Brexit

[Stuart Galbraith]

Britain didnt want a better deal than the rest of the members. It wanted a more bespoke deal than the other members. It was a willful inability to understand that simple fact that created this wholly avoidable mess.

[Marek Tucan]

More bespoke, not better deal? So what was it offering back?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Presumably that would have been a part of any in depth negotiation. But nobody really wanted one did they? I remember Cameron going cap in hand to Europe, and it was like 'Yes, yes, dont bother us, we have these really important immigrants to deal with'. He got sent home with a flea in his ear, and a claim that he got everything he wanted that convinced absolutely nobody.

 

Look at the present concern over migrants in Eastern Europe, the political problems of Angela Merkel, and Brexit, and you can draw a straight line between all of them. But nobody wanted to have a cohesive policy on immigration, because it would mean rethinking Schengen, and presumably much else besides. Better to kick it in the long grass, which has from my perspective worked perfectly. If you were a Brexiteer. Nobody was listening to the British Government, so it cant really be much surprise they succeeded in wholly alienating the British electorate, whom in the end were the ones that really mattered.

 

 

It is very easy to keep pretending that Britain, and right wing Tories, are solely responsible for this mess. And in large part it is, but my God didnt the EU do everything it could to grease the rails for them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Make of this what you will. Clearly one Swallow doesnt make a summer.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/986452/Brexit-news-Italy-EU-negotiation-Juncker-UK-withdrawal-deal-latest

 

The Italian Foreign Affairs undersecretary pledged Italy's support to the UK during the last phase of Brexit negotiations with the European Union.

The Lega MP urged Brussels to respect the decision of British voters to leave the bloc, blasting EU Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker for "mocking" the Prime Minister over her 'Cabinet's unity."

Speaking to Huffington Post Italia, Mr Picchi said: "The amount of prejudice Brussels has shown to have during talks has been evident from the start. And statements like that don’t help.

"The Commission is utterly self-referential, the intergovernmental system that has always worked is now bogged down. And Juncker is the example of what doesn’t work.

"Nobody elected him, he is not politically responsible of citizens, and he acts like a bully towards a Government the people chose? May and Johnson can lose votes at election time, he has no such pressure and can mock."

Edited July 10, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[TonyE]

Farage might return as lord of the Kippers when Batten steps down next year.

[Panzermann]

It is very easy to keep pretending that Britain, and right wing Tories, are solely responsible for this mess. And in large part it is, but my God didnt the EU do everything it could to grease the rails for them.

Cameron should have taken a different route to clear his interiour party dispute pertaining the EU, but it had been cooking for decades. And coming back with nothing, but claiming he had something, yeah, well...

 

Yes the bumptiousness in the EU has certainly helped it along, but the UK has always had kind of a stranger anxiety towards the eU.

 

 

As an example for the arrogance of "european politicians" (calling themselves European and not European Union politicians is hubristic already) enlightened by the EUROPEAN IDEA I give you this interview:

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1aENJgYu3Ao

 

the interviewer is Daniel Cohn-Brndit, long time EuMP for the Greens and former leader of the '68 protests in Paris. So totatlly neutral and unbiased of course. *cough* How dare these unwashed Brits not see the one true and only wisdom that is the EU?

 

 

note they did not touch their wines...

Edited July 10, 2018 by Panzermann

[Stuart Galbraith]

Cameron pointed out to the people he would offer them a referendum. They voted for him. He gave them a referendum, people voted against staying in. Not an overwhelming majority by any means, but still a majority that must be respected.

 

The problem with the EU and many Europeans is that the continuing narrative is 'Well this is all tories, so we can ignore it as just a strange aberration'. No. It was a choice offered to the British people, twice, and they ran with it. It would be more appropriate to ask, quite what was it that turn so many Britons off from being ardent Europhiles in just 43 years? And that is the one debate not being had in Europe, because it would force too many awkward questions to be asked.

 

Nobody is suggesting British politicians are not arrogant. But for all their flaws, they gave a choice to their electorate, and are trying to run with it, even though it is questionable if anything like the terms offered are achievable. Why do you think quite so many European nations are not offering similar referendums, because they consider them unnecessary? Hardly.

 

I think Brexit was a historic mistake, but im not going to label everyone whom voted for it as either Tories or mentally defective. From my own family I know different. If thats the narrative coming out of Europe, then Europe misunderstands Britain just as much as my relatives thought they did.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

[Simon Tan]

So good.

[Ivanhoe]

It would be more appropriate to ask, quite what was it that turn so many Britons off from being ardent Europhiles in just 43 years?

 

Possibly the EU?

[TonyE]

I think Brexit was a historic mistake.....

