Labour, right before the election.
The conservatives still have power in the UK and will continue to have influence for the foreseeable future. As long as conservatism has any place in UK politics, the UK should not be permitted to re-join. Conservatives will eventually just re-Brexit.
There is simply no place in a healthy, modern society for a conservative government. Let the UK rid themselves of their plague of conservatism first before being allowed to further harm the UE with this dangerous illness.
The conservatives still have power in the UK and will continue to have influence for the foreseeable future. As long as conservatism has any place in UK politics, the UK should not be permitted to re-join. Conservatives will eventually just re-Brexit.
I see what you are saying, but I don’t think you are completly right. Re-join can takes years and it will be under the EU rules, not UK, so no more special treatment like before. That alone is difficult to sell to UK, but I am not sure that if UK re-join people will vote again to exit, given that Brexit was sold with lies that was already exposed.
There is simply no place in a healthy, modern society for a conservative government. Let the UK rid themselves of their plague of conservatism first before being allowed to further harm the UE with this dangerous illness.
Disagree. A good government is a balance of progressivism and conservatism. Real life it is not black or white but a shade of grey (for the most part).
While balance can be good some times, the idea that a group of business interests and oligarchs coming together for the sole purpose of lowering their tax bills and buying the nations assets for peanuts, maskerading as a political party, could provide said balance is a strange one.
Conserving the established power and wealth as well as keeping everyone else down is the only thing they look to conservatives look to conserve. The rest is the lies they tell, in order to get in to do it.
While balance can be good some times, the idea that a group of business interests and oligarchs coming together for the sole purpose of lowering their tax bills and buying the nations assets for peanuts, maskerading as a political party, could provide said balance is a strange one.
On the other hand even trying to level everyone to the lowest level is wrong.
Conserving the established power and wealth as well as keeping everyone else down is the only thing they look to conservatives look to conserve. The rest is the lies they tell, in order to get in to do it.
True, the correct balance would be conserve the power and let everyone else to rise, but I undestand it is an utopian vision (the established power would never allow it).
But in the end I think that the main problem is that both parts lost the contact with the normal people but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.
On the other hand even trying to level everyone to the lowest level is wrong.
If only there was a third option. Somewhere between “a doctor and a kitchen hand earning the same money” and human greed, expressed in economic form. Oh well, never mind I guess.
True, the correct balance would be conserve the power and let everyone else to rise, but I undestand it is an utopian vision (the established power would never allow it).
Its not so much that. Its that their power is power over other people. Its the power to charge a levy (exactly like a tax) on the money people earn for using their things etc. The idea that one can be lifted while the other is retained is a contraction in terms.
but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.
Considering the conservatives are about to be whiped out at the next election, I hope that was meant to be ironic.
but the conservatives are now starting to talk to them again while the progressives are still talking only to themself in an ivory tower.
Considering the conservatives are about to be whiped out at the next election, I hope that was meant to be ironic
Not sure about that, honestly, at leasto from what I see in Italy.
This thread is about the UK, not Italy.
However, if we are to talk about Italy, its always had a problem with fascism, being its birthplace and all. A millenniam long hangover from Romes slave economies and Christianity is to blame for what makes it very much the outlier and not the norm here.
This thread is about the UK, not Italy.
I know. What I mean is that I would not be so sure that what people say they will vote will be what they actually vote.
In Italy many people told they would never vote for Berlusconi but somehow he won the elections. Same with Trump, the poll gave him losing yet he won.The point is: don’t trust the polls, especially if there is a social stigma associated with one of the options.
However, if we are to talk about Italy, its always had a problem with fascism, being its birthplace and all. A millenniam long hangover from Romes slave economies and Christianity is to blame for what makes it very much the outlier and not the norm here.
You sentence is the exact reason why people are going to vote for the right wings.
The only people talking about fascism in Italy is the left wing. At the last EU election the points of the left were that the fascism must not win and that their secretary is a multigender woman. Not a word about the actual problems we have (for example, that people have seen their purchasing power drop by a considerable amount, a couple that want to build a family must relay on their parents to be able to buy an house and even more if they decide to have a child, lines at soup kitchens get longer and longer and so on).But yes, we are going off-topic. My bad.
