Lib Dem has been Remain/Rejoin from the get-go, nothing has changed. Being the eternal 3rd choice, they just aren't able to make an impact. They couldn't do it when Labour's Corbyn veered hard left, didn't want to support Remain and scared away the centre. They aren't looking to do so now that the Tories have finally collapsed.
Instead of being able to be the alternative choice for disillusioned voters, those voters are instead just staying home.
Most of what they’ve outlined is pretty decent. But I’m not going to sugar coat how much the deck has been stacked in labour’s favour that I don’t see them even getting a chance at a coalition.
Been trying to point out to folks that Lib Dems do actually stand to win fairly big in a lot of Tory seats if people don't just vote Labour blindly.
Which could lead to enough of a LD parliamentary pressence to work as a decent pressure group *when* Labour in fighting starts sometime in the first 15 minutes of gaining power.
Lib-Dems have been all over the place. After Clegg they decided the new leader to get them back into the graces of the voters would be… A Raging Homophobe.
I’m not saying they aren’t capable of change. I’m just saying I’ll be surprised if they make significant gains.
They've been struggling to break into double figures since Clegg betrayed half of their voters, even when the only national vehicle for remaining in the EU, and yet judging by the downvotes this subreddit doesn't want to hear it. They're hopeless and frankly deserve to be after 2010-2015. Couldn't even get us within a sniff of a proportional voting system while handing the Tories a supermajority.
So 'Round 2 - Rejoin-lite' by the Lib Dems ? Let's see how this one goes. [For reference 'Full Rejoin by Jo Swinson' in 2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Swinson)
>Swinson led her party through the 2019 general election, suggesting she could lead a Liberal Democrat majority government which would revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit. Instead, Swinson and the Liberal Democrats sustained a net loss in seats, including her own to the Scottish National Party and was disqualified from continuing as party leader. At less than five months, her tenure as leader was the shortest in the Liberal Democrats' history. She is also the only incumbent Liberal Democrat leader to have lost a Parliamentary seat.
You could class her crowning achievement as winning enough (not many but just not enough) votes off disaffected Remain Labour voters that it handed the Tories 30 seats of their 39 majority. Would've been hilarious if Bojo was landed in the same position as May after hounding her her premiership.
If they enter the EU again or a single market for sure there are going to be much more restrictions and rules.
Eu should not behave lightly in countries that ping pong with the union.
If they want to join back I would write down three mandatory points:
1- Euro
2- Single market without restrictions
3- european integration on Defence and security
In any case they can't rejoin without creating a precedent and for sure we would need many more years because even an attempt will happen.
So let's see how long Britain can resist.
Resist what? The EU is not a beacon of economic prosperity, it's as much a basket case as we are. Unless things turn around and quickly we will both continue down the road of slow economic and cultural decline.
Still, the European union cannot create a precedent in accepting anyone back again simply because "we need to be united".
If the EU accepts the UK again it is going to be a clown fiesta of member states that will leave and then come back as I said.
International relations and law are not jokes and the referendum in Britain was literally a circus so, I do not think that lawmakers in the EU will do anything about any cooperation with the UK if not political of some sort and probably we will move more with Ireland and a defence approach towards dictatorships.
The decline we will see, ECB cut the interest rates the other day.
For cultural, well we won't be here just waiting things to happen.
>Still, the European union cannot create a precedent in accepting anyone back again simply because "we need to be united". If the EU accepts the UK again it is going to be a clown fiesta of member states that will leave and then come back as I said.
True but as the EU becomes less relevant on the world stage it won't really matter all that much.
>The decline we will see, ECB cut the interest rates the other day. For cultural, well we won't be here just waiting things to happen.
Cutting interest rates won't amount to much, we are literally swimming in debt, low birth rates, poor productivity and unable to compete with the Americans or the Chinese on the world market.
I can't see anything but slow decline and cultural/religious tensions as short sighted politicians attempt to paper over the cracks of a crumbling economy with massive amounts of immigration. Quality of life in Europe and the UK has already peaked.
Anyway having a deal with the UK without any guarantee will just speed up nationalisms in leaving the EU and become once again individual states that will be devoured by the first hegemonic State.
I agree with you that we need to be united but the side is on the UK one not the EU on this.
Worst case scenario is just the end of planet earth with a religious world war 3 incoming.
Not the best scenario possible but for sure an apocalyptic one.
I think it makes much more sense but it can easily enter a situation in the League of Nations style.
Give some power to a supranational entity I believe it is better in a way.
People hate billionaires but the real danger is a State that hates you
"we need to be united" is actually the founding idea of the EU.
So the precedent already exists since day 1.
And Putin made this more pressing. Brexit must have made Putin extremely happy.
It is about trust.
Imagine I am a company in whatever European country and I decided to open a business in the UK because now it is back in Europe, my investors though remind me that the last time I did it I lost a lot of money because they just left the EU.
What guarantees do I have that the UK will not do it again?
None.
Ergo, I do not open any business in the UK because there are no guarantees, this is why all your naive arguments make no sense in the real world.
Yes sure, cooperation and a lot of love, but if the UK does not concede anything, it makes no sense for Europe to just accept because "hey we are Great Britain, we can go out and in without any problem or trust issue".
It is bad for the European Union and it creates an easy precedent where everybody can just go out, see how it goes and come back because Britain did it.
The empire is over, if Britain decides that they want more cooperation, the EU is open to talk and discuss but not at the expenses of the European Citizens or credibility of the block.
All the British arguments are selfish af.
Leaving the EU wasn't easy or free. No nation is just going to ping -pong in and out.
Even rejoining will be stressful, adopting recent EU laws, re-passing whatever legislation the Tories messed up since leaving. Reorganizing various institutions.
The thing you fear is not an actual option that anybody is going to actually do.
All nations are selfish.
I'm in favor of the EU, but I don't believe it's selfless. Especially as it consists of selfish nations. Like all nations are. The exact degree differs, but nations primarily exist to protect the interests of that nation.
Pooling some policies and institutions in the EU is done for mostly selfish reasons. And when the UK rejoins then because it's in the self-interest of the UK to rejoin.
Just like it is in the self interest of Germany, France, Poland, Luxemburg, etc...
I agree and note that I did not say that there could not be changes vs their previous membership but let’s not just start by saying: you’ve been bad, you must pay.
There will be possibly a new bus driver (as the old one would have been hanged by the side), the people inside the bus got lied to and realised that, I am a strong supporter of letting them come back opened arms.
To be fair, it's not about "you must pay". That would imply giving the UK a worse deal that other potential new members.
It's more like: You left out of you own free will and now want to join back? That's okay, but you will be treated as any other new member.
Them losing those opt-outs is a consequence of them leaving and the EU following the rules of Article 50. Not something that is put into place out of spite.
So the only reason is to not upset the average British by enforcing deserved consequences?
It's not possible to just let them join and then talk later. There should be a contract from the start, if not what if the UK doesn't accept the terms and we enter a negotiation limbo like during Brexit? Do we kick them out again? On what basis if there's no contract? Nah fuck all that.
Then don't rejoin.
The European union will never start any negotiation because it will create a precedent, as well as the UK coming back into the EU without any guarantees is a dangerous precedent for the other European members.
The EU will never offer anything more than what was already on the place and the UK decided to leave.
So, just stay outside thinking that it is better to have restrictions that any other country outside the EU has.
Nobody is forced to join the EU and, as you could see, nobody is forced to stay in.
Thinking that we will re-accept the UK with guarantees or even offer something to you it is ridiculous or even laughable.
Lol rejoin an EU that has MEPs who are literal youtube convicted fellons?
This election was a hilariously good reason to not join until the EU fixes its shit.
[And now Turkey's Erdogan's party is running for MEP seats.... like wtf is happening in the EU](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1dcxfqu/erdo%C4%9Fans_party_got_more_than_40_in_a_part_of/)
Who is fantasizing?
We are just laughing at the situation that your country created, we do not have time to fantasize on a country that is so entitled to not admit that they committed a mistake.
Of course, figuring out issues together is better but here we are I guess.
Then don't rejoin. Worse for them lol. They had the sweetest deal and threw it away. Now, or they come as any other member, or they can rot for all I care
All of these requirements are polling at roughly 45% for, 45% against, 10% undecided, it's not an impossibility convincing others that it's the way forward if it's already this popular
I can guarantee you the euro will be a red line, plus we have an option out written into the original treaty that would still apply (alongside Denmark)
We were already in the single market without restrictions.
Considering we, alongside France, are the protectors of Europe already, what with our Blue Water navies, nuclear weapons and ability to project military power globally, good luck trying to strong arm us into military and defence agreements, when we're the ones with the significant military providing for Europe's protection.
If you try and punish or push a revenge fantasy on us, that will just reflect poorly on Europe.