 

Stu, repent old sins and shed useless beliefs, why stay a pouty remoaner when you can become a Swashbuckling Brexiteer ?

 

Don`t stay a nipper, become a kipper!

[DB]

This all begs the question as to how a referendum vote to leave the EU would go in any other EU state. I am fairly certain that there is more than one state that would be joining the UK in the naughty corner.

 

I believe that all of the "negotiations" are worthless. The EU has offered nothing in response to any portion of the UK attempts. It does not suit the purpose of the Eurocrats to encourage others to leave by offering *any* concessions.

[Simon Tan]

Europe or death.

[Josh]

This all begs the question as to how a referendum vote to leave the EU would go in any other EU state. I am fairly certain that there is more than one state that would be joining the UK in the naughty corner.

 

I believe that all of the "negotiations" are worthless. The EU has offered nothing in response to any portion of the UK attempts. It does not suit the purpose of the Eurocrats to encourage others to leave by offering *any* concessions.

I think this is spot on. If the EU caves to the country that already had a special deal and its own currency, people will start negotiating their own deals left and right, or else running for the doors. I think there are several nations where a referendum would not go well. Whether you believe in the EU or not, it makes perfectly good sense from their point of view to let the UK drop at this point, regardless of any past issues.

 

Personally given the issues Merkel is having on immigration and the way Eastern Europe is leaning, I think the writing is on the wall for the EU. Or else it will fundamentally change into a different animal. But probably not the latter, as the people that run it now would rather completely fail rather than surrender their idea of what the EU should be.

 

I myself have no horse in that race really, except that I suspect a breakup of the EU would lead to a lot of global economic dislocation.

[rmgill]

Being in the EU should have positives. The EU shouldn't have to try to bully nations into staying in it. If all the EU has is negative re-enforcement to keep members, then there's no valid reason to stay and the experiment is a BAD deal.

[Simon Tan]

Europeans swimmming to the New World.

[Marek Tucan]

This all begs the question as to how a referendum vote to leave the EU would go in any other EU state. I am fairly certain that there is more than one state that would be joining the UK in the naughty corner.

 

I believe that all of the "negotiations" are worthless. The EU has offered nothing in response to any portion of the UK attempts. It does not suit the purpose of the Eurocrats to encourage others to leave by offering *any* concessions.

What was EU offered? Heck so far even the UK does not know what they want, except they would one again like special snowflake cherry picking deal of getting similar things like Norway or Switzerland without giving things they are (such as free movement). The EU was pretty consistent - "deal like any other non EU country". Why exactly is the UK entitled to anything more? Esp. as UK right now does not know what it wants. And I more and more doubt it is any negotiation 4D chess.

 

In the end the situation shows that Brexit was continuation of domestic politics by other means and continues to be so. It also shows none of its architects thought they will succeed and there was no plan. So again... Why should EU offer anything more than standard conditions? Heck, even the anti EU populists of eastern part of EU are not too keen on helping you as the immigration thing in Brexit was not about evul Muslims, but about evul Eastern Europeans. They may cheer you on, but they won't lift a finger to help.

 

Look, I would love for the UK to get a good deal, but then you have to offer a reason why. And it would have to be super good to make up for the free movement - so what was it?

[Leo Niehorster]

+1

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

It would be more appropriate to ask, quite what was it that turn so many Britons off from being ardent Europhiles in just 43 years?

 

Possibly the EU?

 

 

Actually, I think you are probably spot on. Talking of my relatives (the ones whom walked out in a huff, but later came back on calm reflection) their main grief was the inflexible and intractable nature of the EU. I mean, we already have a Government that can do that for us perfectly well.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

This all begs the question as to how a referendum vote to leave the EU would go in any other EU state. I am fairly certain that there is more than one state that would be joining the UK in the naughty corner.

 

I believe that all of the "negotiations" are worthless. The EU has offered nothing in response to any portion of the UK attempts. It does not suit the purpose of the Eurocrats to encourage others to leave by offering *any* concessions.

What was EU offered? Heck so far even the UK does not know what they want, except they would one again like special snowflake cherry picking deal of getting similar things like Norway or Switzerland without giving things they are (such as free movement). The EU was pretty consistent - "deal like any other non EU country". Why exactly is the UK entitled to anything more? Esp. as UK right now does not know what it wants. And I more and more doubt it is any negotiation 4D chess.

 

In the end the situation shows that Brexit was continuation of domestic politics by other means and continues to be so. It also shows none of its architects thought they will succeed and there was no plan. So again... Why should EU offer anything more than standard conditions? Heck, even the anti EU populists of eastern part of EU are not too keen on helping you as the immigration thing in Brexit was not about evul Muslims, but about evul Eastern Europeans. They may cheer you on, but they won't lift a finger to help.

