and sapping investment. 

 

 

Quote

If you look in the period up to 2016, it's true that we had a bigger slowdown in productivity up to 2016, but we had a lot of investment. We had a big boom between 2012-ish to 2016.

 

"But then investment just plateaued from 2016, and we dropped to the bottom of G7 countries."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64623488

 

 

 

 

 

 

so back to

On 3/2/2023 at 1:10 AM, JonnyF said:

We'll have a much clearer picture of the longer term economic impact 5 years from now.

 

we already have a 5-years picture and for the next 5 years investments already tells us the tale: "oven-ready" sunlit uplands? They are not in sight

 

• they were not there in the short term
• they were not there in the medium term (6+ years now)
• .. and they won't be there in the long term (missing out on investments already tells the tale)

 

now maybe you meant "we meet in 2028 to assess investments and know what 2033 will look like?"

 

 

 

 

 

40 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Up to your usual efforts to drag the discussion off track.

 

Perhaps we should pay attention to what Government ministers have to say about the impact of Brexit on the UK economy:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/feb/14/rishi-sunak-tory-conservatives-labour-china-latest-politics-news-updates

That headline really should be "Arch Remainer remains bitter about Brexit". ????

11 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

we already have a 5-years picture and for the next 5 years investments already tells us the tale: "oven-ready" sunlit uplands? They are not in sight

Ahhh - I see you are able to predict the future. Why didn't you tell us that before? 

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

As you know, what makes the EURO issue irrelevant in the case of the UK, is that it isn't required to adopt the EURO. In fact, Poland and Hungary, among others haven't adopted it either, even though they pledged that they would do it. But since no date is specefied, they've put that on hold indefinitely. "Indefinitely", is, I suspect in this case, their way of saying "never." Which is a wise course to follow.

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

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It's difficult though isn't it. General elections are held on a great number of issues. Health, education etc. Similarly, sometimes we vote for a party based on a manifesto (like when I voted for Labour under Blair) and then the party goes and does something that had you known, you never would have voted for them (like going to war in Iraq based on WMD lies). 

 

That's why on huge issues like Brexit or Scottish Independence there really needs to be a separate vote to understand the direction that the electorate wants their country to go. 

 

Then, we need to respect that vote. 

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?

18 minutes ago, RayC said:

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

Absolutely. Which is why the Euro was a mistake. I don't understand why the most recent entrants have adopted it Unless the rules were changed and now they have no choice.

1 hour ago, transam said:

I don't read that lefty anti-UK everything rag......

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!

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

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?

That's true, but many people who vote in General Elections are also completely uninformed and the result of general elections can also have huge implications for the country. 

 

Many people don't bother to check the party manifestos. Some people vote for one party or another because that's how their parents always voted. Some people vote for a party because they find the candidate physically attractive, or because they are the same sex/race as the candidate. Is that any better than voting on 'gut instinct'? Often, your gut instinct can be very accurate. 

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

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!

His approach exemplifies what I call the Law of the Conservation of Ignorance.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Absolutely. Which is why the Euro was a mistake. I don't understand why the most recent entrants have adopted it Unless the rules were changed and now they have no choice.

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.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

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.

Have Poland and Hungary met the requirements? What are the requirements? 

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

That's true, but many people who vote in General Elections are also completely uninformed and the result of general elections can also have huge implications for the country. 

 

Many people don't bother to check the party manifestos. Some people vote for one party or another because that's how their parents always voted. Some people vote for a party because they find the candidate physically attractive, or because they are the same sex/race as the candidate. Is that any better than voting on 'gut instinct'? Often, your gut instinct can be very accurate. 

Two wrongs, etc.

 

Data or gut? We seem to differ on what's best again.

Just now, placeholder said:

Have Poland and Hungary met the requirements? What are the requirements? 

Actually, I'm doing now what I ought to have done before I asked, I'm looking it up.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

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!

Funny.

 

Personal experiences don't count. But, hey, everything I read in the newspaper is true and honest. 55555

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Have Poland and Hungary met the requirements?

Sorry don't know. Probably not but that's more of a guess.

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What are the requirements? 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/joining-the-euro-area/convergence-criteria/