Ten years after the Brexit referendum, only one-third of people in Britain believe that leaving the EU was the right decision. Among young people in particular, support for rejoining the European Union is strong.
Not gonna happen anytime soon.
And there is no majority for it in UK when the reality of rejoining is explained.
Give up the British pound and switch to Euro.
Pay full price, the old discount membership is not an option.
Dismantle FPP elections and House of lords which are both utterly undemocratic, and cause political instability.
Being willing to allow EU to become even tighter (may imply giving up an additional bit of sovereignty) to be able to work with more new member states, and avoid a Hungary situation in the future.
There is a majority in general that is for reentering, but when the above points are stated, support in the general population drops to about 13%!!
It’s probably higher among younger people, but without mentioning the above points, no poll on reentering is worth anything, because they are polling a pipedream.
They really didn’t grasp at all the sweetheart deal they had with the EU… other countries would have killed for that.
It reminds me so much of the Americans complaining about their position in NATO and the “world policeman” that they fought tooth and nail to get because of the huge amounts of soft power it grants in negotiations and generally shaping world policy.
The irony of a Republican working to undo that… Kissinger’s gotta be able to power a small country with how fast he’s spinning. Ultimately, good for the world in the end, but another pretty hilarious example of a nation misinterpreting a boon as an albatross around the neck and shooting themselves in the foot by getting rid of it lol. Rhymes so much with Brexit.
Yes, the privileged tend to think they are somehow entitled to their privileges.
I guess both UK and USA have been fucking around too much, and are in the find out phase now.
Good, IMO they shouldn’t be. ;)
But to be fair I forgot what for some is the biggest deal breaker, which is the Schengen agreement that allows free travel for EU citizens within EU. Which of course again IMO is another benefit, not a drawback. But propaganda uses it to stir up xenophobia.
As an EU citizen I too don’t see any problems in the above points. Getting a better democracy would seem to me to be a HUGE bonus. But sometimes Brits are a bit stubborn, and they want special treatment because they believe in British exceptionalism.
UK always considered itself separate from continental Europe, and somewhat superior to the rest of Europe. Which for decades was true, because UK were first to industrialize, and was immensely wealthy from having colonies and the world reserve currency.
But when that broke down after WW2, UK declined quickly and became a “normal” country. But the mentality never really followed the reality.
At least that’s how I understand it.
But maybe the steep drop in support when the points are presented isn’t so much because they are against them, as maybe they don’t quite understand them, or think UK can get a better deal.
What for instance does it mean to switch from GBP to EUR? That’s probably not so clear for everybody.
To be fair the British Pound does have a long and “proud” history, as the most significant currency in the world. And London being the financial center of the world.
The pride of its past history will to some degree be lost, like losing the last remnant from when UK was the strongest and richest global Empire. It’s like losing a bit of history and national identity.
That’s very wise, but pride is a bitch, it’s hard to swallow. So I think many will not think like you.
I’m from Denmark, and even I would feel a little sad to see the British Pound disappear.
@yakko@Buffalox
I think that exception is the one big fly in the ointment! Especially as the City of London depends on it to, um, “manage” the flows of billions of $£€++. 😏
As things are going it is not impossible. But Canada still rely on USA as their most significant trading partner, and EU membership would dramatically complicate that relationship.
If Britain were to return to a pre-Brexit state today, it may look more like what Switzerland has: regulatory alignment and freedom of movement, though outside the increasingly tightly integrated bloc.
Not quite pre-Brexit, because it is not the same as a membership, but I agree that the realistic near future is increased cooperation between UK and EU, and something like Switzerland is a likely model. Which will mean UK will have to follow EU regulation, but will have zero influence on it.
The UK were never a partner of the free movement, you’d have to dig out your passport every time you were entering their country and I doubt freedom of movement would be on the top of their list of things they’d want from a partnership with the EU
Point 4 has something in the works for 65% of countries representing 75% of the population or something like that. Unanimity is difficult with growing pools.
The problem is that we need a mechanism to stop a single country to hold back all of EU for years.
I think most agree on that. Problem is that it probably requires to take a way a bit of sovereignty to achieve that.
So it has to be done very carefully, to protect the rights of individual countries.
As it is it has worked extremely well, except for the situation with Hungary that were traitors within EU that supported Russia over EU.