What is one good thing of conservative influence in government that wouldn’t also be there without them?
Everything. And nothing and all.
There is not a single thing the conservatives are completly right about and the progressives are completely wrong (or vice-versa of course), so I cannot truly pinpoint something specific.
The progressives are completely right about allowing two consenting adults to marry each other, regardless of other factors such as their skin color or their gender.
That’s just one thing. I can name more. We do not need condervatives in government, they are only holding us back.
The “conservatives” nowadays are just another far-right party, only they’re led by posh twats instead of rabble rousers and unlike in most of Europe (with noteable exceptions being Hungary and maybe Austria), in the UK are mainstream rather than fringe.
Nowadays they don’t really do “conserving”.
How I imagine that would go:
deleted by creator
Well you forgot the most important step to get those benefits, that would be the application to become America’s 51st through 89th states. Though most of your 39 counties probably don’t have the necessary population to become their own states.
That would actually be pretty good tbh, mostly because the football hooligans would have to start waving a different flag and that would be hilarious to watch.
Also it would make the us impressively wide, almost (?) shorter to fly away from it to get to the other side.
The UK is in trouble, but not that desperate
Could have fooled me with the Tories in power for so long trying to dismantle the NHS and all the other few benefits that you guys have over The US.
Like you guys haven’t given Labor actual power since Thatcher and Reagan. We at least gave the Democrats a supermajority, kinda, for a total of 6 months across 3 different administrations.
Not great, and we seem to have shown the rest of you how to turn into plutocracies.
I’m not British
Hey that’s exactly how it is with American conservatives. Just constantly causing more issues without solving anything whatsoever.
The main Brexit benefit appears to be the disintegration of the conservative party. Pretty good benefit really.
Partygate triggered that. it had nothing to do with Brexit
That’s how politics work. Conservatives do a few awful things then it swings over to the liberal side… then the liberals go a bit too fast and it swings back.
I just can’t believe the US wasted it’s political clout on fucking Biden. Another Obama would have been killer, but instead we have the guy nobody really wants and is only chosen because his opponent is hitler 2.0
Also, lol
They can come back with zero special privileges, as one among equals.
This is exactly why I don’t think they’re coming back just yet. If there’s one thing leavers and remainers agreed on it’s british exceptionalism. Remainers didn’t want to leave because EU in general was beneficial, remainers didn’t want to leave because UK had a good thing going in the EU and giving it up was stupid. Remainers want to join only if they get at least some of their special privileges back.
Maybe in another 10 years they’ll be more receptive towards joining without special privileges.
I’m ready now. Fuck sterling, fuck the vetos, fuck the opt-outs, etc. Yeah, the special arrangement we had was amazing and put us in a privileged position and we’ll be diminished if we rejoin without them, but that’s still a far better situation than we find ourselves in now. So yeah, warts and all; I’m in.
We should have gone full metric and adopted the Euro years ago. Then all this bollocks about pints and good old sterling would have been done with.
As usual with UK we do everything half arsed and settle for second best.Whores don’t get second chances… At least they don’t get taken back the first wife lol
Brentrance.
When the EU turns around and predictably tells us to fuck off:
The EU won’t turn you down, but you won’t want to meet the necessary conditions
As the vote for new EU Members is one with veto rules, my bet is that it’s going to be an opportunity for all manner of EU members to make demands, such as Spain demanding Gibraltar back.
Breturn
Breunion
I suspect that the majority of voters never wanted to leave in the first place. Results-wise, there was like 1.2% in it. And the leave voters were more likely to actually turn up. The problem is that too many “remainers” didn’t actually vote.
People need to remember the vote happened immediately after the EU migration crisis. Anti-EU sentiment was at a high all across the union.
I don’t know why people act like being anti-EU was a UK thing, not a shared issue across several members. People should remember that before they shit on the UK too much.
Shit, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary, and perhaps others had a similar or higher level of anti-EU sentiment at the time compared to the UK. It’s just that David Cameron was the only one stupid enough to gamble on having a referendum.
Anti EU was a UK thing. Barely anybody in mainland EU wanted to leave the union. It was and still is a topic of the far right, not centrist parties.
