Good. But priority for EU is integrate the West Balkans (waiting too long), Ukraine + Moldova.
In parallel reform processes:
abolish national vetos (aka consensus) so no Orban-types can take the ship hostage.
strengthen the EU parliament, over the council and commission
accept concept of multi-tier participation (it’s reality anyway)
We need more debating each issue on each merits, rather than horse-trade mega-packages of transactional deals. In that respect, if Britain rejoins one component at a time, it’s better for everybody’s understanding of benefits and challenges.
Britain must rejoin! It is time to stop this undignified squabbling! It is time to quit fighting over petty whims! It is time to stand together, to unite and to face the great terrible evil in the very heart of europe: Belgium!
No shit! As a Brit living in another country I would like Britain to never have left. BUT, now that Britain has left, I’d like to punish those who allowed Brexit to happen by preventing them from rejoining. You’ve made your nasty scat bed, now fucking lie in it.
As EU citizen watching from the sidelines, I’m disappointed nobody is rallying for political reforms. The UK government has proven multiple times now it is incapable of governing and policing to adapt for changing realities. I don’t think the UK is ready for any future until painful structural reforms of their parliamentary system and executive. This mess was and is caused by UK politics and they deserve all the anger as fuel to fix their workplace. Until then, an effort to rejoin would occupy the executive for years and make UK life only worse because necessary local policy-making would’nd get the attention it deserves.
Ever since the French revolution, the establishment in Britain has been bending over backwards to ensure the status quo (as far as they’re concerned) remains. The British parliamentary system is doing exactly what it was designed to do. The sheep who live there are kept busy with xenophobia and infighting with the sole purpose of keeping them isolated from dangerous ideas.
I’m sure the EU would (re)welcome the UK as a member, but it will almost certainly not be on the same terms they had before Brexit. I do hope it happens, but I’m also a pessimist.
The way a referendum works is that the side with more votes gets to do the thing, in this case brexit. How you voted does not matter as the majority of your countries population (who voted) voted to leave. You don’t get to “I voted for Kodos” this 7 years later.
That referendum was 7 years ago and it passed with a 2% majority, under conditions where the Leave campaign was caught lying out of their teeth.
A lot of people who voted on it have died since then and a whole cohort of people aged 18-25 didn’t get a chance to vote.
Democracy required them to go through with it, but democracy also means they are allowed to change their mind and apply for EU, EER or EFTA membership.
I, for one, will welcome them back at the soonest opportunity.
How is that fair? If the boat had been to oppress an minority group you wouldn’t then go oh well it’s that population groups fault for being oppressed would you?
I’m not sure that the level of vitriol here is entirely justified. Wouldn’t the European Union be more economically sound if the UK rejoined. Wouldn’t a unified trade block be the best thing possible you should want the UK back in if the UK wants back in. I do not get this attitude of oh screw all the British people because well the vast majority of Scottish didn’t want it, most of the population of London didn’t want it. It was basically just a bunch of idiot yokels and old people who are now dead who wanted to leave the EU because they thought the EU was in some way this evil entity.
Not sure where you get vitriol and the idea anything is fair. I am also not extra happy Scotland did not leave the UK but as there was a vote (just 2 years too soon) and last time I checked things still work that way so I like most people have to live with it.
Hold a referendum on the issue then again (I am sure it will also be a mess). Its insane that people now think you can somehow ignore a majority vote because you don’t like the result. Was this a bad idea? yes. Is the UK filled with “a bunch of idiot yokels and old people”? also yes.
It was barely a majority vote and anyway it wasn’t legally binding so the government could have totally ignored it at the time and been fine the vote was utterly pointless.
The problem is the morons held the vote then decided to uphold the decision of the vote even though It was essentially only getting soundings.
It was a trade relationship why was it a matter of public consultation?
The people of the UK have been extremely hurt by this and it’s just irritating to see that apparently there would be resistance in the EU to fixing a mistake. Why is there resistance I don’t get it?
