5 ms·

It's actually going to raise questions as to why the EU are A-OK with this now when a possible interpretation of associate membership is it's what Cameron was t

It's actually going to raise questions as to why the EU are A-OK with this now when a possible interpretation of associate membership is it's what Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum. All depends on what an associate member is of course.

corford 16d ago
>inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum. That's a bit of a stretch
- fidotron 16d ago
  It's literally what happened. Cameron was trying to reduce the scope of EU integration with the UK (esp freedom of movement), with the threat he didn't want to use of a referendum, the EU said no (as the other commenter explained partly to disincentivize others, but also because they thought he was bluffing and people would never vote to leave), so the referendum was held.
  - thih9 16d ago
    To be fair, freedom of movement is one of the core principles[1] of the EU. Restricting that is a tall ask, I wouldn't describe refusing that as being inflexible. [1]: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor... "Freedom of movement gives citizens the right to move and reside freely within the Union."
  - gizajob 16d ago
    I kind of made a point like this in the other thread - during Brexit it was a very hard No from the EU that they couldn’t negotiate on key points such as freedom of movement, and countries are either IN and have everything the EU comes with, or they’re out. Now, it seems, that Canada is being offered a favourable half-in arrangement simply because they’ve never before been involved. Seems pretty bizarre and arbitrary for the EU, but also totally standard for the EU because it’s bizarre and arbitrary.
    - foldr 16d ago
      This potential deal for Canada comes with compromises which would obviously be unacceptable to the UK (e.g. no full voting rights).
      - gizajob 16d ago
        Likely as unacceptable to Canadians.
        rsynnott 16d ago
        EEA nations (Norway, Iceland etc) have found them acceptable, and preferable to fully joining up.
        thunderfork 16d ago
        It's fine by me (sample size 1 Canuck)
      - fidotron 16d ago
        Does anyone actually know publicly what is and isn't the deal for associate membership? At least here (in Canada) I'm not seeing any concrete details.
        jeromegv 16d ago
        No, nothing public, we are all speculating. But we can surely guess at 99% that Canada would get no voting power, being that we are in North America and Canada isn't interested in that kind of arrangement.
    - drdexebtjl 16d ago
      The crucial distinction is which half is in which “half-in” agreement. They are not offering Canada conditions that the UK would have wanted.
  - Jackpillar 16d ago
    Not sure why its so difficult for you to understand the obvious goal of taking a hardline stance on leaving the EU as a member state vs onboarding possible partnerships, members, etc. You're looking at this backwards.
  - grumbelbart2 16d ago
    Cameron wanted to split the four freedoms. Canada does not, from what I can read.
  - antalis 16d ago
    That's wrong, he did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
  - rjsw 16d ago
    I think that the EU would be in worse shape today if the UK had followed most other members at the time and restricted freedom of movement to it for the countries that joined in 2004 and 2007. It would have been nice to have got some credit for that.
Sharlin 16d ago
The UK already enjoyed a large amount of unique concessions as a full member. The rest of the EU was right not to give in. Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative. No such problem in negotiating tighter integration with nonmembers (and in retrospect, many of the old WP countries should've joined as something like associate members at first…)
- fidotron 16d ago
  This is the other part: if associate membership is a thing then won't half of the EU start thinking that's their future?
  - Sharlin 16d ago
    >> Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative. Because you simply wouldn't be offered the option of just deescalating your full membership to an associate membership. If you want to leave, you leave fully, and then in time we can discuss what happens next. Also, obviously an associate membership shouldn't feel more desirable than full integration if you're eligible to both. Indeed from the UK's perspective it would be exactly the opposite to what they wanted: free labor and movement but no representation.
    - fidotron 16d ago
      This makes being involved as little as possible but no more far more attractive than being bound too tightly together though. Almost like many of the EU states were misled into their current situations.
      - Sharlin 16d ago
        How so? Many EU states have benefited enormously from being on the receiving side of EU subsidies, which obviously would be out of the question without full integration. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected membership, which essentially means that as EEA members they have to observe all the EU regulations and agreements when it comes to trade, without having any say about them. They have their reasons, but those reasons don't apply generally. "Being misled" is obviously nonsense that deserves no further comment.
teamonkey 16d ago
I don’t think Cameron did much serious negotiation on this front. He resigned the evening of the referendum results. It was a deliberate choice by his successors to pursue a hard Brexit. A softer Brexit was always possible and likely would have been more acceptable to the EU, as it would have had less financial impact and disruption to trade.
- fidotron 16d ago
  That's what happened afterwards. The referendum was triggered by a failed negotiation between Cameron and the EU in the first place.
  - jeromegv 16d ago
    The referendum was triggered by him making a bad political calculation that he would win it and could squash the aisle of his party that was pushing his idea. This was never truly due to a failed negotiation. The hardliners in his party wanted entirely out either way.
  - antalis 16d ago
    You've got it wrong: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
    - fidotron 16d ago
      There's no planet on which Cameron's visit that time was regarded by anyone on any side as anything other than a failure. Cameron was simply putting a face on it. It has pissed off the EU (understandably), pissed off his own supporters, and pissed off his enemies.
      - 16d ago
blitzar 16d ago
The UK wanted to maintain its veto over all EU matters (cake and eat it too).
FrancisMoodie 16d ago
I mean, not really, since the UK was trying to renegotiate an existing deal (which they profited from for decades) towards a deal that would favor the UK more than the EU and would trigger an entire blow-back of other member-states wanting to renegotiate on their EU responsibilities without losing the advantages that this deal brought, whereas the deal with Canada is a new deal where the EU gains better trading and less dependence on the US and Canada gains better trading and more security if their next door neighbor falls apart even further. The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something. Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election. Sure, the relationship between EU and UK had strained over the years, but trying to pin this on the inflexibility of the EU feels a bit misdirected.