The Leave Referendum and what happened during it and afterwards to the Tory party is a great lesson of what happens when a mainstream rightwing party starts adopting policies of the far-right.
(The present day Tory Party is far-right by continental european standards, only headed by posh twats rather than the more traditional rabble rousers).
Should be a lesson for similar parties in the rest of Europe, IMHO.
It was. A lot of right wing loonies in the EU dropped their leave the EU stance because everyone around the EU saw what a stupid and annoying thing it was to leave.
While what you are saying is true, the far right has been gaining recently all over Europe. And they have been more vocal about what they want.
the far right has been gaining recently all over Europe
The farmers who vote and promote them want to get rid of taxes on fuel for their tractors. They still want to sell their crops to European countries. European economies are more overtly connected between mainland European countries than the UK has been.
That is not true. Several countries had a similar or higher level of anti-EU sentiment.
David Cameron may have gambled on the referendum but he still only had one vote in it. The citizens of the UK as a whole own the results. Also, as I recall, there were two elections after the referendum in which UK citizens doubled-down on Brexit by returning the Conservatives to government with landslide victories.
Also, anti-EU sentiment is one thing and may be common in various EU countries from time to time. However, voting for separation is quite another.
In any case, with such sustained support for the Tories post-referendum, it’s hard to lay the blame for Brexit at anyone’s feet except the UK citizenry itself.
Nobody else voted for it because nobody else had the chance to.
My whole point is that it’s extremely likely other countries that also experienced a wave of anti-EU sentiment would’ve voted the same way, had they been given the chance.
While I see your point, I feel like this doesn’t take into account how our voting system can give a party a large majority even if less than half the population votes for them. Just over half the population voted for parties that weren’t pro-hard Brexit, yes the Tories got 56% of the seats on just 42% of the vote. That kind of discrepancy means it’s hard to infer the will of the people based on the composition of the Commons.
There is a pervasive idea on the internet that the popular vote is the “real” vote, compared to constituency-based voting. I don’t find that to be a helpful attitude, especially when applied selectively. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The House of Commons is a constituent assembly, which is a valid and reasonable form of democratic representation. The election system could be changed to better reflect the popular vote, but the popular vote is not automatically more valid than the constituency-based system. There are pros and cons to both, with constiuency-based voting typically giving somewhat more weight to under-populated areas.
The fact is that the UK voted for Brexit, directly and indirectly, multiple times and in multiple ways using its long-established voting system. There is no way to escape responsibility. Indeed, being a democracy, the citizens of the UK are ALSO responsible for their own voting system.
I’m not saying the popular vote is more valid than the constituency-based system. I’m saying there’s more nuance to the situation than “the population wanted Brexit because the Tories got a majority”, which is what I thought you were sayin here:
Also, as I recall, there were two elections after the referendum in which UK citizens doubled-down on Brexit by returning the Conservatives to government with landslide victories.
…
In any case, with such sustained support for the Tories post-referendum, it’s hard to lay the blame for Brexit at anyone’s feet except the UK citizenry itself.
I can’t deny the last sentence, but using the election as evidence makes it sound like over half of the country wanted the Conservatives in power, which is demonstrably untrue, that’s the only thing I’m arguing against.
People who don’t go to elections (laziness, confidence to win anyway, boycott) accept the election’s outcome.
True, but we are speaking about what people want, not how they voted.
The original Brexit vote should have been at 2/3 majority vote. The fact that it was a simple majority was absolutely bonkers and I’m sure the ones who put it in the ballot knew exactly what they were doing. They all made massive sums of money on Brexit while the morons who voted for it are losing their shirt.
Nowhere is this more evidenced than in this statement from the article.
But once the 18% who say they don’t know are taken out, 52% back EU membership with 48% opposing it - a complete reversal of the 2016 Brexit referendum result.
A full 18% of those polled couldn’t even make up their damned mind about it. And the people who wrote this chose to clip those idiots out of the picture in order to create the narrative they wanted for this clickbait as fuck article. And I will bet you anything the the Brexit framers would make serious bank on any effort to rejoin. [/removes tin hat]
Oh it’s worse than that. It was never even legally binding, it was just a finger-in-the air - only after the fact was it treated like the cast iron democratic will of the people while over in the real world the Electoral Commission would’ve actually declared the whole thing void if it was a legally binding referendum because of illegal overspend by the grifters pushing it in the first place.
