16 ms·

We're basically in the position we were in before Brexit only now it's more expensive and difficult to trade with Europe, it's more expensive and difficult to t

by dmje 6y ago

We're basically in the position we were in before Brexit only now it's more expensive and difficult to trade with Europe, it's more expensive and difficult to travel to or work in Europe, and it's stretched the Northern Ireland peace agreement to the edge. But it's ok because that group of posh muppets in the ERG stand to make a wad of cash from their crony mates and we're now a "Sovereign" nation. Which is excellent apart from the fact it's made up faux history bullshit from another era of "great" Britain that never actually existed and certainly doesn't exist in a globally transient world. The whole thing has been a very, very expensive, entirely farcical (laughable if it wasn't going to royally bugger large swathes of the country) exercise in nihilism. Bitter much? Yes. Yes I am.

breakfastduck 6y ago
That's a very Europe centric view, though. It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade on other terms with different international targets. That may not be precisely what you want, but it's not a bad deal for the UK, it's just a different set of terms. Plus, the EU will do better without us. We've always just complained and delayed their desire for further deep integration between countries. To paraphrase Boris' quote of 'Having a successful, independent UK over the channel isn't a bad thing for the EU', well neither is it bad for the UK to have an independent EU to trade with, where they can crack on with what they want to do without us disrupting it. Edit: people seem to be taking this as me 'selling' brexit. Just wanted to discuss the situation, at least it kicked off a chat!
- sleavey 6y ago
  > It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade on other terms with international targets. When the UK was in the EU, it was never a requirement for goods sold to non-EU countries to meet EU regulations. On that front, nothing has changed: selling to EU, you need to meet EU laws; selling elsewhere you need to meet theirs.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. Before we wouldn't need to meet single market standard to trade with those countries, but the overall terms would depend on EU trade deals or standard rules. This is why leaving the customs union is key to any reasonable Brexit deal. I'm not even trying to argue that Brexit is good necessarily, but more rationalizing why the deal always had to be what it is. Anything else other than staying in the EU isn't a beneficial option for the UK - unless joining EFTA, or similar.
    - sleavey 6y ago
      > Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. No, we trade with those countries on the terms of our trade agreements with those countries, which will more or less be the higher of each partners' standards on each involved aspect (unless there is no trade agreement at all, then it's WTO terms which are the same the EU would get). The only realistic difference to trade policy being out of the EU is that we can lower our standards with respect to the EU when negotiating deals with third countries. The EU already had some of the highest standards in the world for workers rights, food safety and animal welfare and safety, and I don't think we'll be selflessly rising above those any time soon.
      - hardlianotion 6y ago
        I think parent means that those terms would be negotiated by UK with only UK interests at heart, and not submerged in other countries interests.
        breakfastduck 6y ago
        Yep, preceiely what I was getting at. Our deals with other countries now can, at least, be specialized deals in our own trading interest.
- Someone 6y ago
  “It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK.” As long as they do not export to the EU or do not sell half-products to firms that export to the EU. Most exports from UK companies go to the EU, and will have to comply with EU regulations. For those firms also exporting to non-EU countries, chances are it won’t be worth the hassle to make both EU-compliant and non-compliant products (as an example, look how the RoHS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...) drove the world to ban lead in soldering)
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Playing devils advocate it's very easy for a company to set up two shells or 'partner' organizations where the products are targeted to different markets.
    - Someone 6y ago