The history of British whining and cherrypicking. They never behaved like regular members, but more like “special snowflakes”. I understand the fear that they might start this nonsense again, once back in the the union.
Ok I’m British, I live in a country that gave me permanent residency before this shit show. The remainers mismanaged the campaign by resorting to the arguments of “lol you’re so stupid” and “omg so racist”. They also completely and overwhelmingly underestimated the power of propaganda to influence public opinion. And didn’t realise that a generation of blaming the EU for Westminster’s shitty decision making might have consequences. The remainers are just as culpable as the people who voted to leave.
You don’t understand, we are sympathetic but the lead up to brexit did have a part in tanking the economy… Aside from inflation, Covid, etc… You guys need to get your shit together before we can move on. It will take time and make no mistake, You will never again regain the priviliged position you had before. It absolutely sucks for the remainers but thats how it is.
There is a lot of sympathy for those unlucky brits that voted remain. As a person who strongly identifies as european, I can barely imagine how it must have felt to leave our union. Made me heartbroken back then.
We just cannot give you a better treatment than those brits who voted to leave when it comes to rejoining. Unless you all move to Scotland and then leave the UK.
I think it’s misleading to say that EU would make steep demands, because it gives the impression that EU would deliberately try to make UK joining difficult. UK shouldn’t get any special treatment (good or bad) and they should get the exact same standard joining procedure all other countries would get. The standard procedure is already going to have their panties twisted, no need to give them a legitimation reason to complain.
Let’s keep in mind the UK dove into directions so divergent from the EU, on such trivial matters, just to face those demands - so trivial it will feel as petty - will make the UK negotiators twist their hands in anger.
And to crown it all, just the demand to drop the pound would be nurderous to the british pride.
Absolutely. I think we’re on the same page that the process of joining is going to have the UK complain and whine at every step. My point was rather that saying EU would make demands so steep could be taken as EU wanting make an example out of UK. That’s not really what we should want because we know the UK is going to complain and treating them harsher than any other applicant would somewhat legitimize their grievances. I think a better wording for “EU would make demands so steep, crawling on…” would be “UK will think the demands are so steep, crawling on glass…” because then instead of seeming like EU is being unfair it’s going to seem like UK simply doesn’t want to play ball (which is how we have ended up in this situation in the first place).
It is in their best interest to give the UK the same standing it once had, because it will make any country think twice about leaving. The UK has suffered outside of the EU, and should it return and see growth, it’ll be the closest ally to the group that you could possibly have.
So, if I’m following correctly your reasoning, you’re in favor of allowing the “person” that abandoned the team to return, in their own term, and with special previliges? Unfair to all other parties.
It wouldn’t be the exact same deal, because the world isn’t exactly the same as it was, but yes, I’d fully expect the UK to retain certain voting rights, to keep the pound, etc.
Treating the UK poorly would send a message to Eurosceptics that leaving is the point of no return. It would also mean there is one fewer nation to calm any sceptical nations to the power of a combined bloc.
“The UK had special entering rights; we want them as well.”
Probably all other nations wanting to join.
And a huge drawback of relations of trust between already in place members.
No. The EU bent the knee to Tatcher in order to grow in relevance and stability internationally. A rejoining UK needs to recognize it is joining an established and relevant bloc, not an upstart project.
Then it doesn’t rejoin. It’s pretty simple, really.
It also means that the UK stays as an anti-bloc voice, and it’s successes and failures define the EU.
It’s a really simple concept, and one that is widely shared by the likes of Ian Hislop and Oli Dugmore. If the EU are inflexible, it doesn’t particularly help with euroscepticism in the UK and the EU.
Maybe the UK, after dredging the bottom of the barrel, perhaps in another 25 or 30 years, realizes the gravity of its mistakes and realizes the exit from the EU was a mistake for itself, by itself, and approaches the EU to rejoin, like any other member state.
It would not be that bad. The EU wants the UK back not only because both sides would greatly economically benefit from this but because one of the main reasons for EU’s existence is the continuation of peace in Europe. So the UK must be part of the EU.
