284
Sadiq Khan says ‘Brexit was a mistake’ and closer EU ties could counter Trump tariffs
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
284 points (99.0% liked)
Europe
2617 readers
1330 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in [email protected]. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @[email protected], @[email protected], or @[email protected].
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a positive feedback loop. Some voters are xenophobes, party caters to the xenophobes by perpetuating xenophobe fairy tales, more voters become xenophobes from hearing those fairy tales.
Do you think Labour are catering to xenophobes? I don't think they're saying much that is xenophobic. I think it's just that they know many people voted for Brexit and Labour doesn't want to upset those voters.
Brexit was largely fuelled by xenophobic fairy tales. Blaming the EU and immigration for pretty much everything that went badly.
True to an extent. Also though I guess there are people who felt like Brussels told Britain what to do. I don't agree with that, because Britain was part of the decision making process, in the EU parliament. But I guess in a democracy the majority view wins out, even if you don't agree with that view. If we ignore democratic views then voters get very angry and more extreme.
However I'm definitely not someone who thinks democracy ended in 2016 regarding the Brexit question. Democracy obviously continues, so I think it would be completely legitimate if the UK had another EU membership referendum at some point.
It's quite a stupid move to tie such a consequential decision as leaving the EU to a non binding referendum with a ~~51 to 49~~ 52 to 48 outcome. Something with such massive consequences should require a 2/3 majority.
Especially if there is as much foreign interference as with the Brexit campaign.
Edit: Got the numbers slightly wrong
Blame David Cameron I guess. The result was 52-48 by the way although I guess that's an insignificant difference.
In principle I think a majority should count... but maybe there should have been a second referendum to clarify what type of Brexit people wanted. The UK could have remained in the EU single market and/or customs union while fulfilling the mandate of the first referendum to leave the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland all participate in the EU single market to some degree, without being EU members.
The thing is, you only get the single market proper if you accept freedom of movement. It's a package deal.
Also, in order to get access to the single market, you have to accept and implement regulations.
Of course, you'll have to pay for access to the single market, as well, but as a non member have no say on regulations.
Neither of those implications was wanted by the UK.
Cameron had already decided to ask the British public how to settle the question of EU membership. Since politicians were bickering about how to implement this referendum result, maybe they could have asked the public to choose a form of Brexit. Whether to stay in the single market and/or the customs union.
Anyway I suppose it's all a moot point since it's in the past. I think EU membership will probably be a possibility for the UK again in the future. It might take a decade or two though.
Cameron was running a populist xenophobic anti-EU campaign to appease the UKIP and its voters. His actual intention never was to leave the EU because he isn't that stupid, but his publicity stunt of the referendum backfired spectacularly by the votes for "leave" coming up ever so slightly ahead. An outcome for which there was no plan at all. And then the monumental fuck-up really started.
The problem is that neither the British public nor the politicians ever really understood the implications nor the point of the EU. They largely only viewed (and still view) it as just another trade agreement, which it really, really isn't. The EU and its predecessors always were a political project, which did (and does) heavily rely on trade to achieve the main political goal of lasting peace and cooperation between the member states.
This led to insane and impossible attempts at cherry picking benefits for potential future relationships, which the EU could and did not accept. You cannot have free movement of goods without free movement of people, because the EU isn't just a free trade organisation. You cannot have access to the single market without accepting and implementing regulations, because this would allow you to endanger EU citizens with substandard goods and undercut EU producers with prices only achievable by substandard production.
Another stupid misunderstanding that backfired spectacularly is the silly notion that the EU saps away a member country's sovereignty and replaces it with some dictates from Brussles. In fact, EU members do pool their sovereignty and, by doing so, give it more weight than that of every individual member alone could ever carry. This is how Ireland was able to dictate its conditions for the Northern Ireland border situation. The logical consequence of this was the sea border with all its absurd complications, because the UK didn't want freedom of movement nor regulatory alignment, and a hard border on the Island of Ireland would automatically have meant no deal at all.
Speaking of "no deal", it was peak comedy when the UK parliament repeatedly voted "against" "no deal", yet refused every deal the EU was willing to accept. The utter stupidity of assuming that "no deal" wasn't automatically the outcome of not making a deal, and the idea that a single country somehow would have a strong negotiating position against an alliance of 27 countries, among them some of the largest and most prosperous in Europe, having in total more than 17 times the land mass, and over 6 times the population and GDP, was utterly ridiculous.
I am a big fan of British comedy, but none of your brilliant comedians could have delivered such a hilarious absurd comedy show as the Brexit negotiations were.
I didn't follow the Brexit negotiations closely. But since these decisions were difficult, perhaps they could have held a referendum to clarify what type of Brexit people wanted. But maybe the Tories decided they had already been burnt by a referendum at that point.
I think you're right about EU countries pooling their sovereignty, that makes sense. Britain was a participant in the EU decision making processes. We were the joint 3rd biggest segment of the European parliament (tied with Italy, which is a bit odd because their population is a few million fewer than the UK's population, but oh well).
Asking the people what they want while government and parliament are having wild delusions about what they can actually have makes zero sense, though.
Also the UK had one of the best EU membership deals with tons of exceptions. (Of which Cameron was demanding more on a weekly basis in his insane PR stunt of "negotiating a better deal") Those exceptions aren't going to come back on a rejoin.
Yeah true, if Britain joins the EU again the terms will probably be worse, which just makes Britain rejoining even more unlikely for the foreseeable future.