Technically speaking, Point 1 isn’t guaranteed to be demanded by the EU. Most of the EU agrees that the UK rejoining would be a huge benefit to the EU. Whether that means the EU would agree to waive the monetary union requirement is not a settled question.
Furthermore, even if Brussels DID demand that the UK agree to take the Euro like all new joining members, there are loopholes that allow a member state to agree to that but then never finish the process. Sweden for example.
Nothing is guaranteed, but the official standpoint from EU is that UK will NOT get a special deal. And participation in the Euro is the default.
So UK will technically be obligated to join the Euro.
Sweden came in under other terms back in 1995, much has changed since, and such exceptions will not be likely to be accepted today.
I don’t think Hungary is using a loophole, seems more likely that Hungary doesn’t qualify for the Euro ATM.
Much the same way there were speculations that Greece might have to leave the Euro.
The Euro can be mandatory for new member states without being mandatory for existing members.
If UK had remained in the EU, they would have kept ALL their special arrangements without problems.
Sweden doesn’t qualify for the euro either. That’s the loophole. They’re failing the qualification criteria on purpose, because (they argue) joining ERM II is optional.
The rules today is that NEW members must join the Eurozone once they meet the economic convergence criteria.
IDK specifically about Sweden.
Denmark also keep our Danish crown, because we refused to adopt the Euro, despite we have one of the strongest economies in EU. We have an exception, kind of like UK did.
I think the reason could be that the sentiment in EU now is that they are a bit tired of UK making special demands. So they won’t be given any slack.
But it’s all a matter of politics, maybe they can make a deal, but the default is that it is required, and the political sentiment in EU currently is that UK needs to meet ALL requirements, and ALL 27 member states need to agree to give an exception to UK, which is probably deemed unlikely. It is not exactly set in stone, but it’s close.
The rules today is that NEW members must join the Eurozone once they meet the economic convergence criteria.
I know. I’m saying that that’s the loophole: you can intentionally fail to meet the convergence criteria. You just don’t join ERM II. That’s how Sweden’s avoiding taking the euro, it’s how Hungary’s avoiding it, it’s how Poland’s avoiding it, even Romania who joined in 2007 is avoiding taking the euro by simply not joining ERM II.
I respect that Denmark specifically negotiated for an opt-out instead of doing what these other countries did which was essentially agreeing to take the euro but crossing their fingers.
Maybe it’s a loophole, IDK, it doesn’t sound sustainable to have national debt just to avoid being a member of the Euro. Maybe Sweden will become a Euro member sometime in the future, but I’m fine with it being when they want to, and not being forced. But I still don’t think UK will be cut the same amount of slack.
Personally I’d prefer to be part of the Euro, but this was a result of a vote on the Maastricht, and this is way way better than if we’d have to leave EU, which would be even more horrible for us than it was for UK.
We had a lot of EU skeptics when that was decided, but the tide has turned, there are no parties left out of 12 represented in parliament that oppose EU membership. UK cured that problem overnight.
I also don’t think that a country and economy as important as the UK would be treated like any member. The UK can probably get some of its favorable treatment back. The only absolute red line seems to be the Three Freedoms.
Oh, and the regulatory and judicial framework, too. That was a huge sticking point during Brexit, when they rejected the May proposal over the ECJ having final say on disputes over Northern Ireland.
Why would the UK have to give up the pound for Euro? Isn’t the political institution still different from the Euro collective (or however it’s called in EN)?
IDK if there are situations where it’s not as bad as in UK. If the position has limited power, it may not be an issue. But in UK it’s not just the government, it’s the entire parliament, meaning it is crippling the opposition that is the main check on the government, and creating governments that have a vast majority, so even if some of their own don’t follow the party line, they can press things through with majority anyway.
I have only heard it mentioned specifically regarding UK parliament.
I for one occasionally fantasize about the two Princes getting red pilled or something of the like. And asking the people of Britain if they would join them retaking the country from foolish leadership and influences.
Not gonna happen anytime soon.
And there is no majority for it in UK when the reality of rejoining is explained.
There is a majority in general that is for reentering, but when the above points are stated, support in the general population drops to about 13%!!
It’s probably higher among younger people, but without mentioning the above points, no poll on reentering is worth anything, because they are polling a pipedream.
They really didn’t grasp at all the sweetheart deal they had with the EU… other countries would have killed for that.
