Brexit

[Corinthian]

Good, bad, doesn't really matter?

 

Your thoughts.

[Ssnake]

Would hurt everybody badly, accomplish very little.

 

The idea is so stupid, I'm still somewhat stunned that it gained traction at all.

[Adam_S]

Good idea. I'm not opposed to the idea of a federal Europe per se, but the EU in its current form is a festering turd that's not fit for purpose.

[Marek Tucan]

Brexit is much like Scotchxit. The Exit party does not provide answer "what then" apart frm "Making Britain Great Again" and some castles on the cloud ("Of course we won't get hit by any tarrifs..." "Of course the US will treat us still the same in trade...") - it really is so similar to the Scottis independence arguments it's funny

[Stuart Galbraith]

If you look at Britain since WW2 making a near unerring series of uniquely poor decisions then yes, I think its kind of inevitable we will vote to pull out.

 

As for why, well its a combination of remarkably stupid right wing politicians who are convinced we are still an Empire, economists who will throw everything under the bus to turn London into the next Singapore, and well meaning people who have the naive faith that everything they read in UK newspapers is copper bottomed fact, rather than honey coated bilge from the Murdoch Pravda.

 

Not that the EU has done a particularly great job at welcoming the UK to the EU. In fact you can trace much of the present problem down the self serving prick De Gaulle. It took, what, 15 years to get into the EU? Look at the haste everyone fell over themselves to get Greece in.

[Marek Tucan]

Greece has beaches, olives, wine, gyros... What do you have? (well, apart from English breakfast )

[Panzermann]

Not that the EU has done a particularly great job at welcoming the UK to the EU. In fact you can trace much of the present problem down the self serving prick De Gaulle. It took, what, 15 years to get into the EU? Look at the haste everyone fell over themselves to get Greece in.

Brits were just as much pricks as de Gaulle. Two former empires not admitting that they are no more.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Not that the EU has done a particularly great job at welcoming the UK to the EU. In fact you can trace much of the present problem down the self serving prick De Gaulle. It took, what, 15 years to get into the EU? Look at the haste everyone fell over themselves to get Greece in.

Brits were just as much pricks as de Gaulle. Two former empires not admitting that they are no more.

 

Not true. The ONLY reason De Gaulle had a wartime role at all was down to the British. Roosevelt could see no use politically for him, it was only Churchill that demanded a role politically for De Gaulle in the alliance, and that contributed mightily to Frances prestige postwar. And De Gaulles for that matter. A point they seldom give Churchill credit for.

 

And where exactly did we slight the French postwar? Port Said? Hardly a good enough reason to block British membership of the EEC dont you think? And dont mistake, De Gaulle took sadistic pleasure in denying it to Macmillian, for reasons one can only really guess at. All that baggage was carried through to Britains entry into the EU, and I would argue still is. You should watch the Andrew Marr history of Britain, where he covers Macmillans (many) attempts to get into the EEC. De Gaulle at a French cabinet meeting quoted the Edith Piaff Song 'Dont Cry my Lord', to much merriment. Thats how bad Anglo French relations were in the 1960s.

 

Britain found the EEC sewed up between France and Germany when it entered in the 1970, which might have been in marked contrast to our somewhat stronger economy in the early 60s. And that is a feeling that has been very hard to shake off, whether it is still true or not. Our politicians always proclaim its being run to the advantage of someone else and we are getting shafted, and in fairness they are not altogether wrong. Why should it take a PM threatening to leave before we actually get the concessions we ask for?

Edited March 23, 2016 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

Greece has beaches, olives, wine, gyros... What do you have? (well, apart from English breakfast )

Nuclear Weapons?

 

No wonder the French didnt want us in. Their uniqueness in the ability to create holocaust would have been called into question.

[Simon Tan]

Exit. Europe as a political entity is a failure by design.

[Stuart Galbraith]

We could have said that in 1940 as well Simon.

[urbanoid]

That would both lessen the chances of the EU getting badly needed reforms (and that doesn't mean tighter integration, quite the contrary) and increase the chances of break-up of the EU as a whole.

Edited March 23, 2016 by urbanoid

[Simon Tan]

Brexit leading to EU collapse is the idea.

[Panzermann]

But he is right insofar as the European Union as it is at the moment is broken by design. And those in the position to reform this (the governments) are not really interested.

[cbo]

Brexit leading to EU collapse is the idea.

 

Ok, but will Britain then please stay out of Europe instead of keeping the pot boliing by supporting continental weakling states like you did in WWI and WWII. If you really dont care and think you will do best on your own, then by all means. But then let the Germans run the show the way the want without England trying its feeble best to f*ck op the masterplan.

 

Come to think of it...... Nordic countries, Germany, Holland, Austria, possibly the Czechs as the center and Poland, Slovakia, Baltic States, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Bulgaria providing cheap workforce. Does sort of ring a bell.....

 

If England stays out of it, we can quickly get the Frogs aligned with the program....