- fidotron 16d ago
  > Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election That is iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did. > The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something. V. hard to see what Canada gets out of it. All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status.
  - rsynnott 16d ago
    > All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status. Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations. This would make trade (particularly for small businesses) _far_ easier. See the UK for how difficult this can become if you're not in alignment; it's survivable for huge companies (though even some of them had trouble; for instance Marks and Spencers' stores in Ireland literally went empty for a while because they were insufficiently prepared), but if you're a small business importing a bunch of components from Europe and making a thing which is largely sold to Europe, there's a _massive_ difference in bureaucratic overhead between being in and out. Even many Norwegian SMEs don't see direct sales to Europe as worth the overhead, and Norway's in the EEA, as close to the EU as you can get without actually being in it.
FabCH 16d ago
I missed the part where the UK was willing to give up all veto and voting rights and still have freedom of movement. Both of which Canada is ok with.
- fidotron 16d ago
  I am in Canada. There's no evidence Canada is OK with those things.
  - FabCH 16d ago
    Fair enough. It’s what the newspapers report: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-276f1778 https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-2...
    - fidotron 16d ago
      It's not actually reporting on the substance in any meaningful detail, and no one is, for the relatively simple reason that once it happens every special interest group in Canada will find something to go nuts about.
    - dghlsakjg 16d ago
      Do you have any sources that aren’t right wing publications from a country whose right wing is actively working against Canada and the E.U.? US publications as a whole, and especially those on the right consistently miss the mark on Canadian coverage.
      - FabCH 16d ago
        That sounds like you are looking for the Ground News thing I get advertising for on every YouTube video.
        bryanlarsen 16d ago
        Ground News itself is right wing propaganda.
abraxas 16d ago
The UK wanted it the opposite way. They wanted full access to the EU market but forbid the movement of people because they wanted to get rid of the Poles. The EU would never agree to that and rightly so.
deleted 16d ago
[deleted]
georgeecollins 16d ago
Why is the EU obligated to treat every country the same way? Canada presents different economic opportunities and challenges than the UK. Or, if you want to say it was due to politics, who was bashing who?
gmueckl 16d ago
The explanation is easy: Canada is not on the European continent. The EU can only extend full membership to countries on the continent, so Canada needs a special arrangement. And because there's a whole ocean serving as a reason for this special treatment, it's easy to argue that it won't extend to countries who can become full members.
- gremlinunderway 16d ago
  There's actually no continental definition in the EU constitution but yes probably in practice this is correct in terms of perception
antalis 16d ago
Cameron did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
jen20 16d ago
That is a rather fantastical and revisionist version of why the Brexit referendum was called - which had more to do with a misguided attempt to put the crazy wing of the Conservative Party to bed rather than anything to do with the EU, where the UK had the best deal imaginable already.
- gizajob 16d ago
  Nevertheless when put to British voters 50% of them decided that best possible deal still wasn’t in their interests. And that 50% who voted No was more people than even voted in the EU elections (to elect MEPs) before that. So the EU was very much fine with their democratic process seeming like an irrelevance, while at the same time the Brexit vote was actually an example of a democratic process working as it should. One can argue about craziness or otherwise, but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time and if there was a referendum to rejoin the EU would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again.
  - jen20 16d ago
    > but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time Yes. Just the demographics has substantially thinned their numbers by now though. > would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again. Highly unlikely - and turnout on the other side would be dramatically improved. Had the vote been held again the following day, it's likely that the result would have been different. If it were held today, it would be a landslide towards rejoining with the original terms. People actually know what they're voting for, instead of falling for make-believe horseshit about how much money could go into the NHS (but didn't) on the side of a bus, with a heavy dose of Russian propaganda on Facebook.
    - gizajob 16d ago
      I think you’ve fallen into the common trap in believing that there was a simple narrative which can be used to understand the Brexit vote, when the data shows there were 17 million different and varied reasons within a mass resistant to modelling.
LightBug1 16d ago
>>> "it's what Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum." "Negotiate" ... is that what you call it? David Cameron (and team) were the most inept bunch of wankers this country has had the misfortune of being represented by in living memory (in terms of medium/long-term real impact). We had better terms than anyone in the EU and we still fucked it up.
mejutoco 16d ago
> Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum. You are assigning too much responsibility to the EU here and none to the other actors responsible for Brexit. It borders on propaganda, but I do not want to assume ill intent. And Cameron, didnt he say he would guide UK no matter the result and then resigned when Brexit won?
- fidotron 16d ago
  Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum, the tension was so blatant. This idea people were conned into voting leave is just utter nonsense - they'd been chomping at the bit for the opportunity for years. Now the UK has managed to ramp up the tension dramatically, but without some easy foreign political bogeyman to blame. It's not going to end well either, but it's not clear exactly what the endgame is. This is why the Greens, Reform and Restore are suddenly things.
  - foldr 16d ago
    >Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum Come off it. Neither the referendum nor the referendum result were inevitabilities.
saulapremium 16d ago
Inflexibility was not the reason for Brexit. It happened because the British population was tricked by being fed misinformation about the EU for years by people like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Little things like "The EU bans bendy bananas" to big things like "Turkey is going to join any day!"