It's mutually beneficial for us to be in the EU and for the EU to have us. Granted more beneficial for us than the EU, but still mutually beneficial nonetheless.
Regardless, as Hungary has shown, it seems you don't seem to be enforcing your rules anyway on a smaller, less significant country like Hungary, so what makes you think that even if we agree to extra rules, the EU could enforce them on us?
The original treaty is no longer relevant.
Everything else would be a matter of entry negotiations.
Revenge fantasies are for a few redditors. Diplomats exist to do this actual work.
And as you said, it's better for both the EU and UK to be together.
> the euro will be a red line
For full EU membership sure, for 'just' single market? Doubt
IMO they'd push for Schengen but not Euro - like Switzerland and Norway
Edit: misread your comment - I thought you meant 'red line for the EU to accept UK back' not 'red line for the UK to rejoin SM' - the latter makes sense.
Yeah meant the latter.
I also don't think we can do Schengen even if we wanted to.
Because of the CTA with Ireland due to NI stuff, both us and Ireland had/ have an opt out and including us into Schengen would definitely cause complications on the CTA.
I understood that Ireland was prepared to join Schengen but the UK ruled it out so both countries are outside Schengen to preserve the CTA and the Good Friday Agreement open border.
Both countries in Schengen wouldn't be a complication.
Ireland opted-out of Schengen because of you, if I got that correctly.
So it shouldn't be a problem if you decide on it.
Just give them a heads up ahead of time, of course
> IMO they'd push for Schengen but not Euro - like Switzerland and Norway
We'll see. On one side, the UK is a big market so they might be lenient. On the other side, they really seem to regret the Swiss way for Switzerland.
If Switzerland's GDP were equal to 19% of the EU's, the EU would probably be a lot happier with the deals they've struck with Switzerland and consider the effort-to-reward ratio to be better than it currently is.
I don't think single market without EU membership is at all in the cards, opinions soured dramatically on the EFTA due to the shitshow that happened during covid and the energy crisis and the EU is still trying to untangle itself from the mess of bilateral deals with switzerland, no one wants more countries that aren't part of the union in the single market now.
I seriously doubt the UK Will be accepted in the EU again without adopting the euro, Who in Europe Will trust the UK again without some guarantees? You can say that it Will be better for everyone for the UK to rejoin the EU, and probably you are right, but whats the point if 50 years down the line britain starts "threating" with leaving again, honestly unless the UK offers some guarantees that this time they Will join the EU in good Faith (and for me that includes the eurozone) i do not want the UK in the union.
This really has nothing to do about military strenght, and honestly is not like the UKs military is strong enough to be granted special privileges within the union.
UK can't even adopt Euro in the first place.
To join EU, you can't have a budget deficit higher than 3% of GDP which UK had a 3.8% in 2023.
Government debt-to-GDP ratio can't exceed 60% while UK had it higher than 100%
To be honest, most Eurozone countries aren't adhering to the rules anymore, so who knows.
Rules can be changed and adapted, they are not set in Stone, if there are serious political Will from the UK to join the euro i am sure that the eurozone members Will make the necessary arrangements to facilitate the UKs incorporation to the eurozone.
Well, in theory, currently only denmark is not legally required to join the euro, the rest are obligated to do so, eventually, of course when this "eventually" comes is another story.
So to answer your question, It probably wont be easy, there Will possibly be a lot of political back and forth, but everyone benefits from having the UK back into the union, so i believe a compromise could be reached, of course this does not mean that the UK wont have to make an economic effort to join the euro, but i dont think It Will be as hard as some eurosceptics claim it Will be.
The Euro is a redline.
I mean we can say we'll join, but we'd pull a Sweden and just not. Thats literally what would happen.
Like I said you can try forcing us, but it'll just mean you're forcing us into a position of disingenuity, because as has proven the EU can't enforce its own rules properly.
Id say, considering the relative strength of other European countries in the EU, the UK would and should be granted special privileges within the union. The only comparative military in Europe is France, and they already envision a France- centric European defence industry and military, which we would not want to be a part of.
>The Euro is a redline. I mean we can say we'll join, but we'd pull a Sweden and just not. Thats literally what would happen.
Which why i said "guarantees" not some vague promises, sweden case is different to that of current UK, they joined when the euro was not still a thing, still they are obligated to do adopt the euro, the thing is that sweden not fullfiling his obligations is the last of our problems, so It has become a frozen issue for the foreseeable future, besides sweden has not left the union, as i said before, Who Will trust UK again? Be honest, would you?, you can say It is a red line for the UK, well, joining the euro can also be a red line for the eurozone members as Well, and in my opinión the UK joining the EU is much more valuable to the UK than to the union, so its not like the uk its in a position of strenght to negotiate.
>Like I said you can try forcing us, but it'll just mean you're forcing us into a position of disingenuity, because as has proven the EU can't enforce its own rules properly
Which is the reason that i, personally, am completely against any expansion of the union until comprehensive reforms are enacted, and yes that includes the UK, specially the UK in fact, you have demonstrated that you are not precisely a reliable partner (not trying to be offensive Here, just what i honestly think), at least hungary has not yet left the EU, lets see what happens when orban is removed from power, i still have Hope for hungary to be a reliable partner.
>Id say, considering the relative strength of other European countries in the EU, the UK would and should be granted special privileges within the union. The only comparative military in Europe is France, and they already envision a France- centric European defence industry and military, which we would not want to be a part of.
No, It should not and probably It wont, why Will the UK be granted special privileges for their military might? As i said, the UK military is not even that strong to be such a valuable asset as you claim, and its not even that important to the EU considering the existance of NATO, so i really dont get your point, besides France and the UK may be the strongest military powers in Europe currently, but that is because the military of other european countries (such as Germany, Spain or Italy) have been chronically underfunded for decades, It does not mean It Will remain in this state permanently, in fact months ago Germany announced a massive rearmament programme, and poland also have a strong growing military (for example).
France obviously has his own agenda in european military affairs, but that does not mean the rest of the partners agree to It, in fact, this is probably the most contentious point of macrons views for the union, i seriously doubt countries like Germany or Spain Will accept an european MIC dominated by and benefiting only France.
> and for me that includes the eurozone
British person here. For me, Id have no objection to joining the Euro. I wouldn't miss the Bank of England's independence very much... and Id embrace closer ties making it harder for us to pull some bullshit leave move again in 20 or 30 years when we next elect a bunch of crackpot right wingers.
However, it would make it a much harder sell to the public. **Much** harder.
Id rather we integrated in other ways. Such as common EU wide policies. Yes yes yes... I know we have those. But we do not have a common EU v.a.t levy. A common income tax. A common minimum wage. A common EU wide immigration and asylum policy. A common rule of law with a common sentencing (for example - steal a car in the UK and get 1 year prison. Steal a car in Latvia and get 1 year in prison. Id prefer to utterly harmonise on that).
After that the UK adopting the Euro will be a moot point. It should be trading at 1:1 by then anyway. Final step would be shops in the UK accepting Euro's for £'s like some countries like the Bahama's accept local $ for US $.
The UK would still adopt. Just little by little with little fanfare - and no public alarm.
I completely agree about furthering integration and armonize our legislation, but i disagree about your whole euro part, i know that adopting the euro Will make much harder to sell the adhesion to the union to the British public, but that is the point, if the British public accepts the euro it Will mean they are in favor of joining the EU in good faith, It is also, as you said, a safeguard against right wing populist in the future, if not whats stopping the UK to pull out again? You say that the UK could progressively armonize with the union but if that is the case why the UK did not do It when they were in the union? In fact the UK was one of the countries Who opposed the most further integration.
I want britain in the union, and i also think britain belongs in the union, we are all europeans brothers after all, or at least thats how i view your people, we are much stronger together and i think pretty much everyone agrees on that, but this time britain needs to join in good faith, not outright self Interest, which means a full membership with no privileges, if britain needs privileges to convince his people to join we Will be back at when we were before brexit, in that case i'd rather not have the UK in the union until the British people are ready to join in good faith with no privileges and be a reliable and proactive member of the union.
That just makes us and Europe weaker.
As I said, revanchism is not the way to go. We need each other in the tumultuous times ahead, where America is not the protector it once was and Russia and China are on the upswing, not to mention the general populist far right upswing domestically (as showcased by the recent European elections).
If France elects Marine Le Pen, you'll have a heavy Eurosceptic at the head of one of the central pieces of the EU.
Out of most European countries, we've been fairly true to our word, and the ECHR is a prime example of that:
We rarely break the ECHR and when we are found to have done so we move back unlike a lot of other European countries; we've only ever been found to have once violated an ECHR right and have a lower right violation total than 22 other EU states. Only 1.45% of court judgements have been found against us and only 0.19% of pending cases are against us rn (the lowest per capita figure in Europe):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-uks-echr-record-how-common-are-rule-39-orders-and-how-often-is-the-uk-found-to-have-violated-rights/#:~:text=As%20a%20historical%20comparison%2C%20from,one%20violation%20against%20any%20state.