      Easy (you don’t even need multiple companies), but it would double your overhead and means you’ll have to keep more supplies (if you run out of EU-regulation foobars, you can’t grab a few non-EU-regulation ones) or order them in smaller quantities (⇒ quite possibly at higher prices), have larger stores of stuff to be sold, etc. That wasn’t even worth it for global electronics companies to keep producing non-RoHS-compliant electronics, and quite a few of them produce at scales that few others do.
    - rndmio 6y ago
      It's about production lines, the cost to manufacture the same thing to different standards is more costly (generally) than just producing one thing to the highest standard and selling it to both markets.
      - breakfastduck 6y ago
        Get that, but means companies can operate different 'arms' for different operations. Products can be totally different, they don't have to be 'variants' of the same item.
- ljm 6y ago
  Putting the self-sacrificial, better without us bullshit aside (the sheer arrogance of which in itself is nonsense because the UK had a huge influence in making the EU what is today), the view is europe centric because we are geologically and historically European, and the UK has just given away the incredible influence it had in the world's largest trading bloc, the one that has brought about the longest period of peace within the continent. Whatever you and others might believe, don't try and spin Brexit as an act of nobility designed to protect the EU from the all-powerful, magnanimous British empire of yore. This agreement, and the past four years, has been an incredible loss and have set the UK back by a good 40 years. We have been in the throes of populism for half a decade and are only digging deeper into it.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    I'm not trying to explain my beliefs or spin anything, I'm just highlighting what are clearly the aims of the deal.
    - peteretep 6y ago
      Thanks for doing this. You’re taking the time to write thoughtful explanatory answers and people are taking out their understandable bitterness on you
    - ljm 6y ago
      The aim of the deal was to get something better than what was previously had, at any cost. Any. While I can appreciate an attempt at objective analysis of the deal, that's not what has been discussed so far. And, in all honesty, the occasion itself is momentous enough that it's a dis-service to discount any emotions around the affair. This isn't a cause for celebration for a calculable majority of the UK, after all.
- Brakenshire 6y ago
  I think the "not a bad deal, just a different set of terms" is key. This isn't or shouldn't be about trying to get one over on the other side, the UK and the EU are not in a zero sum game, clearly levels of trade integration require harmonization of regulation, some countries are going to be happy with that in particular areas, some aren't, and to decline to integrate has economic consequences within that local context. And similarly just because the UK doesn't want to be part of the EU political union, that's not some calculated insult, it's just something we aren't happy to do. Not every partner of the EU needs to be part of the EU.
- Zenst 6y ago
  > We've always just complained and delayed their desire for further deep integration between countries. Exactly that - we have as a country, never really embraced the whole EU direction and dare say that short stretch of water between Mainland Europe and the UK - has historically set a different cultural mindset. Equally the whole WW1+2 experiences would of also had some rippling legacy impact I dare say. However you look at it, if you have a disruptive employee and they want to leave, wish them the best and both will be better of. But certainly be interesting what reforms the EU will do in the comming years, certainly that whole area of reform was conceded by many including Donald Tusk right after the 2016 vote and as last stood, was being driven by Macron - though only once the UK has left. So be interesting how that progresses and how that manifests.
- noxvilleza 6y ago
  All over this thread you seem to mention potential trade benefits for the UK based on being separate from the EU. Can you name some benefits (perhaps let's say 3) that you expect will be negotiated more favourably for the UK within a year that the UK was unable to get as part of the EU. Also ... being part of a a trade bloc always has benefits and positives, but the two key negatives touted as 'deal-breakers' in the Brexit negotiations have been related to (1) sovereignty and (2) concessions. A few weeks ago Peter Verovšek wrote a short but pretty good article on effectively the illusion of sovereignty (https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-of-sovereignty https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-...) for the UK, and in terms of concessions it seems that a small nation with limited resources hardly makes a net loss by being part of a larger trade bloc: access to a huge market while exposing a small market of your own.