My country has had the country as an ally for centuries and we went to great lenghts to facilitate the movements of brits to and from but the UK needs to recognize it is not more than any other member of the EU.
That stupid and hollow pride needs to come down and mistakes have to be recognized.
While I would love to have the UK rejoin it won’t happen in at least the next 5-8 years, probably not even 20 years. The problem isn’t just whether the EU would accept the UK it’s that the Brexit period was so politically toxic the two main parties won’t touch it.
The people can say they want it all they like but unless a governing party is willing to risk tearing itself apart over it then it won’t go anywhere.
It’s a shame that Starmer won’t budge on it, although a part of me wonders if it is a ploy to get votes in, so that he can switch his stance once in power and do pretty much what he wants.
Like it or not, the gammon vote is quite powerful, but once his five year term is in, he could get back into the EU within 1-2 years, and take the next 3-4 benefitting from a stronger economy.
I hate to break it to you but you’re dilusional, you have no idea how much most of the EU despises the UK and your arrogance is only adding fuel to the fire.
Besides, my point is almost entirely around the UK’s viewpoint of the EU. The terms of rejoining are irrelevant unless the UK public would back it without kicking off.
If the question was asked I’m sure the EU would have a rational response rather than that response because that’s unhelpful and doesn’t move the situation forward.
Also no one likes the Tories they don’t even like each other and fight like a sack full of cats, it’s fine they’re going to lose the election.
The UK is as much of a member of Europe as Greenland is a member of America… you could count it, but you could also just not. When people are talking about North America they’re usually not thinking about Greenland. In the same way, the UK is often not considered when talking about Europe (although it is more tied to mainland history). When people say Europe they often mean to exclude some countries like the UK or maybe Turkey (but not always).
Are you sure? I don't mind. Together we have a stronger economy. If they want to be subject of all EU market policy without having a voice in the decision process that's their choice.
Would love the UK back. Besides wanting it to be easier to travel there, I think it is also the best way to show how beneficial the EU is. If they already want back in after such a short period of time it sends a strong message to the many anti-EU people across the continent.
(more than half, strictly speaking, I was 16 during the referrendum. If you add up all the zoomers like me that have entered the voting pool since 2016 (and assume they would vote at the rates & ratios 18 year olds did) it’d overturn the 52% majority of the leave vote)
In a few decades maybe. Or in a non-voting manner similar to norway, but with how they sabotaged the eu from the inside while they were in it and the very conservative politics over there I don’t think the UK rejoining as a full member would be beneficial to the EU at this point.
We should really stop doing polls. People will answer depending on how something sounds on the surfcae with exactly no clue about details.
The same people in UK that want to rejoin the EU single market will also vote against most consequences of joining the single market.
Just like for example a majority of Europeans when asked wants to stop daylight saving time changes for permanent 'summer time' (because summer is a more positive connotation when that 1 hour shift from standard time is bad by any objective metric and actually bad for our health).
Just like a majority of Germans right now loudly agrees to more investments, to then turn around and answer in another poll how spending any money (even more when it's financed by debt) should be avoided.
People are idiots and polls have lost most their meaning as I can get any answer I want just by who I ask and how I phrase the question.
Agreed. Most American polls are still done by phone, so it only counts people who answer unknown calls, and then answer a series of questions about their beliefs. Which just gets more unbelievable every day.
And then there are online polls, that already cherry-pick the people by where they advertize. And that's on top of the effect that people with a strong opinion and desire to voice it are overrepresented in such polls.
Just like for example a majority of Europeans when asked wants to stop daylight saving time changes for permanent ‘summer time’ (because summer is a more positive connotation when that 1 hour shift from standard time is bad by any objective metric and actually bad for our health).
This is total nonsense. Which time would make more sense to adopt permanently depends on several factors including the geographic location within the current very wide CET/CEST time zone (one makes more sense on the west end, the other on the east end) and when people start and end their days.