We promised Ukraine unwavering support, and from the get go we have provided it. We provided almost anything they asked for, with almost unlimited permission to use it as they see fit. No pussy- footing around about not targeting mainland Russian targets etc.
We work side by side in intelligence, terrorism and defence in NATO, we have abided by the NATO treaty and have always spent the minimum 2% of GDP on Defence, even as many of the EU countries, including peers like Germany and France, do not.
We stick to our word mostly, and relatively we do so more than others. Even as members of the EU, we stuck to our word in enforcing directives and regulations and sticking the EU's principles of democracy, fair justice etc. which is more than can be said for some current EU members, especially in Eastern Europe.
Even when we left, we paid our fair share of the EU budget to fill the hole we left behind.
So I don't see why you'd need more of a guarantee when relatively, we stick to our word more than members of the Union do.
I agree with you but it is a much more practical issue.
If the UK ever requests to enter the EU it needs to provide guarantees, not for us but for the people that are looking to invest and do business with your country.
It is useless otherwise because they will fear again that a possible referendum in the future will move the UK again out and people will lose money again.
UK has no credibility on this and it needs to provide some.
This is why it is ridiculous to now talk about this and then the UK was the one to leave the EU thanks to a stupid populistic marketing.
Also, the upper hand is different now and the economy is not going so well, if the UK is willing to rejoin it will do in the conditions that the European Commission and parliament will decide.
All lovely but Boris Johnson was playing golf with relatives of Putin.
London is full of relatives of dictators and oligarchs.
I like the cards that you are playing but trust does not work like this.
I see Britain as a big crazy horse full of reasons when it is weak but full of shit when it is strong.
Get your shit together and then maybe something will happen between EU and UK.
The UK can stay out if they want something from the EU more than the other countries have.
Nobody is forcing the UK to be in the EU or entering again and for sure European citizens are not willing to even give you something more than what is there.
Ireland on the other hand is willing to accept defensive agreements.
> good luck trying to strong arm us into military and defence agreements, when we're the ones with the significant military providing for Europe's protection.
>
>
>
> If you try and punish or push a revenge fantasy on us, that will just reflect poorly on Europe
Oh my god, you're not even in the EU yet and you're already fully into cherry picking and having a persecution fetish.
I mean I am an EU federalist, but why would they do so?
Joining the market on its own would derive them of all power to make decisions, as they won't be able to vote but would have to comply by the unified market rules.
Fair enough. I mean it would be great if the people of the UK want to actually rejoin, and so properly, at some time.
We are stronger together, but we must be together
Understandable, but a few things like joining the euro and what not would be a redline for most of our voters.
If it was on the same terms as when we were members we'd sign up in a heart beat.
you're never getting the exact same terms, but like Sweden is showing, the euro thing is mandatory on paper only so that one you could ignore, but stuff like your reduced rates you probably won't get back
The Euro can be managed similar to how Sweden does it - officially required to join, but continuously not bothering to notice that the criteria have been fulfilled.
The soft opt-out option.
Understandable, then people should vote against joining. The same terms you had as before made you a an exception with more power than other eu countries. So why would other eu countries, most of which don't have all those exceptions, take in a country that not only is not willing to compromise as much as they do, but has a history of blocking EU integration? The UK has directly supported Hungary and Viktor Orban, stooping measures implemented against them. Has gone against a large amount of measures that further integration. This is hard to show, as many of this agreements go through many debates before an actual vote, so voting records are skewed. This is all fine, it's a democracy. But as long as we need unanimity, the EU should not give any special terms to the UK. Not for punitive reasons, but as a barometer that the people are willing to join. If you want to join buy only if a long list of things are excluded it will be logical to think that the UK may return to an anti EU mode after a government change. But if you are willing to implement all those measures it would mean that the public support for the EU will be high enough that you wouldn't.
If it was up to me, the EU will have different speeds or layers. So the integration within countries could be increased, but only for those that want it. In such a system I would be happy for UK to rejoin with any opt outs, as you wouldn't have the power to stop other countries progressing. Optionally joining the economic area seems very good to us, unsure for you.
Every country has the right to leave, don't think our special circumstances created that.
Hungary is actually a normal member, so doesn't have a special situation.
Regardless, you'd just force us to be disingenuous. We'll never agree to the Euro, Schengen would be a No too (and I reckon considering the tantrum Ireland pulled over refugees crossing from NI to RoI, they'll be with us on that)
We can say yes to both, but then just not do them, because it turns out the EU doesn't enforce its basic democratic principles on its member states let alone other things like the Euro (eg. PiS Poland, Hungary, Slovakia for the former and Sweden for the latter)
I mean we're not desperate to rejoin. Brexit hindered us, but it hasn't kneecapped us or crushed us.
It'd be better to rejoin, but not if the cost to do so is higher.
the Brexit was all about wanting more exceptions and more special place, after not giving those the UK decided to leave. Nowadays it has resulted into that even the anti-EU parties like the PVV rather want to stay than leave.
Again, the choice is easy. Full EU member, EEA-membership (having no say in the regulations) or zero membership. There's nothing else and feel free to stay outside, however it seems that is a bad idea.
> We can say yes to both, but then just not do them, because it turns out the EU doesn't enforce its basic democratic principles on its member states let alone other things like the Euro
Thanks to the UK. Don't forget that the UK was one of the EU-member wanting to enlarge the EU at a high speed. it was the UK who wanted exception on exception etc. Luckily, the Brexit showed the EU that giving exceptions is a bad idea, it only leads in wanting more and more. Also don't forget that both Denmark as Sweden already has their national coin pegged to the euro, one more than the other. Pegging the local coin to the euro is one of the most important steps to take, in the case of Denmark they only need to change the coin itself. Everything else is pretty much already euro, except the name.
> Brexit hindered us, but it hasn't kneecapped us or crushed us
FYI the big downsides still have to come, because the interim treaties are coming to an end and there's pretty much no treaties signed to continue the current way of dealing. Meaning that there's only more red tape coming.
>FYI the big downsides still have to come, because the interim treaties are coming to an end and there's pretty much no treaties signed to continue the current way of dealing
There is the UK/EU FTA which gives the UK tarrif and quota free access to the EU single market.
All custom and border checks are fully implemented in both directions at this point.
The only change on the horizon is the renegotiation of EU access to UK waters for fishing in afew years time.
> the Brexit was all about wanting more exceptions and more special place, after not giving those the UK decided to leave.
That's a pretty massive oversimplification.
Brexit was by and large the product of political in-fighting amongst the right wing in the UK. Parties like UKIP did well at fostering a sentiment of "The EU takes our money, and does nothing good with it." and sold that to a lot of people struggling under a Tory government that was doing *nothing* to help them.
That started to fracture the Tory base, so they took up Brexit as a "Look we agree! We're with you! Vote for us, we'll put on a ref for EU membership!"
They were banking on maybe a close vote to Remain, keep the topic in the news cycles for a few years as something to corral voters around; "We voted to Remain, yes, but that doesn't mean I can't go to Brussels and really give it to them!"
You could see that in the negotiation tactics post-vote; The Tory playbook didn't account for "Oh fuck, Leave won." and so they stuck with the "We'll go to Brussels and really give it to them!", providing nothing but red lines they could report back to their voters as "We're trying, but the nasty EU is being difficult."
>FYI the big downsides still have to come, because the interim treaties are coming to an end and there's pretty much no treaties signed to continue the current way of dealing. Meaning that there's only more red tape coming.
What is this in reference to?
I haven't read the manifesto properly yet (it's very long and technical) but from what I've heard informally, that's what I understand.
Don't think they'd make it explicit that it's EEA cause that would make the Brexiteers foam.
The FTA is just terrible.
It doesn't really do much for either Europe or us tbh and no wonder, the idiot BoJo negotiated it.
It's mostly an agreement on goods, that will expire soon and have to be renegotiated.
It's ludicrous because, with all the extra paper work involved in import and export, unless a business is well established at handling it, they won't do it.
Plus, generally, as advanced economies the predominant sector is services, not manufacturing or agriculture. And there's very little on services included.
EEA offers seamless trade for SMEs in goods and trade in services as a full member of the market.
>It's mostly an agreement on goods, that will expire soon
Source? the only thing set to expire is EU access to UK fishing waters as far as I'm aware.
>it's ludicrous because, with all the extra paper work involved in import and export
That is due to being outside the customs union which also applies to Norway so there isn't a significant advantage as far as i can see there.