The whole thing is maddening to think about, honestly
Removed by mod
Is Brexit an ignorant, lazy, myopic tantrum you can undo?
No, you can only ask to join again, then start the discussion and if everyone agree, join again. But this time it will be on EU terms, not UK terms.
And the process can take years.
My hope is that Labour are playing this smart. They’ll bang on about how Brexit won’t change, but that “we’ll look to increase economic and social strengths via our relationship with the EU”. We’ll reintroduce entry to the single market, ensure freedom of movement, and basically rejoin in everything but name - and then eventually say “well, if we want to rejoin it’s basically a tick in a box”.
The EU will likely be happy for the UK to rejoin, even without punishment. The most reliable ally in the battle against Euroscepticism is a former Eurosceptic that can say how shit things were after leaving, and how much better they are since rejoining.
They could do what Norway does, paying for an almost membership that doesn’t give them any voting rights.
Only apparently in the EU power circles nobody wants yet another “special deal” like Norway or (even worse) Switzerland.
Why not? Pay into the EU, adopt all EU laws, get one fishing or banking exception and no vote in laws. I’m all for it.
There’s absolutely no chance of us getting a fishing exception. That was highly contentious when we were one of the big three EU countries. No way would they agree to that whilst also letting us back in after throwing all our toys out of the play pen.
With the fight over the pound in the 80s and 90s when they first formed the EU, I would be very surprised if the EU didn’t force the UK to adopt the Euro to rejoin
Why would they. Like the above comments says they have much more to gain by UK having to slink back so why would they put barriers to that.
It’s also not as if the pound is a particularly weak currency like the French Frank or the German Deutsche Mark was.
It’s also not as if the pound is a particularly weak currency like the French Frank or the German Deutsche Mark was.
The Deutsche Mark was famously stable and the biggest official foreign exchange reserves after the dollar, it was much stronger than the pound sterling.
They don’t want to make it easy to get back in, so that other countries aren’t tempted to leave in the first place. They shouldn’t reward temper tantrums.
I would have thought the inverse would have been true that they would want to reward coming back It seems like a petulant philosophical view to suggest that the EU would not let the UK back in.
After all doing so would demonstrate that leaving is non-practical
If a kid throws their ice cream on the floor, giving them another one soon afterwards doesn’t in any way teach the other kids not to throw their ice cream on the floor. This is very firmly a “no ice cream for you then” situation. I think labour realise they if they tried to rejoin, they would get a very rough ride indeed from the EU with massive amounts of playing hardball and that the best they can hope for in the next five years really is some softening and smoothing of the deal for being cooperative. We agree to fund EU science a bit, they let us back into erasmus, that kind of thing (although specifically not that).
But joining the EU takes a decade or more sometimes, and the “but it’s really very simple, we follow most of the EU rules already because we’re a former member” is as stupid as the “oven ready deal” and “German car manufacturers will insist we get a great deal” nonsense.
Euro, Schengen and no special exceptions.
If the UK applies to rejoin, this time no Thatcher UK Rebate or any other special exceptions. UK leeches were a thorn in our side for way too long. This time you better pay what you actually owe. And say bye-bye to your stupid currency. Euro adoption or nothing.
That’s quite an acerbic way to talk about people.
Keep in mind 2 nations within the UK didn’t want to leave along with a large chunk of the other two.
I’ve lived in a couple of countries of Europe, including the UK whilst it was an EU Member.
The spirit about the EU in the UK was always different, no “stronger as a group” mindset, always “what’s in it for me” and trying scheme after scheme to see if they could swindle the rest of the EU.
Then on top of it all there were all the many insults to the EU - and by extention the people in it - during the Leave Referendum and even afterwards, coming from amongst others top people in party in government, including the PM.
I remember how even the Remainers were running around with delusions of national superiority: for example one of their arguments were “We should stay and change the EU from the inside”, as if Brits knew better what the EU should be than the other 470 million people in it.