 

[Mike Steele]

Good idea. I'm not opposed to the idea of a federal Europe per se, but the EU in its current form is a festering turd that's not fit for purpose.

This.

[Allan W]

Greece has beaches, olives, wine, gyros... What do you have? (well, apart from English breakfast )

The Tank Museum at Bovington. Surely that's more than enough?

[Mike Steele]

 

Greece has beaches, olives, wine, gyros... What do you have? (well, apart from English breakfast )

The Tank Museum at Bovington. Surely that's more than enough?

 

Well the Monkey World might be a bigger draw....

[swerve]

If you look at Britain since WW2 making a near unerring series of uniquely poor decisions then yes, I think its kind of inevitable we will vote to pull out.

 

As for why, well its a combination of remarkably stupid right wing politicians who are convinced we are still an Empire, economists who will throw everything under the bus to turn London into the next Singapore, and well meaning people who have the naive faith that everything they read in UK newspapers is copper bottomed fact, rather than honey coated bilge from the Murdoch Pravda.

 

Not that the EU has done a particularly great job at welcoming the UK to the EU. In fact you can trace much of the present problem down the self serving prick De Gaulle. It took, what, 15 years to get into the EU? Look at the haste everyone fell over themselves to get Greece in.

We initially refused to get involved. We didn't need no steenking continentals! We didn't even attend the meetings that set up the ECSC, despite being invited, & withdrew from the Messina Conference. When the EEC was formed despite our refusal to participate, we tried setting up an alternative, EFTA - but it was damned feeble compared to the EEC. We bit the bullet after a few years & applied to join, but while we'd been dismissing it & trying to disrupt things de Gaulle had happened, & he didn't want any interference with the nice tidy arrangement he had with West Germany to run the thing.He may also have suspected that our intention was to be a spoiler, after our previous behaviour.

 

From when we first applied to when we joined was 10 years. Before that we'd spent 12 years alternating between ignoring moves towards economic co-operation in Europe & being disruptive.

 

If we'd been in from the start we might have been able to get some improvements, e.g. in the CAP, but by the time of Macmillan's volte-face that was all done & dusted & it was take it or leave it.

Edited March 23, 2016 by swerve

[Allan W]

 

 

Greece has beaches, olives, wine, gyros... What do you have? (well, apart from English breakfast )

The Tank Museum at Bovington. Surely that's more than enough?

 

Well the Monkey World might be a bigger draw....

 

Infidel! Burn him!

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

If you look at Britain since WW2 making a near unerring series of uniquely poor decisions then yes, I think its kind of inevitable we will vote to pull out.

 

As for why, well its a combination of remarkably stupid right wing politicians who are convinced we are still an Empire, economists who will throw everything under the bus to turn London into the next Singapore, and well meaning people who have the naive faith that everything they read in UK newspapers is copper bottomed fact, rather than honey coated bilge from the Murdoch Pravda.

 

Not that the EU has done a particularly great job at welcoming the UK to the EU. In fact you can trace much of the present problem down the self serving prick De Gaulle. It took, what, 15 years to get into the EU? Look at the haste everyone fell over themselves to get Greece in.

We initially refused to get involved. We didn't need no steenking continentals! We didn't even attend the meetings that set up the ECSC, despite being invited, & withdrew from the Messina Conference. When the EEC was formed despite our refusal to participate, we tried setting up an alternative, EFTA - but it was damned feeble compared to the EEC. We bit the bullet after a few years & applied to join, but while we'd been dismissing it & trying to disrupt things de Gaulle had happened, & he didn't want any interference with the nice tidy arrangement he had with West Germany to run the thing.He may also have suspected that our intention was to be a spoiler, after our previous behaviour.

 

From when we first applied to when we joined was 10 years. Before that we'd spent 12 years alternating between ignoring moves towards economic co-operation in Europe & being disruptive.

 

If we'd been in from the start we might have been able to get some improvements, e.g. in the CAP, but by the time of Macmillan's volte-face that was all done & dusted & it was take it or leave it.

 

 

In actual fact we seem to be slap bang between our 2 dates, this states Macmillan applied in 1961, and we got in in 1973, so thats 12 years. Which still seems remarkably tardy, even allowing for Labour not wanting to join, and De Gaulle being an obstructionist prick.

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-decision-to-seek-entry-into-the-european-community

 

And yes, we didnt want to join initially. I think Churchill was one of those who advocated a prototype common market, but didnt believe we should be part of it. That was a major mistake. One only has to look at NATO which we joined on the ground floor and one can see that it is much more akin to what we want and like.

 

But thats by the by. Doesnt it imply that the EU (and I argue we ought to remain part of it) is wholly unable to depart from those founding values established by West Germany and France and the other founding members? We might be a part of the reason for that in our desire for splendid isolation then and now, but that it still is arguably true that the core of the EU make all the major decisions and the rest to a large extent put up with them is still evidently true. Did we get much chance to mould the events of 1992? Because it certainly didnt look like it at the time.

 

That probably comes across at Eurosceptic, and I probably am. I still think we would be soft in the head to leave.