nextos 6y ago
The critical problem I think is that this trade deal only covers products, not e.g. financial services. And a very significant fraction of UK exports to EU were services.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Brakenshire 6y ago
  40% of UK to EU exports were services. Although how deep the actual single market in services was in reality, and what the cost is of losing that, is difficult for me to grasp.
hermitcrab 6y ago
I live in the UK. Brexit will only make my life worse. I don't see any upside to it. None. We are also setting a terrible example to the rest of the world when we should all be cooperating to tackle COVID, climate change and other international challenges. A bunch of old white guys, who will be mostly dead soon, have wrecked the UK on the altar of nationalism, bigotry and nostalgia. And perhaps also to create a low regulation low tax dystopia that they can run without interference. And a majority of the population was gullible and ignorant enough to let them do it. It is very sad. I would move to another country if it wasn't for family commitments.
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  "A bunch of old white guys" Really??? If you wrote "a bunch of young black girls have wrecked xyz" do you think that would be acceptable?
  - hermitcrab 6y ago
    Just to clarify the context - I am an old(ish) white guy.
  - dmje 6y ago
    Farage. Cameron. Johnson. Gove. Fox. Grayling. Rees-Mogg. Looking pretty white and pretty old to me...
    - Brakenshire 6y ago
      How about Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak, current holders of two of the great offices of state. And the previous chancellor Sajid Javid? Or the previous PM Theresa May, or the previous Home Secretary Amber Rudd? Or arch-Brexiteer Andrea Leadsom. The ERG does fit that caricature to a certain extent but the mainstream Conservative party and its leadership doesn't. And whether they do or don't it doesn't mean their politics is any more or less enlightened. If we're going to pick an axis to complain about it should be quite clearly be class, not gender or race. Or just judge people on their individual actions or position of privilege. I don't suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy about Rishi Sunak, who made millions off subprime and is now richer than the Queen, or Sajid Javid who was at the heart of disastrous decision-making from Deutsche Bank before the 2008 crisis and now fabulously wealthy as a result, because they're from ethnic minorities.
CodeGlitch 6y ago
Missing the point yet again. Sorry to sound bitter back at you, but the remainers still fail to recognise why a lot of people voted Brexit. The current state of the EU/UK relationship is fine mostly, it's the direction that the EU is going in that is their problem. An army, an anthem, a single "state". That is the end goal of Brussels. I voted remain, and I blame the remainers for messing it all up.
- simonh 6y ago
  Leaving the EU in case it became this or that makes no sense. As a member of the EU we have never once, ever been “forced” into anything. It’s always been about negotiation, and if we ever wanted to opt out of anything we did. We opted out of the working time directive, the Schengen agreement, the Euro, the charter of fundamental rights, the social chapter. We even had an explicit opt out from the treaty goal of an “ever closer union”. This narrative that were were being coerced into things against our will is simply not true. Yes we sometimes gave up painful concessions, but we also gained valuable benefits. It was always a negotiated outcome.
  - djmobley 6y ago
    > As a member of the EU we have never once, ever been “forced” into anything. Total nonsense. The EU set laws the UK had to follow, and the ECJ had the power to overrule UK courts.
    - spzb 6y ago
      Which particular EU law which was forced upon us caused you so much trouble?
      - djmobley 6y ago
        I was responding to a claim that “[as] a member of the EU we have never once, ever been “forced” into anything.” I have not made any claim about those laws causing me trouble, but the ability of the EU to force laws on the UK certainly troubled me.
jariel 6y ago
This comment is repulsively bigoted.
rayiner 6y ago
At this moment, maybe. But the EU is sliding toward becoming one country. It’s inevitable now that there is an agreement to take on shared debt. The UK has dodged the bullet of further EU integration. From the other side of the pond, trust me you don’t want any part of it.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  ... and that's just one policy area. The truth is that the UK has many policy differences with mainland Europe - foreign policy, energy policy, immigration, etc... Unity is always a good thing, but hwhen views diverge then inaction results. An EU without the UK will let both take more decisive action in their policy areas.
