Hot Air

[carmanmemoranda]

You do have an obsession with 'proving' an item of discussion - it's not a scientific theory.
It's in European interests to integrate nations states into a more coherent political union.
It didn't look likely the UK would consider withdrawal from the EU twenty years ago; yet here we are.

The Federal Trust

The idea of federalism has long been misunderstood, if not vilified in our country. It was presented as a centralising and dominating force from abroad. However, for nearly 400 years federalism has sought to combine the efficient governance of public goods with the diverse plurality of local traditions and cultures. Federalism supports national identities. It is an idea that could give new meaning to the UK’s relations with Europe.

From your own link..


For over 75 years, the Federal Trust has studied the interactions between regional, national, European, and global levels of government. It has nurtured a particular interest in the European Union and Britain’s place in it. We have warned that Brexit could seriously damage Britain’s prosperity and standing in the world. Unfortunately, there is increasing evidence that these fears were justified.

The price people are paying for Brexit is too high. Prohibiting the free movement of goods and labour has rigidified the economy, caused supply chains to collapse, increased financial difficulties for British universities and research institutes, and made consumers worse off. It is threatening the cohesion of the United Kingdom and has created new conflicts in Northern Ireland. At a time when China aims to be the new superpower in the world, Britain has raised its voice for the defence of human rights, but it has no leverage to protect victims of abuse. As an EU member, it would be far easier to address and resolve these issues. A new approach to determining the UK’s relations with Europe is required.


Nowhere can I see it supports a "superstate " whatever that is

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You mean NATO?

European nations have neighboured Russia since armies were invented, lol..

Getting nato and EU mixed up

 

[Odds]

The problem is that you are stating your personal opinion as fact.

That it was better to remain in the EU? I said so at the time.
Times change.
Would we be better off in the EU as it is today?

 

[Odds]

Although i'd add it's nice to see the topic of Bre*it still has the capability to push all your buttons at once while the issues raised at Cop28 barely rouse a murmer...






...i think i'll add that to my list of reasons to die (part six.)

 

[JohnD]

it wasn’t almost 50:50.

48:52 is almost 50:50

More than 48 to less than 52 even more so.

Only an idiot would call it "adamant."

 

[Odds]

your basic argument is this: the EU has to keep changing to survive and therefore it must become a federal state….there are plenty other ways to evolve


The EU does not have a central government.

That is untrue.

Executive; Legislative; Judicial and Financial (sounds like government to me.)

CFR.org

The present enlargement agenda of the European Union regards three distinct groups of states: Western Balkans: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Association Trio: Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

Looks like growth to me...

 

[Roy Bloom]

For the European Union to survive it must evolve and grow or stagnate and, eventually die.

That's applicable to every 'state'.
Should the question not be: does a 'state' have a better chance of evolving and growing or stagnating, as a stand alone state, or as part of a much larger 'state'?

 

[Odds]

That was part of the referendum question and the UK voted to leave, so now the question is how does the UK grow its economy seperately from the EU. Apparently James Dyson believes it's better to take his business to Asia and grow it there.

 

[blup]

That's applicable to every 'state'.
Should the question not be: does a 'state' have a better chance of evolving and growing or stagnating, as a stand alone state, or as part of a much larger 'state'?

To be fair to Dicey, he moved manufacturing to Malaysia in 2002, there is a wider context for his commercial planning.

Blup

 

[Mottie]

If the EU is so f'cking good, why didn’t he move there? If we were still in the EU, he would STILL have moved to Asia so it’s feck all to do with Brexit really.

 

[Roy Bloom]

If the EU is so f'cking good, why didn’t he move there? If we were still in the EU, he would STILL have moved to Asia so it’s feck all to do with Brexit really.

It's the hypochrisy of supporting brexit, then moving his financial interest to Asia, that is more the point.
If he believed in the opportunities of Brexit. Why didn't he remain in UK?

 

[Brigadier]

If the EU is so f'cking good, why didn’t he move there? If we were still in the EU, he would STILL have moved to Asia so it’s feck all to do with Brexit really.

If the UK was "so f#cking good", why did he move at all?

 

[Odds]

Same reason as it ever was - Cheap labour.
Asian Coolies get twice the work done for half the wage.

 

[JohnD]

If the EU is so f'cking good, why didn’t he move there?

Like Rees-Mogg you mean?

Because he wanted cheap labour.

 

[blup]

If the EU is so f'cking good, why didn’t he move there? If we were still in the EU, he would STILL have moved to Asia so it’s feck all to do with Brexit really.

Probably so, although he was supporting entry into the euro in the noughties, to cancel out variations in the exchange rate. I don't think he appreciated what he saw as dominance of the regulatory system for his product areas by the big eu manufacturers. I don't know what his products are like now, but the ones I bought in the mid 90's were completely unreliable, maybe a one off. He is described as an engineer but he always struck me as a brilliant salesman.

Blup