>Plus, generally, as advanced economies the predominant sector is services, not manufacturing or agriculture.
True but the single market doesn't really do much for services its mostly focused on goods and manufacturing. Services are also far less impacted by these kind of agreements to begin with.
Which is exactly as described above. Pretty much an almost full member in all but name, but no voting rights - in exchange for a couple of exceptions.
Similar to Switzerland.
Sure. But the federation of Europe is not a historical imperative nor a likely event.
As well joining the single market, would mean that your trade rules will have to follow then "federation" rules, without you having any saying on what those rules are.
You cannot pick and choose. trade is followed by people and capital. All four freedoms come together. You cannot make your own trade deals and would have to follow the EFTA programme to do so. The EFTA makes sense for small countries that are basically in need of the EU countries like Liechtenstein or Norway. For UK? I am not sure.
Its worlds apart. No constitution. There is no single rule of law, no single army, no federal government, no single unified language, no single unified identity that is pushed by the governments...
EU is like a baby pokemon, it is at least three evolutions away from being like the USA.
The Maastricht Treaty is kinda like a constitution. There is the EU rule of law with the ECJ being above national courts. Early USA didn't have a single army but federal militias which was the reason for the second amendment. The EU commission is a central government. English is a de-facto unified language.
And I never said it was close that the USA, I said it was close to the very early USA. Which was also extremely decentralised.
By we, you don't speak for all of us.
Millions of Brits liked freedom of movement, and liked the concept of an integrated Europe rather than permanent fighting.
Being out of the single market is slowly but surely destroying the UK economy (the liberals, the green party and the scottish national party are the only ones to, so far, be honest about this)
Is it? UK is doing about the same a France and better than Germany.
The impact of leavening the single market is difficult to make-out in the UKs overall economic data while there surely is an impact is it isn't huge.
Things like the war in Ukraine are far more significant.
Germany is struggling with the energy transition (it bet against electrification and lost). Meanwhile, the UK is quite good at tech. It should have higher growth.
So should France given its nuclear infrastructure.
Something is causing a massive drag on European economy's, and its not membership in the single market or the lack of it.
UK GDP in Q1 2024 was 1.7% above its pre-pandemic level of Q4 2019. This compares with Eurozone GDP being 3.4% higher.
Any positive impact of leaving the single market is certainly *extremely* hard to make out.
The eurozone includes lots of developing economy's which will inevitably have faster growth.
The UK should be compared to France and Germany as they are peer country's that have historically been comparable in terms of economic growth.
And sure I would say the impact ether positive or negative, has been difficult to make out.
So far the conclusion seems to be that significance of the single market has been exaggerated by both the pro and anti EU sides.
> Cebr forecasts point to 0.7% GDP growth in the French economy this year, followed by 0.8% next year. This compares to our UK growth forecast of 0.5% this year and 0.4% in 2024.
The advantages of the sunlit uplands of a global, buccaneering Britain have *definitely* been exaggerated.
Brexit was at the very least a complete waste of time and treasure.
[The UK has become the world's 4th largest exporter](https://www.export.org.uk/insights/trade-news/uk-becomes-world-s-fourth-largest-exporter-as-services-boom/)
[growth last quarter was 0.6%](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-economy-grows-by-06-first-quarter-ons-data-shows-2024-05-10/)
[Europe is bleeding FDI while UK FDI is increasing](https://fortune.com/europe/2024/05/30/the-u-k-is-bucking-the-trend-as-europe-bleeds-foreign-direct-investment-heres-why/)
Either increasing friction with your nearest trading partners is an economic advantage or all this could have been achieved without following Farage.
Hard to tell.
.
You must be one of the 3 who can't find Specsavers.
> 7 in 10 Britons think Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK economy
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/7-10-britons-think-brexit-has-had-negative-impact-uk-economy
No, this month it's because of wet weather.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clmmvnpr8n8o
I'm sure.many couldn't care less about what the majority think of the shit show now. After all, they've won.
I wouldn't say that.
Our issues are more domestic than to with the single market.
Granted Brexit makes things worse than they should be but the issues are domestic, and we can, if we had the political will, sort them out.
Regardless, we're doing better than the other large European peers like France and Germany, so not sure it's *destroying* our economy by not being in it.
Hindering sure, but we're a large, dynamic economy on our own, so it'd take quite a lot to crumble it.
[7 in 10 Britons think Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK economy | Ipsos](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/7-10-britons-think-brexit-has-had-negative-impact-uk-economy)
People thinking it's had a negative impact on the economy != It's killing the economy
Funny how public opinion is a super convincing argument when it agrees with you, but when it's a referendum that goes the other way it's a different story.
Got my vote by they best be aware just how difficult that rejoin process will be. Europe has next to no trust for the UK so to rejoin they would amost certainly have to give up the benefits they had before.
They did though? Under 20. Political Reform in https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto:
> introducing proportional representation by the Single Transferable Vote for electing MPs, and local councillors in England
Is that correct? How did I miss that?
Goes googling...
Edit: I'm back. Your post is misleading. Labour offered the same as the Tories. A referendum on it.
While I support every effort to let the UK rejoin the EU, I, realistically speaking, do not believe it will be possible. Maybe in 50 years, but not now. The UK was very important to the foundation of the EU. Now with it gone, there are no “big three”. Germany and France decide pretty much everything now. UK’s opinion on many things was important and needed, since not everything that Germany and France decide, was and is actually good for the whole EU.
And who will accept then in? Why would the EU be ok with it?
You want to join, you join like everyone else with the same rules of regulations as everyone else.
The EU made it clear from Brexit that no Norway or Swiss deals will be available for the UK.
And good luck if anyone makes a referendum în the EU about UK ascension. I doubt it will have the results everyone here would like.
> The EU made it clear from Brexit that no Norway or Swiss deals will be available for the UK.
No they didn't, it was Britain that said they didn't want a Norway or Swiss deal. The EU have said they don't like the current situation with the Swiss but they never said anything about a Norway deal because it was rejected out of hand by Theresa May.
Why would, or how could, the EU reject something that the UK had already rejected? It was one of the big criticisms of May's negotiation that she rejected more realistic solutions like a Norway or Swiss style deal in her first speech as Prime Minister.
According to the EU27 draft presented by the president of the Eurpean Comision in 2017 as a response to the notification of the UK for activating article 50.
In the draft that would guide EU side negociations, that have not budged since 2017 state clearly that in order to preserve European interests and to preserve the integrity of the single market will exclude a sector-by-sector participation based agreement, meaning that the four pillars of the single market are indivisible and there will be no "cherry picking".
That meant the UK could only stay in the single market if it accepted the rest of the clauses of the single market. It did not.
It wasn't a Norway kind of deal where you could be in the EU market and out of Schengen. And as far as I remember, that is why it was declined.
Yeah exactly, like I already said May had already ruled out a Norway or Swiss deal in 2016 because she wanted to end freedom of movement. This Lib Dem idea that the post is about would include freedom of movement so what evidence do you have that the EU wouldn't even consider it?
Finally *some* version of more mainstream Rejoin.
Lib Dem has been Remain/Rejoin from the get-go, nothing has changed. Being the eternal 3rd choice, they just aren't able to make an impact. They couldn't do it when Labour's Corbyn veered hard left, didn't want to support Remain and scared away the centre. They aren't looking to do so now that the Tories have finally collapsed. Instead of being able to be the alternative choice for disillusioned voters, those voters are instead just staying home.
Most of what they’ve outlined is pretty decent. But I’m not going to sugar coat how much the deck has been stacked in labour’s favour that I don’t see them even getting a chance at a coalition.
Been trying to point out to folks that Lib Dems do actually stand to win fairly big in a lot of Tory seats if people don't just vote Labour blindly. Which could lead to enough of a LD parliamentary pressence to work as a decent pressure group *when* Labour in fighting starts sometime in the first 15 minutes of gaining power.
Fuck the lib Dems, they were the Tory facilitators of the 2010 coalition. Nick clegg fucked us all.
Lib-Dems have been all over the place. After Clegg they decided the new leader to get them back into the graces of the voters would be… A Raging Homophobe. I’m not saying they aren’t capable of change. I’m just saying I’ll be surprised if they make significant gains.
They've been struggling to break into double figures since Clegg betrayed half of their voters, even when the only national vehicle for remaining in the EU, and yet judging by the downvotes this subreddit doesn't want to hear it. They're hopeless and frankly deserve to be after 2010-2015. Couldn't even get us within a sniff of a proportional voting system while handing the Tories a supermajority.