- BjoernKW 6y ago
  Well, that's not going to happen unless the EU adopts a single official single language not just in terms of bureaucracy but when it comes to everyday business (hint: that language is neither going to be French nor German) The language differential is by far the most eminent obstacle standing in the way of a closer integration or even nationhood. Ironically, the UK leaving might've opened up an opportunity here since that hypothetical official language now indeed could be English, with no dominant country having that language as its own official language anymore.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I don’t think the lack of a single language will be an impediment to integration on policy issues that will cause strain. Once the EU starts taking on debt people in Paris and Berlin are going to feel a lot more entitled to tell Athens and Warsaw what to do and how to live. The language differences will only make the problems worse than they are in the US.
    - BjoernKW 6y ago
      Politicians in Paris or Berlin feeling entitled to tell their counterparts in Warsaw and Athens what to do is one thing, which probably is happening today already anyway. Sliding towards becoming a single country is a wholly different matter, though, because that involves the people. Even citizens in most staunchly pro-European countries such as Germany, France, or the Netherlands culturally still see themselves as citizens of the respective country rather than Europe or the EU. The most relevant factor in that respect is language. Most Germans don't speak French. Most of the French don't speak German. Hence, cultural and economic exchange might happen at the upper echelons of society but as for everyday life citizens of EU member states still pretty much keep to themselves, for the simple reason that they don't understand each other.
justinclift 6y ago
> Bitter much? Yes. Yes I am. Same here. I moved to the UK years ago (UK ancestry) specifically for access to the EU. eg Danish gf (now ex), working in EU both in person and remotely, UK/EU start up was in progress To have my EU hmmm... "citizenship" be removed (when I damn well wanted to keep it), by the other half of the UK population just because they don't care for the EU. There are no words that can adequately convey the sense of betrayal I feel over this. It has destroyed many years of my life effort thus far, and has taken considerable time to start recovering from (moved back to Australia, now rebuilding, etc).
- oska 6y ago
  So you moved to the UK, which has a long history of euroscepticism going right back to when it joined in the 70s, and now feel 'betrayed' when the population majority voted to leave the EU, after receiving a referendum that had been campaigned for for decades. Certainly comes across to me as a very strong sense of personal entitlement, and also disrespect towards the democratic decisions of your adopted country. Fine for you to feel disappointed. But 'betrayed' is really too much.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    Sure. Long history of "euroscepticism" if maybe you're in very certain crowds I'd guess. Or maybe if you're a native to the UK. Personally, I wasn't even aware it was a thing. As for "democratic decisions"... just wow. I'd be on board with that if the info that had been given to the public for the referendum was above board. However, it was just pure marketing bullshit. Also, the idiot government literally told people it was only an advisory thing. Which was (frankly) sensible. So, I didn't really pay much attention to it. You know, with actually getting a start up off the ground taking up most of my time. Only to find out that somewhere along the line the gov backflipped and told people it would honour the result. Like... WTF? With with no guidelines about it needing to be a clear majority. eg 2/3 or 3/4 of population voting for it. Instead, they've just pulled the completely incompetent crap we've seen over the last several years. _sigh_ Personally, I'd even volunteered a lot of my time years prior, helping the UK gov (behind the scenes) with policy decisions re: OSS. That's probably why I feel "betrayed". eg you help out a group, and get shafted later on. :/
dcsan 6y ago
Can you explain more the profit motive? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group > posh muppets in the ERG stand to make a wad of cash from their crony mates