The EU doesn’t really need that kind of member nation, more so when we’re dealing with another one like that in our midst: Hungary.
Respect is earned, not due, and the UK has a lot of work ahead to earn it.
Not here to try and change your mind but I’ll reiterate what I said before, not everyone wanted to leave. The negatives you give are mostly related to Leavers. Keep that in mind when you’re being aggressively negative to the “UK”, it’s not one lump.
I’m sorry but the UK is the entity we’re talking about, not actual persons - individuals can’t join or leave the EU on their own hence it’s the actions of the actual formal nation state that get judged when it comes to joining or leaving the EU.
Consider the possibility that it’s your nationalist feelings (and given the huge role of British Nationalism in Brexit that’s not actually a good thing) that are making you confuse the country and the actions of it by the hand of it’s elective representatives, with you yourself and people like you - the actions of the nation never really represent all people in that nation and it’s not really healthy (IMHO) to identify yourself with The Nation.
People being critical of a country seldom means they’re critical of everybody in that country, unless they’re nationalist far-right morons, in which case their problem is a lot bigger than merely talking in an acerbic way about a nation.
You’ve mistaken what I said I think. I was reiterating that the UK is 4 nations. I wasn’t talking about individuals. I think it’s safe to say we’ve reached the end here though given your rhetoric to I’ll leave you to your opinions.
Whilst I don’t disagree with your facts, I disagree with your tone.
It’s really understandable for EU folk to be angry with us. Our newspapers are toxic, the BBC promotes Farage and we were always going for British exceptionalism, with Brexit being the ultimate act of We’re Better Than You sentiment.
Me, you, 48% of the then voting public, Scotland and NI didn’t buy it, correct, but genuinely the right approach to EU irritation with the UK is apology, not “stop being mean” and not “it wasn’t my part of the UK”.
We’re not out of the woods yet. Britain’s most unelectable politician of all time, with nine losses in hand-picked constituencies may well win Clacton because the stupidly corrupt Conservative party couldn’t keep their stupidly corrupt MPs honest. How “we’re not a bunch of racist loonies” is that going to look across the channel? Yes, a bunch of us are going to turn away from the stupid racist Conservative party, but a lot of them are going to turn to the even more stupid, even more racist, even more anti EU Refuse UK Party.
Keep in mind 2 nations within the UK didn’t want to leave along with a large chunk of the other two.
Irrelevant. It is like saying the Lombardia and Veneto do not agree with what Italian government decide: it could be true but they cannot do whatever they want, they are part of Italy.
Crucially, although 52% of people polled think the downsides of Brexit outweigh the positives, engagement over Brexit is at the lowest it’s ever been. Most people simply don’t care about the issue any more.
[…] 43% in favour of rejoining the bloc, compared with 40% who want to stay out. But once the 18% who say they don’t know are taken out, 52% back EU membership with 48% opposing it […]
That’s not a “majority of voters”, that’s a “majority of people who report to know what they want”. These are not the same populations.
These are not the same populations.
According to the brexiteers, it was!
It’s only fair to use the same measurement standard now, right?
Sure, no problem. But this time without all the unfair special rules and exceptions that the UK had.
I fear the EU will take them right back and set a precedent for leaving and rejoining without so much problems as figuring out new contracts and agreements.
I’d demand worse terms for every time they leave and then try to rejoin (aka the cut was 50% but now the contribution has to be at least 55%)I dont think so. Its in the EU interest for them to come back in. It will show others that leaving is not a good idea. However, they wkbt want it to be easy as it might encourage others to leave. They will join in the same terms as new entrants.
They will have to join the euro and they wont get their previous favourabke rebate for agriculture.
Its still a good deal for both sides but Britain make a mistake, as most are aware.
All it takes is for one member country, no matter how tiny, to say “No” and it’s no, and in some countries like Belgium even a single region (say, “mighty” Walonia) can block it.
For example, I expect that Spain will want Gibraltar back as a condition for a Yes on a UK Membership vote.
In regards of Gibraltar, the problem is it being a fiscal paradise. If one of the agreement was that Gibraltar has too have the same rules as the rest of the EU it could be enough for the Spanish government.
And if that meant enforcing the same for Ireland and Luxemburg, even better.