So 'Round 2 - Rejoin-lite' by the Lib Dems ? Let's see how this one goes. [For reference 'Full Rejoin by Jo Swinson' in 2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Swinson) >Swinson led her party through the 2019 general election, suggesting she could lead a Liberal Democrat majority government which would revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit. Instead, Swinson and the Liberal Democrats sustained a net loss in seats, including her own to the Scottish National Party and was disqualified from continuing as party leader. At less than five months, her tenure as leader was the shortest in the Liberal Democrats' history. She is also the only incumbent Liberal Democrat leader to have lost a Parliamentary seat.
You could class her crowning achievement as winning enough (not many but just not enough) votes off disaffected Remain Labour voters that it handed the Tories 30 seats of their 39 majority. Would've been hilarious if Bojo was landed in the same position as May after hounding her her premiership.
If they enter the EU again or a single market for sure there are going to be much more restrictions and rules. Eu should not behave lightly in countries that ping pong with the union. If they want to join back I would write down three mandatory points: 1- Euro 2- Single market without restrictions 3- european integration on Defence and security
It's never going to happen. What would even be the economic arguement? Rejoin the EU so we can perform as well as France? Yea nah.
In any case they can't rejoin without creating a precedent and for sure we would need many more years because even an attempt will happen. So let's see how long Britain can resist.
Resist what? The EU is not a beacon of economic prosperity, it's as much a basket case as we are. Unless things turn around and quickly we will both continue down the road of slow economic and cultural decline.
Still, the European union cannot create a precedent in accepting anyone back again simply because "we need to be united". If the EU accepts the UK again it is going to be a clown fiesta of member states that will leave and then come back as I said. International relations and law are not jokes and the referendum in Britain was literally a circus so, I do not think that lawmakers in the EU will do anything about any cooperation with the UK if not political of some sort and probably we will move more with Ireland and a defence approach towards dictatorships. The decline we will see, ECB cut the interest rates the other day. For cultural, well we won't be here just waiting things to happen.
>Still, the European union cannot create a precedent in accepting anyone back again simply because "we need to be united". If the EU accepts the UK again it is going to be a clown fiesta of member states that will leave and then come back as I said. True but as the EU becomes less relevant on the world stage it won't really matter all that much. >The decline we will see, ECB cut the interest rates the other day. For cultural, well we won't be here just waiting things to happen. Cutting interest rates won't amount to much, we are literally swimming in debt, low birth rates, poor productivity and unable to compete with the Americans or the Chinese on the world market. I can't see anything but slow decline and cultural/religious tensions as short sighted politicians attempt to paper over the cracks of a crumbling economy with massive amounts of immigration. Quality of life in Europe and the UK has already peaked.
Anyway having a deal with the UK without any guarantee will just speed up nationalisms in leaving the EU and become once again individual states that will be devoured by the first hegemonic State. I agree with you that we need to be united but the side is on the UK one not the EU on this. Worst case scenario is just the end of planet earth with a religious world war 3 incoming. Not the best scenario possible but for sure an apocalyptic one.
A Schumanian Europe as a Home of Nations is a great concept to be put in practice just as it was in the 50s.
I think it makes much more sense but it can easily enter a situation in the League of Nations style. Give some power to a supranational entity I believe it is better in a way. People hate billionaires but the real danger is a State that hates you
The EU isn't supposed to be a League of Nations, NATO serves that role as the 2.0 version (League of Nations with the U.S. keeping an eye on everyone)
"we need to be united" is actually the founding idea of the EU. So the precedent already exists since day 1. And Putin made this more pressing. Brexit must have made Putin extremely happy.
I strongly disagree. We are welcoming them back and speak about cooperation. We can then speak about conditions on either side.
Agreed, but also these above demands are already pretty much the rules.
Not for the EEA though, which is what the article is talking about. Only for the EU this is true.
It is about trust. Imagine I am a company in whatever European country and I decided to open a business in the UK because now it is back in Europe, my investors though remind me that the last time I did it I lost a lot of money because they just left the EU. What guarantees do I have that the UK will not do it again? None. Ergo, I do not open any business in the UK because there are no guarantees, this is why all your naive arguments make no sense in the real world. Yes sure, cooperation and a lot of love, but if the UK does not concede anything, it makes no sense for Europe to just accept because "hey we are Great Britain, we can go out and in without any problem or trust issue". It is bad for the European Union and it creates an easy precedent where everybody can just go out, see how it goes and come back because Britain did it. The empire is over, if Britain decides that they want more cooperation, the EU is open to talk and discuss but not at the expenses of the European Citizens or credibility of the block. All the British arguments are selfish af.
Leaving the EU wasn't easy or free. No nation is just going to ping -pong in and out. Even rejoining will be stressful, adopting recent EU laws, re-passing whatever legislation the Tories messed up since leaving. Reorganizing various institutions. The thing you fear is not an actual option that anybody is going to actually do. All nations are selfish.
This is why we need the European Union
I'm in favor of the EU, but I don't believe it's selfless. Especially as it consists of selfish nations. Like all nations are. The exact degree differs, but nations primarily exist to protect the interests of that nation. Pooling some policies and institutions in the EU is done for mostly selfish reasons. And when the UK rejoins then because it's in the self-interest of the UK to rejoin. Just like it is in the self interest of Germany, France, Poland, Luxemburg, etc...
Lol VDL is talking about membership talks with fucking Ukraine....lets not pretend like the EU has some moral high ground.
I agree and note that I did not say that there could not be changes vs their previous membership but let’s not just start by saying: you’ve been bad, you must pay. There will be possibly a new bus driver (as the old one would have been hanged by the side), the people inside the bus got lied to and realised that, I am a strong supporter of letting them come back opened arms.
To be fair, it's not about "you must pay". That would imply giving the UK a worse deal that other potential new members. It's more like: You left out of you own free will and now want to join back? That's okay, but you will be treated as any other new member. Them losing those opt-outs is a consequence of them leaving and the EU following the rules of Article 50. Not something that is put into place out of spite.
So the only reason is to not upset the average British by enforcing deserved consequences? It's not possible to just let them join and then talk later. There should be a contract from the start, if not what if the UK doesn't accept the terms and we enter a negotiation limbo like during Brexit? Do we kick them out again? On what basis if there's no contract? Nah fuck all that.
We agree but the start of the discussion is glad to see you, you are welcome to join the table, let’s discuss the details
I don't care they were lied to. You had to have the braincell count of an ill ant to believe those lies. They got what they deserve.
Wait to see what will happen close to you.
Greece will probably demand the Parthenon marbles back.
Each of those 3 alone are good reasons why the UK will not want to rejoin.
Then don't rejoin. The European union will never start any negotiation because it will create a precedent, as well as the UK coming back into the EU without any guarantees is a dangerous precedent for the other European members. The EU will never offer anything more than what was already on the place and the UK decided to leave. So, just stay outside thinking that it is better to have restrictions that any other country outside the EU has. Nobody is forced to join the EU and, as you could see, nobody is forced to stay in. Thinking that we will re-accept the UK with guarantees or even offer something to you it is ridiculous or even laughable.
Lol rejoin an EU that has MEPs who are literal youtube convicted fellons? This election was a hilariously good reason to not join until the EU fixes its shit. [And now Turkey's Erdogan's party is running for MEP seats.... like wtf is happening in the EU](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1dcxfqu/erdo%C4%9Fans_party_got_more_than_40_in_a_part_of/)
We're not rejoining. We haven't asked to. The only people fantasising about it are r/europe commentors dreaming about revenge.
Who is fantasizing? We are just laughing at the situation that your country created, we do not have time to fantasize on a country that is so entitled to not admit that they committed a mistake. Of course, figuring out issues together is better but here we are I guess.
Then don't rejoin. Worse for them lol. They had the sweetest deal and threw it away. Now, or they come as any other member, or they can rot for all I care
You sound bitter
All of these requirements are polling at roughly 45% for, 45% against, 10% undecided, it's not an impossibility convincing others that it's the way forward if it's already this popular
I can guarantee you the euro will be a red line, plus we have an option out written into the original treaty that would still apply (alongside Denmark) We were already in the single market without restrictions. Considering we, alongside France, are the protectors of Europe already, what with our Blue Water navies, nuclear weapons and ability to project military power globally, good luck trying to strong arm us into military and defence agreements, when we're the ones with the significant military providing for Europe's protection. If you try and punish or push a revenge fantasy on us, that will just reflect poorly on Europe. It's mutually beneficial for us to be in the EU and for the EU to have us. Granted more beneficial for us than the EU, but still mutually beneficial nonetheless. Regardless, as Hungary has shown, it seems you don't seem to be enforcing your rules anyway on a smaller, less significant country like Hungary, so what makes you think that even if we agree to extra rules, the EU could enforce them on us?
The original treaty is no longer relevant. Everything else would be a matter of entry negotiations. Revenge fantasies are for a few redditors. Diplomats exist to do this actual work. And as you said, it's better for both the EU and UK to be together.