by dmje 6y ago

breakfastduck 6y ago

That's a very Europe centric view, though. It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade on other terms with different international targets. That may not be precisely what you want, but it's not a bad deal for the UK, it's just a different set of terms. Plus, the EU will do better without us. We've always just complained and delayed their desire for further deep integration between countries. To paraphrase Boris' quote of 'Having a successful, independent UK over the channel isn't a bad thing for the EU', well neither is it bad for the UK to have an independent EU to trade with, where they can crack on with what they want to do without us disrupting it. Edit: people seem to be taking this as me 'selling' brexit. Just wanted to discuss the situation, at least it kicked off a chat!

sleavey 6y ago
> It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade on other terms with international targets. When the UK was in the EU, it was never a requirement for goods sold to non-EU countries to meet EU regulations. On that front, nothing has changed: selling to EU, you need to meet EU laws; selling elsewhere you need to meet theirs.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. Before we wouldn't need to meet single market standard to trade with those countries, but the overall terms would depend on EU trade deals or standard rules. This is why leaving the customs union is key to any reasonable Brexit deal. I'm not even trying to argue that Brexit is good necessarily, but more rationalizing why the deal always had to be what it is. Anything else other than staying in the EU isn't a beneficial option for the UK - unless joining EFTA, or similar.
  - sleavey 6y ago
    > Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. No, we trade with those countries on the terms of our trade agreements with those countries, which will more or less be the higher of each partners' standards on each involved aspect (unless there is no trade agreement at all, then it's WTO terms which are the same the EU would get). The only realistic difference to trade policy being out of the EU is that we can lower our standards with respect to the EU when negotiating deals with third countries. The EU already had some of the highest standards in the world for workers rights, food safety and animal welfare and safety, and I don't think we'll be selflessly rising above those any time soon.
    - hardlianotion 6y ago
      I think parent means that those terms would be negotiated by UK with only UK interests at heart, and not submerged in other countries interests.
      - breakfastduck 6y ago
        Yep, preceiely what I was getting at. Our deals with other countries now can, at least, be specialized deals in our own trading interest.
Someone 6y ago
“It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK.” As long as they do not export to the EU or do not sell half-products to firms that export to the EU. Most exports from UK companies go to the EU, and will have to comply with EU regulations. For those firms also exporting to non-EU countries, chances are it won’t be worth the hassle to make both EU-compliant and non-compliant products (as an example, look how the RoHS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...) drove the world to ban lead in soldering)
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Playing devils advocate it's very easy for a company to set up two shells or 'partner' organizations where the products are targeted to different markets.
  - Someone 6y ago
    Easy (you don’t even need multiple companies), but it would double your overhead and means you’ll have to keep more supplies (if you run out of EU-regulation foobars, you can’t grab a few non-EU-regulation ones) or order them in smaller quantities (⇒ quite possibly at higher prices), have larger stores of stuff to be sold, etc. That wasn’t even worth it for global electronics companies to keep producing non-RoHS-compliant electronics, and quite a few of them produce at scales that few others do.
  - rndmio 6y ago
    It's about production lines, the cost to manufacture the same thing to different standards is more costly (generally) than just producing one thing to the highest standard and selling it to both markets.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      Get that, but means companies can operate different 'arms' for different operations. Products can be totally different, they don't have to be 'variants' of the same item.
ljm 6y ago
Putting the self-sacrificial, better without us bullshit aside (the sheer arrogance of which in itself is nonsense because the UK had a huge influence in making the EU what is today), the view is europe centric because we are geologically and historically European, and the UK has just given away the incredible influence it had in the world's largest trading bloc, the one that has brought about the longest period of peace within the continent. Whatever you and others might believe, don't try and spin Brexit as an act of nobility designed to protect the EU from the all-powerful, magnanimous British empire of yore. This agreement, and the past four years, has been an incredible loss and have set the UK back by a good 40 years. We have been in the throes of populism for half a decade and are only digging deeper into it.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I'm not trying to explain my beliefs or spin anything, I'm just highlighting what are clearly the aims of the deal.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    Thanks for doing this. You’re taking the time to write thoughtful explanatory answers and people are taking out their understandable bitterness on you
  - ljm 6y ago
    The aim of the deal was to get something better than what was previously had, at any cost. Any. While I can appreciate an attempt at objective analysis of the deal, that's not what has been discussed so far. And, in all honesty, the occasion itself is momentous enough that it's a dis-service to discount any emotions around the affair. This isn't a cause for celebration for a calculable majority of the UK, after all.
Brakenshire 6y ago
I think the "not a bad deal, just a different set of terms" is key. This isn't or shouldn't be about trying to get one over on the other side, the UK and the EU are not in a zero sum game, clearly levels of trade integration require harmonization of regulation, some countries are going to be happy with that in particular areas, some aren't, and to decline to integrate has economic consequences within that local context. And similarly just because the UK doesn't want to be part of the EU political union, that's not some calculated insult, it's just something we aren't happy to do. Not every partner of the EU needs to be part of the EU.
Zenst 6y ago
> We've always just complained and delayed their desire for further deep integration between countries. Exactly that - we have as a country, never really embraced the whole EU direction and dare say that short stretch of water between Mainland Europe and the UK - has historically set a different cultural mindset. Equally the whole WW1+2 experiences would of also had some rippling legacy impact I dare say. However you look at it, if you have a disruptive employee and they want to leave, wish them the best and both will be better of. But certainly be interesting what reforms the EU will do in the comming years, certainly that whole area of reform was conceded by many including Donald Tusk right after the 2016 vote and as last stood, was being driven by Macron - though only once the UK has left. So be interesting how that progresses and how that manifests.
noxvilleza 6y ago
All over this thread you seem to mention potential trade benefits for the UK based on being separate from the EU. Can you name some benefits (perhaps let's say 3) that you expect will be negotiated more favourably for the UK within a year that the UK was unable to get as part of the EU. Also ... being part of a a trade bloc always has benefits and positives, but the two key negatives touted as 'deal-breakers' in the Brexit negotiations have been related to (1) sovereignty and (2) concessions. A few weeks ago Peter Verovšek wrote a short but pretty good article on effectively the illusion of sovereignty (https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-of-sovereignty https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-...) for the UK, and in terms of concessions it seems that a small nation with limited resources hardly makes a net loss by being part of a larger trade bloc: access to a huge market while exposing a small market of your own.