 

Look, I would love for the UK to get a good deal, but then you have to offer a reason why. And it would have to be super good to make up for the free movement - so what was it?

 

 

Security? I mean it must occur to the dunderheaded EU Commision they got themselves into a sticky wicket over Ukraine because the EU does not do foreign policy. So they are determined to ruin one of Europes only 2 Nuclear powers, and one that has pledged the liion share of troops to Europe's most awkward border in Estonia, and again in Poland. They might think thats NATO's problem but it isnt, because these are all EU states the EU does absolutely nothing to defend.

 

Its very easy for Brussels to say that is none of their business, but the only reason we havent gone to 3 percent of GDP would be fear of the poor deal we are going to get with the EU, so its already impacting European security. As an example, there is the Galilleo satellite system, which the UK has already put over a billion pounds into it and blocking us from it (as has been threatened) will add a million euro's to the cost. But the EU still throws it on the Brexit bonfire, because the calculated pain to the UK is more important than European security.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/24/eu-split-exclusion-uk-galileo-brexit

 

We get a bad deal, whats to say we cant become the next Sweden, withdraw from NATO because we cant afford the 2 percent limit ,and because all we are doing is defending Europeans whom seem dead set on shafting us? Not a great selling point for NATO is it? May wont, but Corbyn might, and regularly makes comments about his unease about NATO. At which point, any benefit the EU see's from shafting us is being lost on increased defence expenditure by their member states to make up for our withdrawal.

 

And that is before we get into the ground about sharing of intelligence, and the value that has had on combating islamic terror in Europe. Can quite possibly kiss goodbye to all that with a hard Brexit. France is no replacement, its still not a member of the 5 Eyes intelligence system.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith

[BansheeOne]

If the EU caves to the country that already had a special deal and its own currency, people will start negotiating their own deals left and right, or else running for the doors.

 

That's a long-observed fact, but I think most people fail to grasp a much more basic principle: any association negotiating the exit of one member must have the interests of the other members who will still be there afterwards at heart, since that's the whole point of associations - or they won't be. I like to refer to the complaints raised in Britain about the EU allegedly giving Spain a veto on the negotiation results over the Gibraltar question. The thing is, the results must be agreed upon by all EU members, so any of them has a veto. This wasn't the EU sticking it to the UK, it was the EU adhering to the form of its organization and the requirements arising from it.

[glenn239]

This all begs the question as to how a referendum vote to leave the EU would go in any other EU state. I am fairly certain that there is more than one state that would be joining the UK in the naughty corner.

 

I believe that all of the "negotiations" are worthless. The EU has offered nothing in response to any portion of the UK attempts. It does not suit the purpose of the Eurocrats to encourage others to leave by offering *any* concessions.

 

In all fairness to the EU, the British side is so divided weak and disorganised, why exactly would they give an inch to a bunch of fumbling clowns?

[glenn239]

 

 

Marek Tucan Why should EU offer anything more than standard conditions?

​

 

Because Britain’s participation in the European experiment is vital to its long term success and Brexit is symptomatic of deeper problems in the EU’s core principles that need to be changed in order for the EU to succeed. The EU should take Britain more seriously because Brexit was an opportunity to “fix” the EU’s defective policies – at least on population movement and immigration.

 

And it would have to be super good to make up for the free movement - so what was it?

 

 

Create a unified European armed forces and border security apparatus and have a European wide free trade zone, but otherwise allow your individual states much more freedom to set their own policies elsewise including in matters of conservative social policies and in population movement. Even the Habsburgs knew that if you are running a multicultural empire that you have to be very careful on selecting which values are unifying and which are divisive.

[seahawk]

Oh the freedom of movement again. May I remind you that the British were strongly against imposing any restriction on the new East European members back in the day and that the British tried to stop even the limitations for the adjustment period. Furthermore the UK also decided on its own that it will not use the possible limitations during the adjustment period. That was a purely British decision. Furthermore apart from some Romanians and Bulgarians that are happening in every richer Eu country, what was the exact problem with the immigrants from the EU - especially as the UK allows in at least as many immigrants from other countries - like Pakistan.

 

But there is more. It is not as if the UK decided to suggest limiting the freedom of movement of people in the EU in general (like not moving when you do not have a job or having to return when you found no job in 6 months) for which they could have found support, they demanded to get another special deal and decide on their own on how to handle immigration. That could never work, much less with the recent history in mind.

[glenn239]

I didn't think the UK cared about population movement in the EU in general, just movement into the UK itself?