corford 16d ago

>inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum. That's a bit of a stretch

fidotron 16d ago
It's literally what happened. Cameron was trying to reduce the scope of EU integration with the UK (esp freedom of movement), with the threat he didn't want to use of a referendum, the EU said no (as the other commenter explained partly to disincentivize others, but also because they thought he was bluffing and people would never vote to leave), so the referendum was held.
- thih9 16d ago
  To be fair, freedom of movement is one of the core principles[1] of the EU. Restricting that is a tall ask, I wouldn't describe refusing that as being inflexible. [1]: https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/principles-and-values/aims-and-values_en https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor... "Freedom of movement gives citizens the right to move and reside freely within the Union."
- gizajob 16d ago
  I kind of made a point like this in the other thread - during Brexit it was a very hard No from the EU that they couldn’t negotiate on key points such as freedom of movement, and countries are either IN and have everything the EU comes with, or they’re out. Now, it seems, that Canada is being offered a favourable half-in arrangement simply because they’ve never before been involved. Seems pretty bizarre and arbitrary for the EU, but also totally standard for the EU because it’s bizarre and arbitrary.
  - foldr 16d ago
    This potential deal for Canada comes with compromises which would obviously be unacceptable to the UK (e.g. no full voting rights).
    - gizajob 16d ago
      Likely as unacceptable to Canadians.
      - rsynnott 16d ago
        EEA nations (Norway, Iceland etc) have found them acceptable, and preferable to fully joining up.
      - thunderfork 16d ago
        It's fine by me (sample size 1 Canuck)
    - fidotron 16d ago
      Does anyone actually know publicly what is and isn't the deal for associate membership? At least here (in Canada) I'm not seeing any concrete details.
      - jeromegv 16d ago
        No, nothing public, we are all speculating. But we can surely guess at 99% that Canada would get no voting power, being that we are in North America and Canada isn't interested in that kind of arrangement.
  - drdexebtjl 16d ago
    The crucial distinction is which half is in which “half-in” agreement. They are not offering Canada conditions that the UK would have wanted.
- Jackpillar 16d ago
  Not sure why its so difficult for you to understand the obvious goal of taking a hardline stance on leaving the EU as a member state vs onboarding possible partnerships, members, etc. You're looking at this backwards.
- grumbelbart2 16d ago
  Cameron wanted to split the four freedoms. Canada does not, from what I can read.
- antalis 16d ago
  That's wrong, he did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
- rjsw 16d ago
  I think that the EU would be in worse shape today if the UK had followed most other members at the time and restricted freedom of movement to it for the countries that joined in 2004 and 2007. It would have been nice to have got some credit for that.