nextos 6y ago

The critical problem I think is that this trade deal only covers products, not e.g. financial services. And a very significant fraction of UK exports to EU were services.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Brakenshire 6y ago
40% of UK to EU exports were services. Although how deep the actual single market in services was in reality, and what the cost is of losing that, is difficult for me to grasp.

hermitcrab 6y ago

I live in the UK. Brexit will only make my life worse. I don't see any upside to it. None. We are also setting a terrible example to the rest of the world when we should all be cooperating to tackle COVID, climate change and other international challenges. A bunch of old white guys, who will be mostly dead soon, have wrecked the UK on the altar of nationalism, bigotry and nostalgia. And perhaps also to create a low regulation low tax dystopia that they can run without interference. And a majority of the population was gullible and ignorant enough to let them do it. It is very sad. I would move to another country if it wasn't for family commitments.

CodeGlitch 6y ago
"A bunch of old white guys" Really??? If you wrote "a bunch of young black girls have wrecked xyz" do you think that would be acceptable?
- hermitcrab 6y ago
  Just to clarify the context - I am an old(ish) white guy.
- dmje 6y ago
  Farage. Cameron. Johnson. Gove. Fox. Grayling. Rees-Mogg. Looking pretty white and pretty old to me...
  - Brakenshire 6y ago
    How about Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak, current holders of two of the great offices of state. And the previous chancellor Sajid Javid? Or the previous PM Theresa May, or the previous Home Secretary Amber Rudd? Or arch-Brexiteer Andrea Leadsom. The ERG does fit that caricature to a certain extent but the mainstream Conservative party and its leadership doesn't. And whether they do or don't it doesn't mean their politics is any more or less enlightened. If we're going to pick an axis to complain about it should be quite clearly be class, not gender or race. Or just judge people on their individual actions or position of privilege. I don't suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy about Rishi Sunak, who made millions off subprime and is now richer than the Queen, or Sajid Javid who was at the heart of disastrous decision-making from Deutsche Bank before the 2008 crisis and now fabulously wealthy as a result, because they're from ethnic minorities.

CodeGlitch 6y ago

Missing the point yet again. Sorry to sound bitter back at you, but the remainers still fail to recognise why a lot of people voted Brexit. The current state of the EU/UK relationship is fine mostly, it's the direction that the EU is going in that is their problem. An army, an anthem, a single "state". That is the end goal of Brussels. I voted remain, and I blame the remainers for messing it all up.

simonh 6y ago
Leaving the EU in case it became this or that makes no sense. As a member of the EU we have never once, ever been “forced” into anything. It’s always been about negotiation, and if we ever wanted to opt out of anything we did. We opted out of the working time directive, the Schengen agreement, the Euro, the charter of fundamental rights, the social chapter. We even had an explicit opt out from the treaty goal of an “ever closer union”. This narrative that were were being coerced into things against our will is simply not true. Yes we sometimes gave up painful concessions, but we also gained valuable benefits. It was always a negotiated outcome.
- djmobley 6y ago
  > As a member of the EU we have never once, ever been “forced” into anything. Total nonsense. The EU set laws the UK had to follow, and the ECJ had the power to overrule UK courts.
  - spzb 6y ago
    Which particular EU law which was forced upon us caused you so much trouble?
    - djmobley 6y ago
      I was responding to a claim that “[as] a member of the EU we have never once, ever been “forced” into anything.” I have not made any claim about those laws causing me trouble, but the ability of the EU to force laws on the UK certainly troubled me.

