How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

[blueparrot]

Yes and the crux of Brexit is that the UK electorate has always rejected ever closer union and this was reinstated at the referendum so I just ask you how could we therefore possibly remain within it?

I'm not too interested in what you say about the intentions of its foundation because you're basically expressing the view of Europeans and European politicians but it isn't the UK view. I am British, I only care about what the UK intended for the EU given we were a founding member and we never intended for it to become what it is today. The British seemingly support a more conservative and smaller state and this is the opposite of what the EU is.

I think many on here miss that there are few who believe in this further integration of everything. That view isn't representative of the UK electorate where the majority are leavers, skeptics or they just don't care. You can see that in the energy for European elections where turnouts were always well below 40%.

As a result, whatever the EU was or is, the argument to remain a part of it was lost and whatever the EU's founding principles are they just aren't reflected in the UK. So I again can only ask how could we ever remain a part of something that we fundamentally disagreed with and largely couldn't change?

Not sure now we've seen both sides it's true any more. Most pols for rejoining are over 50% and quite a few don't knows. For closer relationships,its even higher.


A huge 68% of respondents in Britain see a benefit in reintroducing cross-Channel freedom of movement in exchange for access to the European single market.

The desire for co-operation, and willingness to forgo previous red lines, is also reciprocated in Europe.

UK and EU look to 2025 as year of reset but with little room for trade-offs

Sir Keir Starmer is invited to an EU summit in February - the first of its type since the Brexit negotiations.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[BrianW]

I can never understand the objection to closer political union with Europe.

Does it arise from a fear of being compelled to eat garlic or something?

The principle of subsidiarity within the EU means that everything that matters would always be at the nation-state level or below.

I see no conceivable objection to (say) a common foreign policy or defence policy. That would merely make us stronger. The big players don't give a fuck for what the UK thinks as it's not 1900 anymore. The USE would be at another level.

Do people in (say) Arkansas have a burning desire to leave the USA so they can have their own foreign and defence policy? How would it advantage the ordinary people of Arkansas?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I can never understand the objection to closer political union with Europe.

Does it arise from a fear of being compelled to eat garlic or something?

The principle of subsidiarity within the EU means that everything that matters would always be at the nation-state level or below.

I see no conceivable objection to (say) a common foreign policy or defence policy. That would merely make us stronger. The big players don't give a fuck for what the UK thinks as it's not 1900 anymore. The USE would be at another level.

Do people in (say) Arkansas have a burning desire to leave the USA so they can have their own foreign and defence policy? How would it advantage the ordinary people of Arkansas?

It’s all Johnny Foreigner’s fault.
Always is and always was.

 

[hampshireblue]

It’s all Johnny Foreigner’s fault.
Always is and always was.

What people forget is that WE are foreigners to 99.9% of the World's population.

 

[inbetween]

Not sure now we've seen both sides it's true any more. Most pols for rejoining are over 50% and quite a few don't knows. For closer relationships,its even higher.


A huge 68% of respondents in Britain see a benefit in reintroducing cross-Channel freedom of movement in exchange for access to the European single market.

The desire for co-operation, and willingness to forgo previous red lines, is also reciprocated in Europe.

UK and EU look to 2025 as year of reset but with little room for trade-offs

Sir Keir Starmer is invited to an EU summit in February - the first of its type since the Brexit negotiations.

www.bbc.co.uk

And I would be in favour of that, I was never against freedom of movement and I think it was a big mistake not to use that in the negotiations. However, the basis for rejoin cannot be based upon what we had before because that has gone. The reality of rejoin would therefore not mean rejoining, it would mean joining.

For example to rejoin we would have to take the Euro as per any other new EU country. This kind of thing would probably be politically impossible and it would take decades of negotiation which overrides the lifecycle of any UK government. The only exception to this would be some goodwill from the EU and certainly considerable will on our part but I don't see a situation for either let alone both.

Obviously there are the lines between the lines and that's where I think it will head indeed. However, the danger of this sentiment is that this is based upon noises coming from the Labour government, a government which barely really has a true mandate given only 9.7m voted for them. 14m voted for Boris Johnson's Tories and those people haven't gone away, it's just that many of them are voting for Reform.

If Labour pushes for reintegration into the EU then I would hazard a guess that Reform+Tories would form a pact and do very well at a subsequent election.

 

[Vic]

They voted for what you have just said, a common market. A common market of independent nation states, not a federalised collection of vassel states, the latter I say only because what else can 'ever closer union' mean? Why did the electorate then continually vote in Thatcher who spent years restraining European federalists? ...

Another non-sequitur. Which Conservative manifesto under Thatcher said "I will restrain European federalists"? She did do the "No, no, no" speech in Parliament in 1990 and that led to her resignation, and the electorate still supported the Tory Party at the next election (after they'd abolished her poll tax), with its commitments:

• In due course, we will move to the narrow bands of the ERM.
• We will play our full part in the design and discussion of monetary institutions for Europe.
• When or if other members of the EC move to a monetary union with a single currency, we will take our own unfettered decision on whether to join. That decision will be taken by the United Kingdom Parliament.

Plus "We will press for a European reaction force".

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I'm not too interested in what you say about the intentions of its foundation because you're basically expressing the view of Europeans and European politicians but it isn't the UK view. I am British, I only care about what the UK intended for the EU given we were a founding member and we never intended for it to become what it is today. The British seemingly support a more conservative and smaller state and this is the opposite of what the EU is.

We weren't.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I am British, I only care about what the UK intended for the EU given we were a founding member and we never intended for it to become what it is today.

We were not a founding member.

Also I suggest you use "I" rather than "we". You're not in the Royal Family, surely?

 

[Hgblue2]

I can never understand the objection to closer political union with Europe.

Does it arise from a fear of being compelled to eat garlic or something?

The principle of subsidiarity within the EU means that everything that matters would always be at the nation-state level or below.

I see no conceivable objection to (say) a common foreign policy or defence policy. That would merely make us stronger. The big players don't give a fuck for what the UK thinks as it's not 1900 anymore. The USE would be at another level.

Do people in (say) Arkansas have a burning desire to leave the USA so they can have their own foreign and defence policy? How would it advantage the ordinary people of Arkansas?

Because the most sustainable, successful, stable form of government is the nation state.

No foreign superstate is sending my kids to die in a war EVER, not happening.

Laws and decisions of that nature should be taken by a government that is elected by and is accountable to the people.

1. What power do you have? 2. Where did you get it from? 3. In whose interests do you exercise it? 4. To whom are you accountable? 5. How can we get rid of you? (with thanks Tony Benn).

It's a simple question of national sovereignty. That is the objection.

 

[blueparrot]

Because the most sustainable, successful, stable form of government is the nation state.

No foreign superstate is sending my kids to die in a war EVER, not happening.

Laws and decisions of that nature should be taken by a government that is elected by and is accountable to the people.

1. What power do you have? 2. Where did you get it from? 3. In whose interests do you exercise it? 4. To whom are you accountable? 5. How can we get rid of you? (with thanks Tony Benn).

It's a simple question of national sovereignty. That is the objection.

We never lost sovereignty as a member , no country ever did. No superstate sent anybody to war.