Sharlin 16d ago

The UK already enjoyed a large amount of unique concessions as a full member. The rest of the EU was right not to give in. Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative. No such problem in negotiating tighter integration with nonmembers (and in retrospect, many of the old WP countries should've joined as something like associate members at first…)

fidotron 16d ago
This is the other part: if associate membership is a thing then won't half of the EU start thinking that's their future?
- Sharlin 16d ago
  >> Also, game theoretically it's of course more important to not make leaving (or threatening to leave) the union seem too lucrative. Because you simply wouldn't be offered the option of just deescalating your full membership to an associate membership. If you want to leave, you leave fully, and then in time we can discuss what happens next. Also, obviously an associate membership shouldn't feel more desirable than full integration if you're eligible to both. Indeed from the UK's perspective it would be exactly the opposite to what they wanted: free labor and movement but no representation.
  - fidotron 16d ago
    This makes being involved as little as possible but no more far more attractive than being bound too tightly together though. Almost like many of the EU states were misled into their current situations.
    - Sharlin 16d ago
      How so? Many EU states have benefited enormously from being on the receiving side of EU subsidies, which obviously would be out of the question without full integration. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected membership, which essentially means that as EEA members they have to observe all the EU regulations and agreements when it comes to trade, without having any say about them. They have their reasons, but those reasons don't apply generally. "Being misled" is obviously nonsense that deserves no further comment.

teamonkey 16d ago

I don’t think Cameron did much serious negotiation on this front. He resigned the evening of the referendum results. It was a deliberate choice by his successors to pursue a hard Brexit. A softer Brexit was always possible and likely would have been more acceptable to the EU, as it would have had less financial impact and disruption to trade.

fidotron 16d ago
That's what happened afterwards. The referendum was triggered by a failed negotiation between Cameron and the EU in the first place.
- jeromegv 16d ago
  The referendum was triggered by him making a bad political calculation that he would win it and could squash the aisle of his party that was pushing his idea. This was never truly due to a failed negotiation. The hardliners in his party wanted entirely out either way.
- antalis 16d ago
  You've got it wrong: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...
  - fidotron 16d ago
    There's no planet on which Cameron's visit that time was regarded by anyone on any side as anything other than a failure. Cameron was simply putting a face on it. It has pissed off the EU (understandably), pissed off his own supporters, and pissed off his enemies.
    - 16d ago

blitzar 16d ago

The UK wanted to maintain its veto over all EU matters (cake and eat it too).

FrancisMoodie 16d ago

I mean, not really, since the UK was trying to renegotiate an existing deal (which they profited from for decades) towards a deal that would favor the UK more than the EU and would trigger an entire blow-back of other member-states wanting to renegotiate on their EU responsibilities without losing the advantages that this deal brought, whereas the deal with Canada is a new deal where the EU gains better trading and less dependence on the US and Canada gains better trading and more security if their next door neighbor falls apart even further. The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something. Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election. Sure, the relationship between EU and UK had strained over the years, but trying to pin this on the inflexibility of the EU feels a bit misdirected.

fidotron 16d ago
> Also, the Brexit referendum was a campaign promise of David Cameron that was going to trigger if his conservative party won the 2015 general election That is iff the renegotiations with Brussels failed, which they did. > The UK renegotiation was a net loss for the EU, this Canada deal is a deal where both parties gain something. V. hard to see what Canada gets out of it. All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status.
- rsynnott 16d ago
  > All the roadblocks to Canadian trade with the EU today (especially around resources) are internal to Canada and have nothing at all to do with EU status. Presumably under the proposed thing Canada would largely adopt EU regulations. This would make trade (particularly for small businesses) _far_ easier. See the UK for how difficult this can become if you're not in alignment; it's survivable for huge companies (though even some of them had trouble; for instance Marks and Spencers' stores in Ireland literally went empty for a while because they were insufficiently prepared), but if you're a small business importing a bunch of components from Europe and making a thing which is largely sold to Europe, there's a _massive_ difference in bureaucratic overhead between being in and out. Even many Norwegian SMEs don't see direct sales to Europe as worth the overhead, and Norway's in the EEA, as close to the EU as you can get without actually being in it.