It reminds me so much of the Americans complaining about their position in NATO and the “world policeman” that they fought tooth and nail to get because of the huge amounts of soft power it grants in negotiations and generally shaping world policy.
The irony of a Republican working to undo that… Kissinger’s gotta be able to power a small country with how fast he’s spinning. Ultimately, good for the world in the end, but another pretty hilarious example of a nation misinterpreting a boon as an albatross around the neck and shooting themselves in the foot by getting rid of it lol. Rhymes so much with Brexit.
Yes, the privileged tend to think they are somehow entitled to their privileges.
I guess both UK and USA have been fucking around too much, and are in the find out phase now.
I’m a British voter and I see no deal-breakers.
Good, IMO they shouldn’t be. ;)
But to be fair I forgot what for some is the biggest deal breaker, which is the Schengen agreement that allows free travel for EU citizens within EU. Which of course again IMO is another benefit, not a drawback. But propaganda uses it to stir up xenophobia.
As an EU citizen I too don’t see any problems in the above points. Getting a better democracy would seem to me to be a HUGE bonus. But sometimes Brits are a bit stubborn, and they want special treatment because they believe in British exceptionalism.
UK always considered itself separate from continental Europe, and somewhat superior to the rest of Europe. Which for decades was true, because UK were first to industrialize, and was immensely wealthy from having colonies and the world reserve currency.
But when that broke down after WW2, UK declined quickly and became a “normal” country. But the mentality never really followed the reality.
At least that’s how I understand it.
But maybe the steep drop in support when the points are presented isn’t so much because they are against them, as maybe they don’t quite understand them, or think UK can get a better deal.
What for instance does it mean to switch from GBP to EUR? That’s probably not so clear for everybody.
yeah I didn’t have any issues until that, fuckin creepy.
Why is it creepy to say that for instance better democracy shouldn’t be an issue?
And UK has to pay the same as everybody else!
I’m not a finance wonk, but I don’t think the UK does anything with pounds that can’t be done with euros. Except maybe tax evasion? lol
To be fair the British Pound does have a long and “proud” history, as the most significant currency in the world. And London being the financial center of the world.
The pride of its past history will to some degree be lost, like losing the last remnant from when UK was the strongest and richest global Empire. It’s like losing a bit of history and national identity.
it already has been.
Absolutely, I should have written: What remains of it.
I do try not to let pride be my downfall; national pride doubly so. Being a British and American citizen by birth has pretty well beaten it out of me.
That’s very wise, but pride is a bitch, it’s hard to swallow. So I think many will not think like you.
I’m from Denmark, and even I would feel a little sad to see the British Pound disappear.
@yakko @Buffalox
I think that exception is the one big fly in the ointment! Especially as the City of London depends on it to, um, “manage” the flows of billions of $£€++. 😏
Canada will join EU before UK does.
As things are going it is not impossible. But Canada still rely on USA as their most significant trading partner, and EU membership would dramatically complicate that relationship.
Threatening to annex Canada and economically attacking dramatically complicated that relationship.
Absolutely, but USA remains the biggest market for Canada.
If Britain were to return to a pre-Brexit state today, it may look more like what Switzerland has: regulatory alignment and freedom of movement, though outside the increasingly tightly integrated bloc.
Not quite pre-Brexit, because it is not the same as a membership, but I agree that the realistic near future is increased cooperation between UK and EU, and something like Switzerland is a likely model. Which will mean UK will have to follow EU regulation, but will have zero influence on it.
gestures at current UK regulation and political situation
UK politics have been a shitshow as long as I can remember.
Count Binface will sort it out.
Yes, there is hope of that. 😋
The UK were never a partner of the free movement, you’d have to dig out your passport every time you were entering their country and I doubt freedom of movement would be on the top of their list of things they’d want from a partnership with the EU
Point 4 has something in the works for 65% of countries representing 75% of the population or something like that. Unanimity is difficult with growing pools.
The other three are chefs kiss though.
The problem is that we need a mechanism to stop a single country to hold back all of EU for years.
I think most agree on that. Problem is that it probably requires to take a way a bit of sovereignty to achieve that.
So it has to be done very carefully, to protect the rights of individual countries.
As it is it has worked extremely well, except for the situation with Hungary that were traitors within EU that supported Russia over EU.
