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.

 

[BrianW]

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.

So you don't think the USA is either successful or stable? It is a true union of states, where I don't think the EU will ever be more than a confederacy. There is a distinction.

Any USE Government - if it ever came to that, which it probably won't for two or three generations - would be democratically elected. Anything else is inconceivable because the EU nations would never vote for it. So Tony Benn's conditions would be satisfied.

Nation states have an absolutely shocking record when it comes to starting wars, and the UK is no exception. So, on balance, there is every chance your progeny will be sent to die in a war by the UK. How is that 'better'?

National sovereignty is largely illusory in the modern world. I have no power except to vote once every 5 years in a bent electoral system that makes dictators of the largest minority. The UK has all manner of restraining influences limiting its supposed 'sovereignty'. The latest being the ridiculous Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership with its secret courts. Even Elon Musk has more influence than I do. These interferences are multiplied because we are a small player in a big-player world. Unity is strength, isolation is weakness.

 

[Vic]

We were not a founding member.
...

Seems I did well not to read beyond the first erroneous statement!

 

[Vic]

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

Unless the USA is a superstate...

Or the USSR...

Or Austro-Hungary...

Or the Raj...

(Something else the Romans did for us... a multinational army...)

 

[Hgblue2]

So you don't think the USA is either successful or stable? It is a true union of states, where I don't think the EU will ever be more than a confederacy. There is a distinction.

Any USE Government - if it ever came to that, which it probably won't for two or three generations - would be democratically elected. Anything else is inconceivable because the EU nations would never vote for it. So Tony Benn's conditions would be satisfied.

Nation states have an absolutely shocking record when it comes to starting wars, and the UK is no exception. So, on balance, there is every chance your progeny will be sent to die in a war by the UK. How is that 'better'?

National sovereignty is largely illusory in the modern world. I have no power except to vote once every 5 years in a bent electoral system that makes dictators of the largest minority. The UK has all manner of restraining influences limiting its supposed 'sovereignty'. The latest being the ridiculous Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership with its secret courts. Even Elon Musk has more influence than I do. These interferences are multiplied because we are a small player in a big-player world. Unity is strength, isolation is weakness.

America is a country, Europe is not.

The idea that totally disparate nations, with different cultures, histories, languages, political outlooks, can come together in a cohesive and stable union is insane.

The more you people push for this, the more people will vote for nationalist parties who will defend the nation state.

You are literally empowering the very people you most despise by failing to recognise this reality.

 

[grunge]

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.

Its been mentioned a few times but It was never realistically on the cards. and even if it was pushed for ( which it hasn't been and there is no sign there ever will be ) we could have vetoed it.

The EU has a defence pact similar to NATO ( an attack on one is an attack on all ) anyways with pretty much nullifies the need for an EU Army.

 

[BrianW]

America is a country, Europe is not.

The idea that totally disparate nations, with different cultures, histories, languages, political outlooks, can come together in a cohesive and stable union is insane.

The more you people push for this, the more people will vote for nationalist parties who will defend the nation state.

You are literally empowering the very people you most despise by failing to recognise this reality.

I am not actually 'pushing' it. (Apart from anything else, I have no such dictatorial power.)

I am saying that I don't understand the objections to it because I don't. I will add that I find them irrational. We are talking about a long-term establishment of a confederacy with limited powers and maximum subsidiarity. Something that will not form, by the way, in any of our lifetimes. It remains an aspiration until people vote to create it.

I will also add that I utterly despise nationalism in all its forms. Most particularly the vaunting nationalism that is linked to militarism and torchlight parades. This shite gave us two world wars and the deeper it is buried under less hazardous shite (say nuclear waste) the better AFAIAC.

 

[blueparrot]

America is a country, Europe is not.

The idea that totally disparate nations, with different cultures, histories, languages, political outlooks, can come together in a cohesive and stable union is insane.

The more you people push for this, the more people will vote for nationalist parties who will defend the nation state.

You are literally empowering the very people you most despise by failing to recognise this reality.

The EU is a cohesive, stable union and was the whole time we were members.

 

[grunge]

Seems I did well not to read beyond the first erroneous statement!

Why is it erroneous? we were not in the 1st itteration of the EU that was created in 1958 ( European Parliament ), we joined in 1973.

EU countries | European Union

Find out more about EU countries, their government and economy, their role in the EU, use of the euro, membership of the Schengen area or location on the map.

european-union.europa.eu

 

[hampshireblue]

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.

I assume you don't have a problem with NATO though? I only ask as there may be a need to do so at some stage to maintain some nation states. There is some talk that Trump may want European boots on the ground should a deal be done with Ukraine. It could be argued that a foreign superstate would be forcing us, albeit indirectly, into that position.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

America is a country, Europe is not.

The idea that totally disparate nations, with different cultures, histories, languages, political outlooks, can come together in a cohesive and stable union is insane.

The more you people push for this, the more people will vote for nationalist parties who will defend the nation state.

You are literally empowering the very people you most despise by failing to recognise this reality.

Imagine how the colonies felt.