[sunday]

 

 

 

Greece has beaches, olives, wine, gyros... What do you have? (well, apart from English breakfast )

The Tank Museum at Bovington. Surely that's more than enough?

 

Well the Monkey World might be a bigger draw....

 

Infidel! Burn him!

 

 

Mike, you've done it. Infuriating a peaceful Canadian!

Edited March 24, 2016 by sunday

[Ssnake]

Soo, who's fault is it then that the EU is not more to Britain's liking; an obstructionist conspiracy of the Eurocrats to sabotage British policy change suggestions, ineffectual British diplomacy, or British governments that fail to actually pitch their ideas in Brussels (which might be summarized under the "Diplomacy Fail" case). I'm not suggesting anything. But how comes that France and Germany usually find some common ground to direct the development of the EU while Britain feels left out, even though in 44 years of membership one would expect a nation to figure out how things are getting done in Brussels.

 

Not trying to be smug here; I'm trying to understand if it's the British governments that failed to do their job in the EU, of if it's something else. I don't believe in a conspiracy against Britain. There are a number of "natural allies" on the continent that should provide sufficient leverage in negotiations. Over here the impression is that it's wholly the fault of the UK and their various administrations. The PR that you are generating within the EU is often disastrous and can be summarized as an incurable desire for cherrypicking, the desire to meddle in areas where you don't even participate (e.g. Eurozone meetings), and being doublefaced - on the one hand, agreeing to pretty much everything in the internal negotiations and regulations, but blaming Brussels at home for regulations that were actually started by the British government.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Soo, who's fault is it then that the EU is not more to Britain's liking; an obstructionist conspiracy of the Eurocrats to sabotage British policy change suggestions, ineffectual British diplomacy, or British governments that fail to actually pitch their ideas in Brussels (which might be summarized under the "Diplomacy Fail" case). I'm not suggesting anything. But how comes that France and Germany usually find some common ground to direct the development of the EU while Britain feels left out, even though in 44 years of membership one would expect a nation to figure out how things are getting done in Brussels.

 

Not trying to be smug here; I'm trying to understand if it's the British governments that failed to do their job in the EU, of if it's something else. I don't believe in a conspiracy against Britain. There are a number of "natural allies" on the continent that should provide sufficient leverage in negotiations. Over here the impression is that it's wholly the fault of the UK and their various administrations. The PR that you are generating within the EU is often disastrous and can be summarized as an incurable desire for cherrypicking, the desire to meddle in areas where you don't even participate (e.g. Eurozone meetings), and being doublefaced - on the one hand, agreeing to pretty much everything in the internal negotiations and regulations, but blaming Brussels at home for regulations that were actually started by the British government.

 

You answered your own question Nils.

 

Actually Im not suggesting we havent contributed to this situation ourselves, of course we have. We have by turns been overly demanding, and overwhelmingly apathetic. Witness by turns the Thatcher Government which demanded concessions like a birthright, the Major Government which signed up to 1992 with narry a glance or complaint, and the Blair Government which actually (for once) tried to engage with with Europe on something like equality. And latterly the Collation and Cameron Governments which basically turned the clock back to 1979 and pretended we were more important than we were. No joined up policy whatsoever, and all really should view Europe in the same way, ie, its in the national interest.

 

So Im not saying we didnt play a role. But the impression we had from the start is we were in the EEC (and latterly the EU) under sufferance of the landlords, and we had to put up with it. Against any nation that is arrogant, against one that convinced itself it saved the world twice, it was asking for trouble.

 

 

A core of the problem is perhaps that Britain still after 70 years cannot decide what it is. Is it still the big imperial nation out cracking heads in the name of Anglo Saxon hegmony, or is it a European nation like Belgium? Damned if I know. Answers on a postcard please.

 

 

6 of one and half a dozen of the other in other words. Added to the EU being at beast a monolithic organisation that is incapable of systemic change quickly (as the Germans apparently agree) Im surprised its taken this long to get where we are. Ill be even more astonished if we actually make the right decision, ie to stay in. Fingers crossed.

[Ivanhoe]

A core of the problem is perhaps that Britain still after 70 years cannot decide what it is. Is it still the big imperial nation out cracking heads in the name of Anglo Saxon hegmony, or is it a European nation like Belgium? Damned if I know. Answers on a postcard please.

There's your problem right there. What Britain should be is America's north Atlantic aircraft carrier, and our source of affordable, literate acting talent. Anything more than that is just delusions of grandeur.

 

Oh, and home of Kelly Brook. Yeah, I think that sums it up.

 

Generally on these threads, it usually boils down to the false dichotomy of independent Britain versus euroclone. In the age of global marketplaces, the independent Britain metaphor won't work, as int'l trade is the difference between wealth and poverty (heck, it always has been). But the euroclone option always reads to me like ObamaCare; "Its really a better way, despite all those statistics and anecdotes. Trust us, its way better!" Britain should be looking at 21st century methods for solving 21st century problems.