Is Brexit an ignorant, lazy, myopic tantrum you can undo?
Especially when you keep on giving the goddamned Tories the keys to the castle in every election that matters.
nAh I’m NoT vOtiNg MaTe PoLiTiCs Is FoR wAnKeRs sHaLL wE gO fOr dRiNkS iNsTeAd?
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.
How I imagine that would go:
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
Bregret is a Britch
Also, lol
Brenter
Breturn!
Brcatdoor
Of course we do, but it ain’t gonna happen. Best you can hope for is the custom union in seven to ten years’ time.
I’m pretty anti-brexit, but I’m not sure whether I’m pro-rejoining. Taking the clusterfuck we’ve landed in and turning it in to somehow an even bigger clusterfuck may not necessarily yield good results and definitely won’t be some silver bullet. The massive middle finger we’d justifiably get from the EU should probably give us pause.
somehow an even bigger clusterfuck
I agree that rejoining won’t magically solve all problems but I don’t see how it would make things worse.
This. It’s not just a switch to be flipped.
What’s done is done. From day 1 after the referendum it was obvious to everyone that the UK would spend the next 50 years trying to mitigate the impact of that ridiculous decision. Hotting the “rejoin” button is not necessarily a short cut to the end.
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?
I’m not British.
What war?
idk, all the stuff that worked just fine before brexit maybe.
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.
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 made a question and you came up all offended. The downvotes makes me think you are not alone. What to think about it?
Brentrance.
Breturn
Breunion
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.
[…] 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.
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” 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”.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