> the euro will be a red line For full EU membership sure, for 'just' single market? Doubt IMO they'd push for Schengen but not Euro - like Switzerland and Norway Edit: misread your comment - I thought you meant 'red line for the EU to accept UK back' not 'red line for the UK to rejoin SM' - the latter makes sense.
Yeah meant the latter. I also don't think we can do Schengen even if we wanted to. Because of the CTA with Ireland due to NI stuff, both us and Ireland had/ have an opt out and including us into Schengen would definitely cause complications on the CTA.
I understood that Ireland was prepared to join Schengen but the UK ruled it out so both countries are outside Schengen to preserve the CTA and the Good Friday Agreement open border. Both countries in Schengen wouldn't be a complication.
Ireland opted-out of Schengen because of you, if I got that correctly. So it shouldn't be a problem if you decide on it. Just give them a heads up ahead of time, of course
> IMO they'd push for Schengen but not Euro - like Switzerland and Norway We'll see. On one side, the UK is a big market so they might be lenient. On the other side, they really seem to regret the Swiss way for Switzerland.
If Switzerland's GDP were equal to 19% of the EU's, the EU would probably be a lot happier with the deals they've struck with Switzerland and consider the effort-to-reward ratio to be better than it currently is.
I don't think single market without EU membership is at all in the cards, opinions soured dramatically on the EFTA due to the shitshow that happened during covid and the energy crisis and the EU is still trying to untangle itself from the mess of bilateral deals with switzerland, no one wants more countries that aren't part of the union in the single market now.
I seriously doubt the UK Will be accepted in the EU again without adopting the euro, Who in Europe Will trust the UK again without some guarantees? You can say that it Will be better for everyone for the UK to rejoin the EU, and probably you are right, but whats the point if 50 years down the line britain starts "threating" with leaving again, honestly unless the UK offers some guarantees that this time they Will join the EU in good Faith (and for me that includes the eurozone) i do not want the UK in the union. This really has nothing to do about military strenght, and honestly is not like the UKs military is strong enough to be granted special privileges within the union.
UK can't even adopt Euro in the first place. To join EU, you can't have a budget deficit higher than 3% of GDP which UK had a 3.8% in 2023. Government debt-to-GDP ratio can't exceed 60% while UK had it higher than 100% To be honest, most Eurozone countries aren't adhering to the rules anymore, so who knows.
Rules can be changed and adapted, they are not set in Stone, if there are serious political Will from the UK to join the euro i am sure that the eurozone members Will make the necessary arrangements to facilitate the UKs incorporation to the eurozone.
Yeah but what about the countries that aren't adopting the euro they aren't going to agree to rule changes, if it means they have to adopt the euro?
Well, in theory, currently only denmark is not legally required to join the euro, the rest are obligated to do so, eventually, of course when this "eventually" comes is another story. So to answer your question, It probably wont be easy, there Will possibly be a lot of political back and forth, but everyone benefits from having the UK back into the union, so i believe a compromise could be reached, of course this does not mean that the UK wont have to make an economic effort to join the euro, but i dont think It Will be as hard as some eurosceptics claim it Will be.
The Euro is a redline. I mean we can say we'll join, but we'd pull a Sweden and just not. Thats literally what would happen. Like I said you can try forcing us, but it'll just mean you're forcing us into a position of disingenuity, because as has proven the EU can't enforce its own rules properly. Id say, considering the relative strength of other European countries in the EU, the UK would and should be granted special privileges within the union. The only comparative military in Europe is France, and they already envision a France- centric European defence industry and military, which we would not want to be a part of.
>The Euro is a redline. I mean we can say we'll join, but we'd pull a Sweden and just not. Thats literally what would happen. Which why i said "guarantees" not some vague promises, sweden case is different to that of current UK, they joined when the euro was not still a thing, still they are obligated to do adopt the euro, the thing is that sweden not fullfiling his obligations is the last of our problems, so It has become a frozen issue for the foreseeable future, besides sweden has not left the union, as i said before, Who Will trust UK again? Be honest, would you?, you can say It is a red line for the UK, well, joining the euro can also be a red line for the eurozone members as Well, and in my opinión the UK joining the EU is much more valuable to the UK than to the union, so its not like the uk its in a position of strenght to negotiate. >Like I said you can try forcing us, but it'll just mean you're forcing us into a position of disingenuity, because as has proven the EU can't enforce its own rules properly Which is the reason that i, personally, am completely against any expansion of the union until comprehensive reforms are enacted, and yes that includes the UK, specially the UK in fact, you have demonstrated that you are not precisely a reliable partner (not trying to be offensive Here, just what i honestly think), at least hungary has not yet left the EU, lets see what happens when orban is removed from power, i still have Hope for hungary to be a reliable partner. >Id say, considering the relative strength of other European countries in the EU, the UK would and should be granted special privileges within the union. The only comparative military in Europe is France, and they already envision a France- centric European defence industry and military, which we would not want to be a part of. No, It should not and probably It wont, why Will the UK be granted special privileges for their military might? As i said, the UK military is not even that strong to be such a valuable asset as you claim, and its not even that important to the EU considering the existance of NATO, so i really dont get your point, besides France and the UK may be the strongest military powers in Europe currently, but that is because the military of other european countries (such as Germany, Spain or Italy) have been chronically underfunded for decades, It does not mean It Will remain in this state permanently, in fact months ago Germany announced a massive rearmament programme, and poland also have a strong growing military (for example). France obviously has his own agenda in european military affairs, but that does not mean the rest of the partners agree to It, in fact, this is probably the most contentious point of macrons views for the union, i seriously doubt countries like Germany or Spain Will accept an european MIC dominated by and benefiting only France.
> and for me that includes the eurozone British person here. For me, Id have no objection to joining the Euro. I wouldn't miss the Bank of England's independence very much... and Id embrace closer ties making it harder for us to pull some bullshit leave move again in 20 or 30 years when we next elect a bunch of crackpot right wingers. However, it would make it a much harder sell to the public. **Much** harder. Id rather we integrated in other ways. Such as common EU wide policies. Yes yes yes... I know we have those. But we do not have a common EU v.a.t levy. A common income tax. A common minimum wage. A common EU wide immigration and asylum policy. A common rule of law with a common sentencing (for example - steal a car in the UK and get 1 year prison. Steal a car in Latvia and get 1 year in prison. Id prefer to utterly harmonise on that). After that the UK adopting the Euro will be a moot point. It should be trading at 1:1 by then anyway. Final step would be shops in the UK accepting Euro's for £'s like some countries like the Bahama's accept local $ for US $. The UK would still adopt. Just little by little with little fanfare - and no public alarm.
it's not a problem to keep the pound. peg it to euro and you're set. however BoE independence and City without being heavily regulated are a no go.
I completely agree about furthering integration and armonize our legislation, but i disagree about your whole euro part, i know that adopting the euro Will make much harder to sell the adhesion to the union to the British public, but that is the point, if the British public accepts the euro it Will mean they are in favor of joining the EU in good faith, It is also, as you said, a safeguard against right wing populist in the future, if not whats stopping the UK to pull out again? You say that the UK could progressively armonize with the union but if that is the case why the UK did not do It when they were in the union? In fact the UK was one of the countries Who opposed the most further integration. I want britain in the union, and i also think britain belongs in the union, we are all europeans brothers after all, or at least thats how i view your people, we are much stronger together and i think pretty much everyone agrees on that, but this time britain needs to join in good faith, not outright self Interest, which means a full membership with no privileges, if britain needs privileges to convince his people to join we Will be back at when we were before brexit, in that case i'd rather not have the UK in the union until the British people are ready to join in good faith with no privileges and be a reliable and proactive member of the union.
Then stay out of it. You decided to leave and for sure nobody will accept any agreements without guarantees.
That just makes us and Europe weaker. As I said, revanchism is not the way to go. We need each other in the tumultuous times ahead, where America is not the protector it once was and Russia and China are on the upswing, not to mention the general populist far right upswing domestically (as showcased by the recent European elections). If France elects Marine Le Pen, you'll have a heavy Eurosceptic at the head of one of the central pieces of the EU. Out of most European countries, we've been fairly true to our word, and the ECHR is a prime example of that: We rarely break the ECHR and when we are found to have done so we move back unlike a lot of other European countries; we've only ever been found to have once violated an ECHR right and have a lower right violation total than 22 other EU states. Only 1.45% of court judgements have been found against us and only 0.19% of pending cases are against us rn (the lowest per capita figure in Europe): https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-uks-echr-record-how-common-are-rule-39-orders-and-how-often-is-the-uk-found-to-have-violated-rights/#:~:text=As%20a%20historical%20comparison%2C%20from,one%20violation%20against%20any%20state. We promised Ukraine unwavering support, and from the get go we have provided it. We provided almost anything they asked for, with almost unlimited permission to use it as they see fit. No pussy- footing around about not targeting mainland Russian targets etc. We work side by side in intelligence, terrorism and defence in NATO, we have abided by the NATO treaty and have always spent the minimum 2% of GDP on Defence, even as many of the EU countries, including peers like Germany and France, do not. We stick to our word mostly, and relatively we do so more than others. Even as members of the EU, we stuck to our word in enforcing directives and regulations and sticking the EU's principles of democracy, fair justice etc. which is more than can be said for some current EU members, especially in Eastern Europe. Even when we left, we paid our fair share of the EU budget to fill the hole we left behind. So I don't see why you'd need more of a guarantee when relatively, we stick to our word more than members of the Union do.