Personally I am in favour of just getting rid of the entire time zone system and just getting up at a time that makes sense for you locally without changing the entire clock to match. That would have the benefit that talking about time would become several orders of magnitude easier on a world-wide scale, the person-years required to develop anything related to calendars would be cut in half, most people could calculate travel times in their heads even across what is currently multiple time zones,… with the only major downside being that the date would change some time while we are awake and possibly working.
It isn't. It's science. Increasing the time between us waking up and the sun naturally rising has adverse health effects. It also has the same effects on people more to the east of a time zone relatively. They are just in a slightly better position naturally.
You mean between the time the sun rises and the time we get up? Which is what east/west location determines and the other factor I mentioned.
Not to mention that it also has adverse health effects when it gets dark before most full time employees even finish their work day because some morning fetishists need extra daylight an hour before most people even get up.
Yeah, plus during winter sun rises after I arrive at work anyway, why should I care about that being at 08:30 or 09:30? I want at least some sunlight when going home.
No, there is exactly nothing useful about daily polls how you would vote if the election that is actually happening in 3-4 years is tomorrow. It has zero worth as information and is only used for the also daily "see, that party got another 0.5%, they will totally be the one ruling party soon/we nend to fight them before they take over!" polarizing bullshit destroying democracies.
There is even less use, when a lot of these polls from (always the same) questionable sources are used by (always the same) publications for their narratives.
This has nothing to do with information and transparency anymore, but a lot with manipulation and propaganda.
Shit takes and bad interpretations do not invalidate the utility of polling.
Yes, they do. Companies are paid for these polls. Today, tomorrow, again next week. They don't refine their data (usual polling data isn't changing that quickly), they refine how to get the answer they want. Those polls also don't show the reaction of public opinion on policies (again those don't change every other day) for transparency. They show how yesterday's rage-inducing lie on the front page worked and how it compares to today's to refine manipulation tactics.
Do you throw it every scientific study that doesn’t meet your ridiculous criteria as well?
No I'm talking about always the same polls overvaluing one option being always used by the publications pushing that story again and again.
So you have an actual argument or do you want to keep attacking half a dozen strawman arguments you found between the line I never wrote?
"Oh, No! Someone diagrees with me! Let's find a couple of things he never actually said and then attack him repeatedly for being anti-science!!"
Are you even serious or is this just trolling at this point?
PS: Yes, a lot of different people do polls. Actually using those, or doing a weighted avarage or just mentioning they exist would be an improvement. But it is not happening, because publications always work with the same polling whose result are beneficial for that publication.
No, unlike you I know what I'm talking about. I know how YouGov does their polls. I know how YouGov was wrong at Scotlands Referendum 2014. I know how they were also wrong with their polls for the Brexit referendum, and also which publications constantly referenced them as a reason to "stay calm... UK will not leave the EU", which obviously contributed to lower turnout on the anti-Brexit side. And I know -again unlike you- why always the people wanting to tell a story about UK's EU support are referencing YouGov polls. Because they are always overvalueing certain positions again and again.
"Would you choose to undergo an elective surgery to fix your broken leg if it had a 20% chance of killing you?"
Would you chonge your mind if you heard how the chance of getting killed now is 0.05% lower next day. Then another 0.1 higher 3 days later? Oh, and on saturdays your chances to die actually go down to 19%. Unless it's in a month with an "R". Oh, and the guy doing the procdure has his own stats that show a 3% lower risk, even 4% if you're favorite color is green.
That's an actual analogy of the amount of polls we are flooded with. And that's also perfectly describing their accuracy and worth.
Do proper polls with a detailed analysis about their methodology once in a while to stay in contact with public opinion and shifts of it. Constantly doing polls again and again for your latest story, always picked from the polling group you know will lean more to your desired result however is nothing more than a tool to give credibility to a narrative.