It’s my impression that it’s actually a lot more about national pride for Spain than about Gibraltar’s fiscal paradise status, since Gibraltar as not part of a member country can just be treated the same as any other offshore fiscal paradise, such as the Bahamas, which includes it being added to black lists. In this day and age, it’s not geographical proximity that matters when it comes to fiscal paradises.
This makes sense since Britain too doesn’t really gain much from having possession of Gibraltar so holding on to it is mainly a question of national pride for the UK - it would be strange if Spain’s motivations were wildly different.
PS: Also it’s funny how during the Leave campaign a lot of the “reason” why the EU would give Britain quasi-membership rights (without the responsabilities) after leaving the EU were a lot like this, about how those other countries or interests inside those countries would do it because they stood to gain monetarilly from it in the short term. All that turned out to be mainly wishful thinking and a serious misreading of the motivations of the leaders and people in said other countries.
Just found it funny how there are still people around thinking other countries are mainly motivated by the short term gains in sovereignty affairs, even whilst Britain itself again and again keeps doing things motivated by national pride when it comes to such affairs - one would’ve expected that “they’re a lot like us” would somehow been figured out by now.
But “llanitos” don’t want to be Spaniards. And I respect that. So the logical way is for Gibraltar to follow the rules of the EU.
A single region within a member country can veto an entire block’s will, even if the rest of the country assents? That seems very broken as a voting system, to me.
Belgium has an unusual constitution that lets its regions have veto power over some of its decisions in the international stage and adding a member to the EU is actually a change to a major Treaty that Belgium is part of.
For most EU member countries, there is no such thing, though I believe some (Luxemburg, Malta?) are actually smaller than Walonia in terms of population.
Yeah I’m sure us Frenchies will make it veeery easy for UK to rejoin EU.
You guys look at ursula van der liar and the shit EU is doing and think “we need that”? Wow
If there’s anything to be learnt from Brexit, it’s that the EU is (despite its shortcomings) better than no EU. Even for wealthy countries.
As far as i can see if you guys join EU again you will be going to war. What does the EU has to offer in return?
They’re still a NATO member…
Ah yes, because any scenario where the rest of the EU going to war wouldn’t also basically mean automatically that the UK was also going to war already!
with that .ml tag you’d think someone would be better at remembering NATO is still a thing and the only non overlap between the two are countries that are defacto protected by it anyways.
I made a question and you came up all offended. The downvotes makes me think you are not alone. What to think about it?
with that .ml tag
.ml is not .mil
i am not going to blame you, you are not alone in making that mistake 😆
No, lemmy.ml is full of tankie brainlets.
that’s my point. read what i am reacting to.
I read the original post as ‘a tankie shouldn’t forget that NATO is a thing’ not as a confusion between .ml and .mil.
I’m not British.
What war?
idk, all the stuff that worked just fine before brexit maybe.
Well such timescale would in any case depend on EU, not on convenience for any british parliament. There are now N. Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, [ Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo ?], Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, [Turkey ?] all in the queue to join EU. On the other hand, it might help from point of view of geographic and economic balance, otherwise the centre of ‘gravity’ will shift even further SE away from Brussels. I think to expand EU has to reform processes, to end all vetos and generalise multi-speed / opt-outs.
Meanwhile a new british government could implement obviously convenient win-win cooperation step by step, until there isn’t so much left to change. And I’d be happy to see Scotland and Northern Ireland take a lead.There are now N. Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, [ Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo ?], Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, [Turkey ?] all in the queue to join EU
it is not FIFO queue. some of these countries are more prepared to actually join than the others.
Sure, but diplomacy is not logical, and EU has a habit (mistake?) to do things in mega packages (look at 2004). Last I heard, the gossip was ‘by 2030’.
my point is, if they actually asked, i am betting my left hand they would be in in the first possible wave (contrary to… majority of countries in that queue). 2030 would actually be super fast.
Hmm, did you consult the next french president about that ?
Nope, everyone behind Ukraine is now screwed. If they want to speed things up they need to help Ukraine win it’s war. Sorry, I don’t make the rules I just pretend to know them.
Although… Moldova and Georgia might as well. We all know they’re next on Putin’s list.