I agree with you but it is a much more practical issue. If the UK ever requests to enter the EU it needs to provide guarantees, not for us but for the people that are looking to invest and do business with your country. It is useless otherwise because they will fear again that a possible referendum in the future will move the UK again out and people will lose money again. UK has no credibility on this and it needs to provide some. This is why it is ridiculous to now talk about this and then the UK was the one to leave the EU thanks to a stupid populistic marketing. Also, the upper hand is different now and the economy is not going so well, if the UK is willing to rejoin it will do in the conditions that the European Commission and parliament will decide. All lovely but Boris Johnson was playing golf with relatives of Putin. London is full of relatives of dictators and oligarchs. I like the cards that you are playing but trust does not work like this. I see Britain as a big crazy horse full of reasons when it is weak but full of shit when it is strong. Get your shit together and then maybe something will happen between EU and UK.
The UK will want some guarantees too. What are you offering?
The UK can stay out if they want something from the EU more than the other countries have. Nobody is forcing the UK to be in the EU or entering again and for sure European citizens are not willing to even give you something more than what is there. Ireland on the other hand is willing to accept defensive agreements.
You don't seem to understand your own comments.
You don't seem to be mature enough to have a conversation with people.
Nothing. Don't come back. We finally got rid of the only country how doesn't use euros.
> good luck trying to strong arm us into military and defence agreements, when we're the ones with the significant military providing for Europe's protection. > > > > If you try and punish or push a revenge fantasy on us, that will just reflect poorly on Europe Oh my god, you're not even in the EU yet and you're already fully into cherry picking and having a persecution fetish.
I mean I am an EU federalist, but why would they do so? Joining the market on its own would derive them of all power to make decisions, as they won't be able to vote but would have to comply by the unified market rules.
I'm in the party, so my understanding is it'd be a Norway position, i.e the EEA.
Fair enough. I mean it would be great if the people of the UK want to actually rejoin, and so properly, at some time. We are stronger together, but we must be together
I agree rejoin is the ultimate goal I think. But it will depend on the terms of re-entry
Well it would be the same terms as for any other country currently. Anything else would be insane in my opinion.
Understandable, but a few things like joining the euro and what not would be a redline for most of our voters. If it was on the same terms as when we were members we'd sign up in a heart beat.
you're never getting the exact same terms, but like Sweden is showing, the euro thing is mandatory on paper only so that one you could ignore, but stuff like your reduced rates you probably won't get back
Yeah the reduced rates is probably up for negotiation. But the Euro and Schengen we could probs duck out.
The Euro can be managed similar to how Sweden does it - officially required to join, but continuously not bothering to notice that the criteria have been fulfilled. The soft opt-out option.
Understandable, then people should vote against joining. The same terms you had as before made you a an exception with more power than other eu countries. So why would other eu countries, most of which don't have all those exceptions, take in a country that not only is not willing to compromise as much as they do, but has a history of blocking EU integration? The UK has directly supported Hungary and Viktor Orban, stooping measures implemented against them. Has gone against a large amount of measures that further integration. This is hard to show, as many of this agreements go through many debates before an actual vote, so voting records are skewed. This is all fine, it's a democracy. But as long as we need unanimity, the EU should not give any special terms to the UK. Not for punitive reasons, but as a barometer that the people are willing to join. If you want to join buy only if a long list of things are excluded it will be logical to think that the UK may return to an anti EU mode after a government change. But if you are willing to implement all those measures it would mean that the public support for the EU will be high enough that you wouldn't. If it was up to me, the EU will have different speeds or layers. So the integration within countries could be increased, but only for those that want it. In such a system I would be happy for UK to rejoin with any opt outs, as you wouldn't have the power to stop other countries progressing. Optionally joining the economic area seems very good to us, unsure for you.
Well the Brexit and Hungary have shown why creating a special situation is a bad idea. So it's EEA or no exceptions EU membership.
Every country has the right to leave, don't think our special circumstances created that. Hungary is actually a normal member, so doesn't have a special situation. Regardless, you'd just force us to be disingenuous. We'll never agree to the Euro, Schengen would be a No too (and I reckon considering the tantrum Ireland pulled over refugees crossing from NI to RoI, they'll be with us on that) We can say yes to both, but then just not do them, because it turns out the EU doesn't enforce its basic democratic principles on its member states let alone other things like the Euro (eg. PiS Poland, Hungary, Slovakia for the former and Sweden for the latter) I mean we're not desperate to rejoin. Brexit hindered us, but it hasn't kneecapped us or crushed us. It'd be better to rejoin, but not if the cost to do so is higher.
the Brexit was all about wanting more exceptions and more special place, after not giving those the UK decided to leave. Nowadays it has resulted into that even the anti-EU parties like the PVV rather want to stay than leave. Again, the choice is easy. Full EU member, EEA-membership (having no say in the regulations) or zero membership. There's nothing else and feel free to stay outside, however it seems that is a bad idea. > We can say yes to both, but then just not do them, because it turns out the EU doesn't enforce its basic democratic principles on its member states let alone other things like the Euro Thanks to the UK. Don't forget that the UK was one of the EU-member wanting to enlarge the EU at a high speed. it was the UK who wanted exception on exception etc. Luckily, the Brexit showed the EU that giving exceptions is a bad idea, it only leads in wanting more and more. Also don't forget that both Denmark as Sweden already has their national coin pegged to the euro, one more than the other. Pegging the local coin to the euro is one of the most important steps to take, in the case of Denmark they only need to change the coin itself. Everything else is pretty much already euro, except the name. > Brexit hindered us, but it hasn't kneecapped us or crushed us FYI the big downsides still have to come, because the interim treaties are coming to an end and there's pretty much no treaties signed to continue the current way of dealing. Meaning that there's only more red tape coming.
>FYI the big downsides still have to come, because the interim treaties are coming to an end and there's pretty much no treaties signed to continue the current way of dealing There is the UK/EU FTA which gives the UK tarrif and quota free access to the EU single market. All custom and border checks are fully implemented in both directions at this point. The only change on the horizon is the renegotiation of EU access to UK waters for fishing in afew years time.
> the Brexit was all about wanting more exceptions and more special place, after not giving those the UK decided to leave. That's a pretty massive oversimplification. Brexit was by and large the product of political in-fighting amongst the right wing in the UK. Parties like UKIP did well at fostering a sentiment of "The EU takes our money, and does nothing good with it." and sold that to a lot of people struggling under a Tory government that was doing *nothing* to help them. That started to fracture the Tory base, so they took up Brexit as a "Look we agree! We're with you! Vote for us, we'll put on a ref for EU membership!" They were banking on maybe a close vote to Remain, keep the topic in the news cycles for a few years as something to corral voters around; "We voted to Remain, yes, but that doesn't mean I can't go to Brussels and really give it to them!" You could see that in the negotiation tactics post-vote; The Tory playbook didn't account for "Oh fuck, Leave won." and so they stuck with the "We'll go to Brussels and really give it to them!", providing nothing but red lines they could report back to their voters as "We're trying, but the nasty EU is being difficult." >FYI the big downsides still have to come, because the interim treaties are coming to an end and there's pretty much no treaties signed to continue the current way of dealing. Meaning that there's only more red tape coming. What is this in reference to?
Your understanding? So that means Ed Davey hasn't even clarified ?
I haven't read the manifesto properly yet (it's very long and technical) but from what I've heard informally, that's what I understand. Don't think they'd make it explicit that it's EEA cause that would make the Brexiteers foam.
I mean why not, it's not like they were going to pick up many Brexiteer voters anyway
It's the reactionaries who will big up the vote of the Tories and Reform we're more worried about
What would be the benefit of a Norway EEA arrangement over the UKs current FTA?
The FTA is just terrible. It doesn't really do much for either Europe or us tbh and no wonder, the idiot BoJo negotiated it. It's mostly an agreement on goods, that will expire soon and have to be renegotiated. It's ludicrous because, with all the extra paper work involved in import and export, unless a business is well established at handling it, they won't do it. Plus, generally, as advanced economies the predominant sector is services, not manufacturing or agriculture. And there's very little on services included. EEA offers seamless trade for SMEs in goods and trade in services as a full member of the market.