This entire thing you are calling for, that you were complaining does not exist, already exists and is constantly being improved. I’m not throwing out big accusations, you are taking broad sweeps at stats and polling and asking - really it’s demanding - that they do things they are already doing
No matter how often you say this and deny reality, I can at any given day look up the daily story of how polls shows another 0,1% increase for this party and another loss of 0.05% for that party compared to the last poll about 3 days ago for a fictional election actually happening in 2 years. Complete with pages of text how it's all X's fault for policy Y that was actually never discussed and was only mentioned by some backbencher in a Tweet (bonus points when it's a pure invention of some opposition politician). That's the reality. A reality I see every day.
A reality of total media failure using polls as a pretense to give their narrative the seeming of plausibility.
And this reality doesn't change because you don't want it to exist for your point to be true.
I never understood the arguments people use surrounding daylight savings. The health risks, accident risks, any risks surround the actual switch, not really the what time is used. If the clocks were set forward for "summer time" then 3 months later Daylight savings was abolished and no one changes their clocks anymore (as you said, permanent summer time) there would be no ill effects from it cause everyone was already used to the time change.
I want to get rid of daylight savings. I don't care whether it's standard time that use used or daylight savings time that is used as long as the switchover stops happening.
With people mostly using clocks which don’t need adjusting, we could have the best of both worlds.
Currently, 12 o’clock is defined as the sun being at its highest point at a specific location (in winter, standard time)
Imagine you take the same reference location, and define sunrise as 7:00 (am). No health issues, no sudden changes, and probably best for the biorhythm.
If the clocks were set forward for "summer time" then 3 months later Daylight savings was abolished and no one changes their clocks anymore (as you said, permanent summer time) there would be no ill effects
Yes, there would be "ill effects". Having more daylight later the day is a pure luxury/convenience (for the people not working at that time anymore...). Having to an hour more between waking up and the sun coming up however has adverse effects on your natural clock and health.
On the other hand, your arguments against polls are equally valid arguments against any form representative democracy. Politicans, policies and programs are just like polls. People will often vote purely based on surface apperances. See: every law called “the fluffy familes act” or two-thirds of US elections going to the taller cannidate.
There’s a reason it’s called ‘the least bad form of government’
You are the second person now that tries to tell me how important polls are, just because I didn't phrase it "we should stop such polls"... while I clearly then described my problem with these kind of polls.
Yes, polls make the same sense as elections do. That's exactly the reason we don't have direct democracies and people are voted for 4-5 years in most countries.
Asking people once for their opinion of Brexit to get a base line for public opinion is okay, although it's not that precise obviously but can at least tell you if a majority seems reachable. Asking them again after a few months or after important (unexpected) decisions is helpful. Asking them again and again when there is not vote or referendum happening however is worthless.
The same is true for polls about any question or general voting twice a week when the actual vote takes place in years. That's not about transparency but manipulation.
We saw exactly those kind of polls before Brexit constantly used for months to tell the story of how everything is okay and there is no reason to panic as there's no majority for Brexit. How many against voters might have been stayed home because of that bullshit?
We also see this in multiple countries right now, where no election is even close but there are new polls about that imaginary vote at least two or three times a week. This also has no informational value. It's just used for polarisation (who the fuck gives something about a +0.2% for some party years before the next election, unless it's either that party telling a fabvolous story of their increasing support or their opposition trying to scare people).
We have (more or less) representative democracies with long terms, because everything else is highly impractical. We don't need polls every few days as actual policies don't shift that quick. Those polls are only used to fine tune the latest propaganda narratives or (social) media campaigns, not to evaluate actual support of people for the policies their governments enact.
So I also don't need yet another "rejoining the EU single market" poll when there is no vote about it even planned and it's from the same polling group that screwed up their prediction for Brexit originally. Yes, I already know they magically find all those pro-EU Brits and get high support numbers for cooperation witht he EU. Didn't help them with the reality of Brexit...
If there ever is another referendum or an important political decision about pursuing more cooperation with the EU, would love to see some polls. With an emphasis on plural, and then some averaging between them and a proper analysis of the methodology and exact questions asked. Yet another YouGov online poll about "who wants to rejoin the single market" without actual details about the question and how detailed the people asked where informed about what this all entails... yeah, not thanks. Please get rid of that crap.
Add comment