FabCH 16d ago

I missed the part where the UK was willing to give up all veto and voting rights and still have freedom of movement. Both of which Canada is ok with.

fidotron 16d ago
I am in Canada. There's no evidence Canada is OK with those things.
- FabCH 16d ago
  Fair enough. It’s what the newspapers report: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-276f1778 https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/canada-alliance-eu-carney-2...
  - fidotron 16d ago
    It's not actually reporting on the substance in any meaningful detail, and no one is, for the relatively simple reason that once it happens every special interest group in Canada will find something to go nuts about.
  - dghlsakjg 16d ago
    Do you have any sources that aren’t right wing publications from a country whose right wing is actively working against Canada and the E.U.? US publications as a whole, and especially those on the right consistently miss the mark on Canadian coverage.
    - FabCH 16d ago
      That sounds like you are looking for the Ground News thing I get advertising for on every YouTube video.
      - bryanlarsen 16d ago
        Ground News itself is right wing propaganda.

abraxas 16d ago

The UK wanted it the opposite way. They wanted full access to the EU market but forbid the movement of people because they wanted to get rid of the Poles. The EU would never agree to that and rightly so.

deleted 16d ago

[deleted]

georgeecollins 16d ago

Why is the EU obligated to treat every country the same way? Canada presents different economic opportunities and challenges than the UK. Or, if you want to say it was due to politics, who was bashing who?

gmueckl 16d ago

The explanation is easy: Canada is not on the European continent. The EU can only extend full membership to countries on the continent, so Canada needs a special arrangement. And because there's a whole ocean serving as a reason for this special treatment, it's easy to argue that it won't extend to countries who can become full members.

gremlinunderway 16d ago
There's actually no continental definition in the EU constitution but yes probably in practice this is correct in terms of perception

antalis 16d ago

Cameron did get what he wanted before the referendum: "After the deal had been approved, Cameron described it as giving the United Kingdom "special status within the European Union" and immediately declared that both he and the UK Government would campaign for a "Remain" vote in the referendum within a "reformed European Union"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%932016_United_Kingd...

jen20 16d ago

That is a rather fantastical and revisionist version of why the Brexit referendum was called - which had more to do with a misguided attempt to put the crazy wing of the Conservative Party to bed rather than anything to do with the EU, where the UK had the best deal imaginable already.

gizajob 16d ago
Nevertheless when put to British voters 50% of them decided that best possible deal still wasn’t in their interests. And that 50% who voted No was more people than even voted in the EU elections (to elect MEPs) before that. So the EU was very much fine with their democratic process seeming like an irrelevance, while at the same time the Brexit vote was actually an example of a democratic process working as it should. One can argue about craziness or otherwise, but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time and if there was a referendum to rejoin the EU would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again.
- jen20 16d ago
  > but there were at least 17 million crazies at the time Yes. Just the demographics has substantially thinned their numbers by now though. > would likely be a different 17 million crazies voting No again. Highly unlikely - and turnout on the other side would be dramatically improved. Had the vote been held again the following day, it's likely that the result would have been different. If it were held today, it would be a landslide towards rejoining with the original terms. People actually know what they're voting for, instead of falling for make-believe horseshit about how much money could go into the NHS (but didn't) on the side of a bus, with a heavy dose of Russian propaganda on Facebook.
  - gizajob 16d ago
    I think you’ve fallen into the common trap in believing that there was a simple narrative which can be used to understand the Brexit vote, when the data shows there were 17 million different and varied reasons within a mass resistant to modelling.

LightBug1 16d ago

>>> "it's what Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum." "Negotiate" ... is that what you call it? David Cameron (and team) were the most inept bunch of wankers this country has had the misfortune of being represented by in living memory (in terms of medium/long-term real impact). We had better terms than anyone in the EU and we still fucked it up.

mejutoco 16d ago

> Cameron was trying to negotiate the UK into when complete inflexibility on the EU side triggered the Brexit referendum. You are assigning too much responsibility to the EU here and none to the other actors responsible for Brexit. It borders on propaganda, but I do not want to assume ill intent. And Cameron, didnt he say he would guide UK no matter the result and then resigned when Brexit won?

fidotron 16d ago
Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum, the tension was so blatant. This idea people were conned into voting leave is just utter nonsense - they'd been chomping at the bit for the opportunity for years. Now the UK has managed to ramp up the tension dramatically, but without some easy foreign political bogeyman to blame. It's not going to end well either, but it's not clear exactly what the endgame is. This is why the Greens, Reform and Restore are suddenly things.
- foldr 16d ago
  >Brexit was obviously going to happen a good decade before the referendum Come off it. Neither the referendum nor the referendum result were inevitabilities.

saulapremium 16d ago

Inflexibility was not the reason for Brexit. It happened because the British population was tricked by being fed misinformation about the EU for years by people like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson. Little things like "The EU bans bendy bananas" to big things like "Turkey is going to join any day!"