Future of the European Union

[Pannonian]

doesn't fit the narrative. very troubling i know.

You're missing the point. The metrics that the study cites, such as education, trade, etc. are areas that the expert opinions are almost unanimous on that Brexit is bad. And the conclusion that the UK is 2nd in the world? Presumably the US is top, which puts us above China. And the study looks at the EU countries in isolation, but as we've seen from the exit negotiations, the EU acts as a bloc. And even so, this would still put us ahead of Germany. And it puts us ahead of Japan, which has a far higher GDP than us, twice the population, better education, better productivity, greater industrialisation, etc. Is this because soft power puts us ahead? But look at another of the arguments put forward: that Nigeria should replace the EU, citing its population and economy. But isn't Japan far ahead of us by these metrics? If we are ahead of Japan by other metrics, how does that put Nigeria ahead of the EU? Especially as the EU is far ahead on just about every metric, and has a greater population to boot.

And those maps that are supposed to be impressive: I know what they are. They're called football radars, and are used to analyse football players. They are used because tables and bar charts are boring. Their proof of concept is how they can demonstrate a common sense fact: that Leo Messi is far better than anyone else. They're not trusted for anything other than a very broad overview, and they have limitations based on the metrics being used. Your chosen metrics are dodgy based on how experts in these fields view your arguments, and unlike football radars, they do not demonstrate a common sense fact as proof of concept. Choose irrelevant metrics, and Harry Maguire is a better player than Leo Messi. Which he's not, and any study that claims it forfeits credibility. Even more so when the arguments within are applied inconsistently to produce far out claims.

If this is supposed to be your decisive card in showing how your argument prevails, it's been just as much a waste of time as I'd anticipated just by looking at who produced it. Are you going to listen to Mr Trucker's testimony, now that I've read the rubbish that you've told me to read?

[Pannonian]

Oh hang on. The replacement of the EU with Nigeria isn't a political conclusion, but a condition of the study, because

As the Eu is not a country, and insofar as there is insufficient data to ascertain its geopolitical
capability – the sum of its parts would not be representative of its own performance – it has
been excluded from the Audit. Instead, nigeria has been included to provide better
representation of Africa. Indeed, nigeria is now the largest economy in Africa, as well as the
continent’s most populous country. 32 nigeria is also expected to increase markedly in
economic weight and population over the coming half-century, with perhaps as many as 410
million citizens by 2050, and its economy producing more in terms of nominal Gross Domestic
Product than Italy.

Is the EU not an economic bloc? Has the EU not acted as a political bloc wrt the UK during the exit negotiations? Is this a way to remove the EU from consideration because the EU is too powerful to fit into the chosen narrative?

[Furunculus]

Oh hang on. The replacement of the EU with Nigeria isn't a political conclusion, but a condition of the study, because



Is the EU not an economic bloc? Has the EU not acted as a political bloc wrt the UK during the exit negotiations? Is this a way to remove the EU from consideration because the EU is too powerful to fit into the chosen narrative?

don't get me wrong, i have my own questions about the methodology:

1. it would have been valuable to include citations of research, not just total investment, as a measure to capture the quality of research. a way to excise all the valueless grievance studies, but i understand that data was difficult to capture.
2. it would have been interesting to include all the EU G20 nations as an composite to capture the 'power' of the EU. yes, you would lose the value of the minor nations, but you also have to consider the penalty induced by the poor decision making process.

but in so far as it goes, i think it is a valuable piece of work.

[Fragony]

France is realy heating up, they are like that they are hotheads, tell me about it I had a few French girlfriends. Things look bad for Macron, and all the better for those who do not want any eu

Everybody knew this was going to happen

[Stazi]

France is realy heating up, they are like that they are hotheads, tell me about it I had a few French girlfriends. Things look bad for Macron, and all the better for those who do not want any eu

Everybody knew this was going to happen

I'm not sure what's going to happen but the funny thing is that it all blew up in the Macron's face a few days after he said to Trump that EU will build an army to fight against US. Coincidence? I don't think so. Generally, the whole idea of EU army is far beyond bad. It's totally evil. Only people who doesn't know the last 100 years of European history can think that's a good idea.