jariel 6y ago

This comment is repulsively bigoted.

rayiner 6y ago

At this moment, maybe. But the EU is sliding toward becoming one country. It’s inevitable now that there is an agreement to take on shared debt. The UK has dodged the bullet of further EU integration. From the other side of the pond, trust me you don’t want any part of it.

koheripbal 6y ago
... and that's just one policy area. The truth is that the UK has many policy differences with mainland Europe - foreign policy, energy policy, immigration, etc... Unity is always a good thing, but hwhen views diverge then inaction results. An EU without the UK will let both take more decisive action in their policy areas.
BjoernKW 6y ago
Well, that's not going to happen unless the EU adopts a single official single language not just in terms of bureaucracy but when it comes to everyday business (hint: that language is neither going to be French nor German) The language differential is by far the most eminent obstacle standing in the way of a closer integration or even nationhood. Ironically, the UK leaving might've opened up an opportunity here since that hypothetical official language now indeed could be English, with no dominant country having that language as its own official language anymore.
- rayiner 6y ago
  I don’t think the lack of a single language will be an impediment to integration on policy issues that will cause strain. Once the EU starts taking on debt people in Paris and Berlin are going to feel a lot more entitled to tell Athens and Warsaw what to do and how to live. The language differences will only make the problems worse than they are in the US.
  - BjoernKW 6y ago
    Politicians in Paris or Berlin feeling entitled to tell their counterparts in Warsaw and Athens what to do is one thing, which probably is happening today already anyway. Sliding towards becoming a single country is a wholly different matter, though, because that involves the people. Even citizens in most staunchly pro-European countries such as Germany, France, or the Netherlands culturally still see themselves as citizens of the respective country rather than Europe or the EU. The most relevant factor in that respect is language. Most Germans don't speak French. Most of the French don't speak German. Hence, cultural and economic exchange might happen at the upper echelons of society but as for everyday life citizens of EU member states still pretty much keep to themselves, for the simple reason that they don't understand each other.

justinclift 6y ago

> Bitter much? Yes. Yes I am. Same here. I moved to the UK years ago (UK ancestry) specifically for access to the EU. eg Danish gf (now ex), working in EU both in person and remotely, UK/EU start up was in progress To have my EU hmmm... "citizenship" be removed (when I damn well wanted to keep it), by the other half of the UK population just because they don't care for the EU. There are no words that can adequately convey the sense of betrayal I feel over this. It has destroyed many years of my life effort thus far, and has taken considerable time to start recovering from (moved back to Australia, now rebuilding, etc).

oska 6y ago
So you moved to the UK, which has a long history of euroscepticism going right back to when it joined in the 70s, and now feel 'betrayed' when the population majority voted to leave the EU, after receiving a referendum that had been campaigned for for decades. Certainly comes across to me as a very strong sense of personal entitlement, and also disrespect towards the democratic decisions of your adopted country. Fine for you to feel disappointed. But 'betrayed' is really too much.
- justinclift 6y ago
  Sure. Long history of "euroscepticism" if maybe you're in very certain crowds I'd guess. Or maybe if you're a native to the UK. Personally, I wasn't even aware it was a thing. As for "democratic decisions"... just wow. I'd be on board with that if the info that had been given to the public for the referendum was above board. However, it was just pure marketing bullshit. Also, the idiot government literally told people it was only an advisory thing. Which was (frankly) sensible. So, I didn't really pay much attention to it. You know, with actually getting a start up off the ground taking up most of my time. Only to find out that somewhere along the line the gov backflipped and told people it would honour the result. Like... WTF? With with no guidelines about it needing to be a clear majority. eg 2/3 or 3/4 of population voting for it. Instead, they've just pulled the completely incompetent crap we've seen over the last several years. _sigh_ Personally, I'd even volunteered a lot of my time years prior, helping the UK gov (behind the scenes) with policy decisions re: OSS. That's probably why I feel "betrayed". eg you help out a group, and get shafted later on. :/

dcsan 6y ago

Can you explain more the profit motive? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group > posh muppets in the ERG stand to make a wad of cash from their crony mates