Technically speaking, Point 1 isn’t guaranteed to be demanded by the EU. Most of the EU agrees that the UK rejoining would be a huge benefit to the EU. Whether that means the EU would agree to waive the monetary union requirement is not a settled question.
Furthermore, even if Brussels DID demand that the UK agree to take the Euro like all new joining members, there are loopholes that allow a member state to agree to that but then never finish the process. Sweden for example.
Nothing is guaranteed, but the official standpoint from EU is that UK will NOT get a special deal. And participation in the Euro is the default.
So UK will technically be obligated to join the Euro.
Sweden came in under other terms back in 1995, much has changed since, and such exceptions will not be likely to be accepted today.
Hungary joined in 2004 and is using the same loophole. I’ve seen or heard nothing to suggest that the loophole has ever been done away with.
I don’t think Hungary is using a loophole, seems more likely that Hungary doesn’t qualify for the Euro ATM.
Much the same way there were speculations that Greece might have to leave the Euro.
The Euro can be mandatory for new member states without being mandatory for existing members.
If UK had remained in the EU, they would have kept ALL their special arrangements without problems.
Sweden doesn’t qualify for the euro either. That’s the loophole. They’re failing the qualification criteria on purpose, because (they argue) joining ERM II is optional.
The rules today is that NEW members must join the Eurozone once they meet the economic convergence criteria.
IDK specifically about Sweden.
Denmark also keep our Danish crown, because we refused to adopt the Euro, despite we have one of the strongest economies in EU. We have an exception, kind of like UK did.
I think the reason could be that the sentiment in EU now is that they are a bit tired of UK making special demands. So they won’t be given any slack.
But it’s all a matter of politics, maybe they can make a deal, but the default is that it is required, and the political sentiment in EU currently is that UK needs to meet ALL requirements, and ALL 27 member states need to agree to give an exception to UK, which is probably deemed unlikely. It is not exactly set in stone, but it’s close.
I know. I’m saying that that’s the loophole: you can intentionally fail to meet the convergence criteria. You just don’t join ERM II. That’s how Sweden’s avoiding taking the euro, it’s how Hungary’s avoiding it, it’s how Poland’s avoiding it, even Romania who joined in 2007 is avoiding taking the euro by simply not joining ERM II.
I respect that Denmark specifically negotiated for an opt-out instead of doing what these other countries did which was essentially agreeing to take the euro but crossing their fingers.
Maybe it’s a loophole, IDK, it doesn’t sound sustainable to have national debt just to avoid being a member of the Euro. Maybe Sweden will become a Euro member sometime in the future, but I’m fine with it being when they want to, and not being forced. But I still don’t think UK will be cut the same amount of slack.
Personally I’d prefer to be part of the Euro, but this was a result of a vote on the Maastricht, and this is way way better than if we’d have to leave EU, which would be even more horrible for us than it was for UK.
We had a lot of EU skeptics when that was decided, but the tide has turned, there are no parties left out of 12 represented in parliament that oppose EU membership. UK cured that problem overnight.
I also don’t think that a country and economy as important as the UK would be treated like any member. The UK can probably get some of its favorable treatment back. The only absolute red line seems to be the Three Freedoms.
Oh, and the regulatory and judicial framework, too. That was a huge sticking point during Brexit, when they rejected the May proposal over the ECJ having final say on disputes over Northern Ireland.
Why would the UK have to give up the pound for Euro? Isn’t the political institution still different from the Euro collective (or however it’s called in EN)?
All new member states must join the Eurozone once they meet the economic convergence criteria.
That’s the rules.
The EU requires its members to abandon FPtP elections? Is that for all electable branches of government? That’s awesome.
IDK if there are situations where it’s not as bad as in UK. If the position has limited power, it may not be an issue. But in UK it’s not just the government, it’s the entire parliament, meaning it is crippling the opposition that is the main check on the government, and creating governments that have a vast majority, so even if some of their own don’t follow the party line, they can press things through with majority anyway.
I have only heard it mentioned specifically regarding UK parliament.
They poll feelings.
I for one occasionally fantasize about the two Princes getting red pilled or something of the like. And asking the people of Britain if they would join them retaking the country from foolish leadership and influences.
There’s not even a majority in the current EU for 4, but there will soon be a majority for 1-3, even in the UK.
I think there is agreement that it is necessary, but not on how to accomplish it.
You may as well have just posted that, to be honest. It doesnt matter what people want.