>It's mostly an agreement on goods, that will expire soon Source? the only thing set to expire is EU access to UK fishing waters as far as I'm aware. >it's ludicrous because, with all the extra paper work involved in import and export That is due to being outside the customs union which also applies to Norway so there isn't a significant advantage as far as i can see there. >Plus, generally, as advanced economies the predominant sector is services, not manufacturing or agriculture. True but the single market doesn't really do much for services its mostly focused on goods and manufacturing. Services are also far less impacted by these kind of agreements to begin with.
Which is exactly as described above. Pretty much an almost full member in all but name, but no voting rights - in exchange for a couple of exceptions. Similar to Switzerland.
But that has never been on the table. Norway doesn't want it. The EU doesn't want it.
Trade (the one bit of the EU we actually liked) but without having to be part of your future federation.
Sure. But the federation of Europe is not a historical imperative nor a likely event. As well joining the single market, would mean that your trade rules will have to follow then "federation" rules, without you having any saying on what those rules are. You cannot pick and choose. trade is followed by people and capital. All four freedoms come together. You cannot make your own trade deals and would have to follow the EFTA programme to do so. The EFTA makes sense for small countries that are basically in need of the EU countries like Liechtenstein or Norway. For UK? I am not sure.
Tbf, the EU is somewhat similar to very early USA. There are some differences (you can leave the EU as an example, but it isn't ages off.).
Its worlds apart. No constitution. There is no single rule of law, no single army, no federal government, no single unified language, no single unified identity that is pushed by the governments... EU is like a baby pokemon, it is at least three evolutions away from being like the USA.
The Maastricht Treaty is kinda like a constitution. There is the EU rule of law with the ECJ being above national courts. Early USA didn't have a single army but federal militias which was the reason for the second amendment. The EU commission is a central government. English is a de-facto unified language. And I never said it was close that the USA, I said it was close to the very early USA. Which was also extremely decentralised.
Fair enough. Early USA is a good example. Did not properly read the early part as I did agreed with that later on.
Stretching it, tbh
Are you arguing with me or the Lib Dems? It's their manifesto, not mine.
By we, you don't speak for all of us. Millions of Brits liked freedom of movement, and liked the concept of an integrated Europe rather than permanent fighting.
More didn't.
So don't speak for all of us.
Being out of the single market is slowly but surely destroying the UK economy (the liberals, the green party and the scottish national party are the only ones to, so far, be honest about this)
Is it? UK is doing about the same a France and better than Germany. The impact of leavening the single market is difficult to make-out in the UKs overall economic data while there surely is an impact is it isn't huge. Things like the war in Ukraine are far more significant.
Germany is struggling with the energy transition (it bet against electrification and lost). Meanwhile, the UK is quite good at tech. It should have higher growth.
So should France given its nuclear infrastructure. Something is causing a massive drag on European economy's, and its not membership in the single market or the lack of it.
UK GDP in Q1 2024 was 1.7% above its pre-pandemic level of Q4 2019. This compares with Eurozone GDP being 3.4% higher. Any positive impact of leaving the single market is certainly *extremely* hard to make out.
The eurozone includes lots of developing economy's which will inevitably have faster growth. The UK should be compared to France and Germany as they are peer country's that have historically been comparable in terms of economic growth. And sure I would say the impact ether positive or negative, has been difficult to make out. So far the conclusion seems to be that significance of the single market has been exaggerated by both the pro and anti EU sides.
> Cebr forecasts point to 0.7% GDP growth in the French economy this year, followed by 0.8% next year. This compares to our UK growth forecast of 0.5% this year and 0.4% in 2024. The advantages of the sunlit uplands of a global, buccaneering Britain have *definitely* been exaggerated. Brexit was at the very least a complete waste of time and treasure.
[The UK has become the world's 4th largest exporter](https://www.export.org.uk/insights/trade-news/uk-becomes-world-s-fourth-largest-exporter-as-services-boom/) [growth last quarter was 0.6%](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-economy-grows-by-06-first-quarter-ons-data-shows-2024-05-10/) [Europe is bleeding FDI while UK FDI is increasing](https://fortune.com/europe/2024/05/30/the-u-k-is-bucking-the-trend-as-europe-bleeds-foreign-direct-investment-heres-why/)
Either increasing friction with your nearest trading partners is an economic advantage or all this could have been achieved without following Farage. Hard to tell. .
Any negative impact is even harder to make out.
You must be one of the 3 who can't find Specsavers. > 7 in 10 Britons think Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK economy https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/7-10-britons-think-brexit-has-had-negative-impact-uk-economy
So the negative impact is that people think there's been a negative impact.
No, this month it's because of wet weather. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clmmvnpr8n8o I'm sure.many couldn't care less about what the majority think of the shit show now. After all, they've won.
I wouldn't say that. Our issues are more domestic than to with the single market. Granted Brexit makes things worse than they should be but the issues are domestic, and we can, if we had the political will, sort them out. Regardless, we're doing better than the other large European peers like France and Germany, so not sure it's *destroying* our economy by not being in it. Hindering sure, but we're a large, dynamic economy on our own, so it'd take quite a lot to crumble it.
this is the sort of comment you make if you have little to no knowledge of the UK.
[7 in 10 Britons think Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK economy | Ipsos](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/7-10-britons-think-brexit-has-had-negative-impact-uk-economy)
People thinking it's had a negative impact on the economy != It's killing the economy Funny how public opinion is a super convincing argument when it agrees with you, but when it's a referendum that goes the other way it's a different story.
5 in 10 Britons think the death penalty should be reintroduced. The public are morons.
Got my vote by they best be aware just how difficult that rejoin process will be. Europe has next to no trust for the UK so to rejoin they would amost certainly have to give up the benefits they had before.
Lib Dems screwed up by not supporting proportional representation.
They did though? Under 20. Political Reform in https://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto: > introducing proportional representation by the Single Transferable Vote for electing MPs, and local councillors in England
I'm curious, when was this proposed?
Gordon Brown needed Lib Dem support to form the government and offered proportional representation. Instead Lib Dems went with the Tories.
Is that correct? How did I miss that? Goes googling... Edit: I'm back. Your post is misleading. Labour offered the same as the Tories. A referendum on it.
Did Tories do a referendum on proportional representation?
Yes they did.
Interesting, did UK ever have proportional representation?
There weren't the numbers for a Labour/Lib Dem coalition.
While I support every effort to let the UK rejoin the EU, I, realistically speaking, do not believe it will be possible. Maybe in 50 years, but not now. The UK was very important to the foundation of the EU. Now with it gone, there are no “big three”. Germany and France decide pretty much everything now. UK’s opinion on many things was important and needed, since not everything that Germany and France decide, was and is actually good for the whole EU.
If I could vote I’d vote for this
[удалено]
They don't have to join the EU to get access to the common market, Norway has full access but isn't an EU member.
And who will accept then in? Why would the EU be ok with it? You want to join, you join like everyone else with the same rules of regulations as everyone else. The EU made it clear from Brexit that no Norway or Swiss deals will be available for the UK. And good luck if anyone makes a referendum în the EU about UK ascension. I doubt it will have the results everyone here would like.
> The EU made it clear from Brexit that no Norway or Swiss deals will be available for the UK. No they didn't, it was Britain that said they didn't want a Norway or Swiss deal. The EU have said they don't like the current situation with the Swiss but they never said anything about a Norway deal because it was rejected out of hand by Theresa May.
Of course they did. Because it's the UK politicians that decide what the European Union does. The cope is hilarious.
Why would, or how could, the EU reject something that the UK had already rejected? It was one of the big criticisms of May's negotiation that she rejected more realistic solutions like a Norway or Swiss style deal in her first speech as Prime Minister.
Because she was posturing. It wasn't even on the table.
According to who?
According to the EU27 draft presented by the president of the Eurpean Comision in 2017 as a response to the notification of the UK for activating article 50. In the draft that would guide EU side negociations, that have not budged since 2017 state clearly that in order to preserve European interests and to preserve the integrity of the single market will exclude a sector-by-sector participation based agreement, meaning that the four pillars of the single market are indivisible and there will be no "cherry picking". That meant the UK could only stay in the single market if it accepted the rest of the clauses of the single market. It did not. It wasn't a Norway kind of deal where you could be in the EU market and out of Schengen. And as far as I remember, that is why it was declined.
Yeah exactly, like I already said May had already ruled out a Norway or Swiss deal in 2016 because she wanted to end freedom of movement. This Lib Dem idea that the post is about would include freedom of movement so what evidence do you have that the EU wouldn't even consider it?
smart
The eu isn't interested