News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(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].
Just join the EEA already, you'd get all the free trade advantages but could keep 100% of your own internal politics. How THAT is not palatable to UK politicians is beyond me.
Because freedom of trade with the EU always comes as a package deal with freedom of movement, which the xenophobes in London find unacceptable.
The xenophobes are mostly outside of London. In London, 60% of voters wanted to remain in the EU. But in the UK overall, 52% of voters wanted to leave the EU.
But yes I think the EEA would be too politically risky at the moment. The EU Customs Union might be more realistic (Turkey is part of this) but I think the current UK government don't even want to do that. They don't want to lose the votes of people who wanted Brexit.
I meant the politicians, who do typically sit at the capital. Of course there might be a xenophobic sentiment in the population, but the political elites can somewhat steer the popular sentiment. The current political meta (not only in the UK, but unfortunately pretty much worldwide) is to reinforce xenophobic tendencies in order to have an easy scapegoat in "them evil foreigners™" for things going wrong due to the political establishment and their benefactors in "the economy™" benefiting from things going wrong for ordinary people.
I don't think xenophobia is motivating Labour to stay clear of the EU at the moment... I think it's just political reality, unfortunately. There are quite a few working class people who traditionally vote for Labour, but they also backed Brexit, and Labour doesn't want to lose those voters to the Conservatives or Reform.
Maybe I'm wrong but that's my perception.
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.
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).
But since these decisions were difficult, perhaps they could have held a referendum to clarify what type of Brexit people wanted.
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.
Well, let the UK crash then
Let Canada join in too.
With the threats from the US, Canada could use some closer ties to Europe too. There are already historic ties to the UK that have weakened over the last few decades.
IMO there's some bad blood between the UK and the EU. The EU probably wouldn't want to just take the UK back after Brexit. And, from the point of view of the UK, the Brexit voters are still out there, and if the EU makes re-entry too humiliating, they'd raise a stink.
But, if you include Canada it's no longer just the UK rejoining the EU. It can be a new thing, the Canada-UK-EU pact: CUE. Conservatives who were pro-Brexit might be mollified because they tend to be more likely to be monarchists, and this can be seen as strengthening ties between two countries where Charles is the head of state. It also gives Canada and the UK a bit more bargaining power together than if they both tried to strengthen ties to the EU separately.
My guess is that if this allowed for freer movement of people and media, Quebec would be happy to have closer ties to France, Belgium, Switzerland and the other places in Europe where French is spoken.
We all should be working together to protect ourselves from Trump. And, even if the US survives Trump and elects someone sane as president in 4 years, recent history has shown that the US just isn't a reliable partner anymore. It's just too volatile and chaotic. Given the proximity, Canada will inevitably have strong ties to the US, but there needs to be some "plan B".
I'm not convinced the EU is monolithic enough for bad blood to matter, there's enough member states with enough history that someone will always have issues with someone.
What I do believe will be a point of contention though are all the special dispensations the UK have had. With the power balance as it is today, UK might have to face membership on equal terms with the other member states this time around.
Yeah, the UK would be bargaining from a weak position. As a founding member of the EU it was bargaining from a strong one and could get concessions.
But, maybe if they say "hey, let us in and give us some exceptions and we'll let you talk to our good buddy Canada"...
UK was not a founding member.
https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/6-27-members_en
They were a founding member in the way Musk "founds" companies: joining later and getting a lot of influence due to wealth
As a founding member of the EU.
They were not a founding member though. They joined in 1973-1975 and have negotiated many exceptions to the EEC, causing other memberstates sometimes a bit of headaches.
"Brenter " would be a good idea, but like it's been said, there are ( British) political and systematic (compliance) hurdles. But they can be overcome.
Imo, Britain needs to clean the house first, from the lying (Ukip )traitors, who sold your country out. Also, during crises, lots can happen, quickly. Necessity is a huge drive force, especially in Politics, maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised.
IMO there’s some bad blood between the UK and the EU.
Not so much that it matters. The financial industry wants them back in the fold. It would be a win-win for UK and EU. But there is one or two maybe major cons for the UK: They won't get the UK rebate back and they won't get any other exceptions. That means they'll have to switch to the Euro.
They'll probably accept paying the same as the other member states but I'm not sure if they'll accept the Euro.
As a dual Belgian-French citizen living in an English-speaking EU country that was once a possession of the Crown (and is still part of the Commonwealth), I can't help but agree.
The ties between the UK and its (former or not) empire are still strong and somehow tying it to the EU would benefit both parties.
It would be interesting to do a poll in the UK now about rejoining, even the Brexiters may have changed their minds, they were sold freedom and got mostly misery.
I'm guessing... Malta?
Yeah, Canada's day-to-day culture is very American. The same TV shows are popular, the same sports, same celebrities, etc. But, the legal and political setup is still very British. And, it's times like this that we really appreciate how different that part still is from the US.
Canada’s day-to-day culture is very American.
I wouldn't say that. Yes, we consume American media but Canadians are more socially aware of their surroundings. Americans are very selfish. Crabs in a bucket mentality. Canadians, in general, consider the social body as a whole.
I've lived in both the US and Canada for extended amounts of time. Canadians are just better people.
I've lived in the US and Canada for extended amounts of time, but I've also lived in Europe and Australia. From the point of view of someone living outside North America, there's very little difference between Americans and Canadians culturally.
It all depends on your perspective. If you've never left LA you might say there are massive cultural differences between people in Lakewood and Lawndale. And, I'm sure there are some differences. But, an outsider might have a different opinion.
I think they mean Ireland
Not part of the Commonwealth since 1949.
Oh right...
Well done! Yup Malta
If you agree to a Free Trade Agreement without these stupid undemocratic arbitration courts, it could work out
Do you realise that has things stand, even Canada's electricity grid prevents from joining the single market and therefore the EU? Either they would need to get the mother of all opt outs, convert all their appliances and grid to 240v, or all appliances would need to be dual voltage (hiking up the costs for everyone).
And then every single product regulation is currently aligned with the US. Even countries that were closer to EU regulations took a decade to align them, so Canada will probably take at least that.
In the short term it makes more sense to focus on sector by sector free trade and free movement agreements.
Yeah, Canada couldn't join the EU as a normal member state. It's not just electricity, everything's different. Different rules for highways and cars, different food safety rules, different worker safety regulations.
But, what if they started with freer movement of people. What if they made it easier for doctors and nurses to have that degree recognized in the other jurisdiction. And just make it easier for Canadians to work in Europe and Europeans to work in Canada without the current visa approval process.
Changing up the entire electrical system might be the project of a lifetime. OTOH, the EU made that recent ruling that every charger / chargeable had to be USB-C. Even though the electrical systems are different, USB-C is the same for everyone (well, ignoring that's a mess of a spec with thousands of weird variations). So, the various parties could work together on future specs involving USB-C and whatever comes after that.
Great ideas!
I hate "Noo, it's gonna take us soo long, so we shouldn't do it!" Yes, it's gonna take time so maybe just start? The best time to begin a long process was yesterday, the second best is now. Nobody says "things have to be perfect tomorrow" but not starting overall is not gonna change anything.
Instead of asking "how long is it going to take?", we should rather just ask "is it a desirable outcome?" and if yes, just start.
Which is why I said focus on the baby steps that are actually doable now.
That's the way the EU itself was formed as well. It started as "European Economic Community" or "European Common Market". It was then transformed to "European Community" and finally to "European Union". Those Agreements go stepwise this is what could happen here
BRENTER !
They are welcome to brenter, but the longer they wait, the harder it gets.
I suspect it's the other way around. Time needs to pass for the wounds created during the process to heal, and for the core of those opposed to membership to pass on. It'll also be nothing like it was before; the UK had a lot of power, and many carve outs and exceptions that they wont get back, so going back in may be a harder sell than many people believe.
It's unwise to wait, especially if it means collective amnesia and another round of more intense conservative/neoliberal rule.
Realistically I don't think Britain is going to rejoin the EU (or even the single market or customs union) any time soon.
I think it can happen one day. Maybe in at least 10 years' time.
Would be great if the UK could come back into the customs union. Having to make export and import declarations for each parcel shipment is such a waste of time and money.