3 ms·

> In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object

> In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia. pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity realpolitik always wins > After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires > Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed

normalnorm 6y ago
> realpolitik always wins The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing. > this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either It was widely reported at the time. Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p... > the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article. > when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project". And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".
- blibble 6y ago
  > It was widely reported at the time. Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p... have you actually read the article? > Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus so not the Norwegian government > The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles so not the UK government > They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty

normalnorm 6y ago

> realpolitik always wins The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing. > this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either It was widely reported at the time. Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p... > the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article. > when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project". And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".

blibble 6y ago
> It was widely reported at the time. Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p... have you actually read the article? > Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus so not the Norwegian government > The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles so not the UK government > They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty