Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Devius]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

Patriotic is the wrong word. But the point she was making was that broadcasters and commentators have been relentlessly hostile towards Brexit and any attempt to negotiate with the EU. The impression is that people like Maitlis either want the negotiations to fail or a deal which is much more favourable to the EU than it is to the UK.

Everyone in the UK should support the Govt. in its efforts to get a good deal. Whether they think someone else could get a better deal is irrelevant because like it or not they are not the ones negotiating.

It's clear from the first few days of talks that the EU intends to play hardball and to conduct the negotiations in the media and our own media shouldn't be playing for the away side.

I don't think I'm ready for the "Brexit Broadcasting Corp" just yet...next thing you know, we'll be getting our 10pm News with headlines like these:





But I digress...
I was recently told that we should consider the possibility of the UK rejoining the European Union within 10 years, if the EU manages to "evolve for the better".

Having worked in the financial services industry for a long time, I understand vinceprince's comments all too well. Brexit to me still feels like the mythical sword of Damocles hanging over the UK, and this fear was the main reason I voted "Remain" last year. But I would rather have myself locked up in Arkham Asylum instead of taking part in yet another (future) referendum to rejoin.

First of all - can the EU evolve? the UK is not the only country currently within the EU that has a proportion of the population hostile towards the union. Even Pro-EU centrist Emmanuel Macron warned during the French presidential election about the need for the EU to reform or face a possible "Frexit". There is still the possibilty of "Grexit" - how many times can this time-bomb be continually kicked down the road? Then there is a possible "Italexit" - it could be in 10 years time, we in the UK could be wondering about all the fuss was about over an European entity that no longer exists

Secondly, if the EU does "evolve" and survive - lets not delude ourselves. A future United Kingdom attempting to rejoin a future EU would probably not be in a position to demand "opt-outs", and I doubt the EU would make concessions that would allow the UK to return to the position in which it left the EU.

Finally, I dread to think what condition the UK would be in that the clamour to rejoin the EU could prove so desirable to a future government that they would hold such a referendum.

[gordian_knot]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Strange it wasn't in the manifesto then wasn't it?

It was, just couched in terms that could have meant anything to anybody who read it. But the meaning - according to those I've mentioned - was as I've described. Please take it up with them.

I agree that immigration is not the biggest thing right now, but that's not the point. The point is that to be in any of these things means accepting the four freedoms. You can't pick and choose. In the EU = the four freedoms. Out of the EU = none of them. Unless the EU changes its rules which it won't.

Originally Posted by Devius

I don't think I'm ready for the "Brexit Broadcasting Corp" just yet...

Nor me. Balanced reporting will do just fine.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Devius

First of all - can the EU evolve? the UK is not the only country currently within the EU that has a proportion of the population hostile towards the union. Even Pro-EU centrist Emmanuel Macron warned during the French presidential election about the need for the EU to reform or face a possible "Frexit". There is still the possibilty of "Grexit" - how many times can this time-bomb be continually kicked down the road? Then there is a possible "Italexit" - it could be in 10 years time, we in the UK could be wondering about all the fuss was about over an European entity that no longer exists

In France, if after the first round you added the voices of the people who voted for a candidate who clearly wanted to stay in the EU, you obtained:

Macron: 24,01%
Fillon: 20,01%
Hamon: 6,36%

That made a total of 50,38%.

All the other candidates wanted to change the rules with the EU and if there were no corrections, to quit.
Only one candidate wanted to quit, it was Asselineau (0,92%)

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

I agree that immigration is not the biggest thing right now, but that's not the point. The point is that to be in any of these things means accepting the four freedoms. You can't pick and choose. In the EU = the four freedoms. Out of the EU = none of them. Unless the EU changes its rules which it won't.

I can agree with you here.
The one thing we know for certain from past experience is that at the first sign of pressure May will cave-in and do a U-turn on what she has previously pledged. Especially as she is now weaker than ever now.
The EU will not.

[Roubignol]

I always was for the EU. I voted to be in. When people share the same money, the same market, the same motivations, there are less wars. 1914 and 1940 wars were terrible and too many people died for stupid disputes that could have been solved around a table.
But actually, when I look how it works, that's not a fair concept.

They have to change some rules.
First when a new country comes in the EU, it must immediately take the EUR.
Then all the prices, the taxes and the salaries must be the same as in the rest of all the countries of the EU. Then the laws must be the same. Then we all have to learn as second language a unique "European" language, if we need to create one, that's not a problem, in the past they already created the Esperanto.

I've listen a very interesting debate about the EU and an economist, who contributed to write the rules of EU, said: "EU is failing because there is not enough EU."
That's true. It's a EU created for the businessmen, the traders, the bankers.

Why people leave their countries, quit their families and friends to work in another country? Because the conditions are more attractive in other countries.
If they could earn a good money in their native country, do you believe that they would separate from their roots?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In France, if after the first round you added the voices of the people voted for a candidate who clearly wanted to stay in the EU, you obtained:

Macron: 24,01%
Fillon: 20,01%
Hamon: 6,36%

That made a total of 50,38%.

All the other candidates wanted to change the rules with the EU and if there were no corrections, to quit.
Only one candidate wanted to quit, it was Asselineau (0,92%)

Macron was certainly a pro-EU campaigner but not uncritical. He appeared to at least realise that dissatisfaction with the EU in general and the Euro in particular is rife in France and has argued the need for the EU to reform. As we all know, reforming the EU is the Labour of Sisyphus. Unless the French people see significant changes (and I doubt that they will), their dissatisfaction will not go away.

That said, you are quite right. There is a clearcut 0.38% majority in favour of remaining in the EU inside one of its founder members and traditionally most loyal advocates.

The French people are doing what Britain should have done. They are keeping their powder dry and holding fire on any more positive hostile steps while putting on pressure for the EU to reconsider how it does business. In Britain, David Cameron saw the UKIP poll numbers and shat yellow, and this is why we are now where we are. There is no point in complaining about it. We are going to leave: end of. We need to do so in a neat and orderly fashion and keep damage as low as we can.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Macron was certainly a pro-EU campaigner but not uncritical. He appeared to at least realise that dissatisfaction with the EU in general and the Euro in particular is rife in France and has argued the need for the EU to reform. As we all know, reforming the EU is the Labour of Sisyphus. Unless the French people see significant changes (and I doubt that they will), their dissatisfaction will not go away.

On 29th May 2005, 54.67% of the Frenchs voted against by referendum to the the project of European constitutional traitee.

In 2007, Sarkozy did not respect the choice of the French population.

Now the Frenchs don't trust anymore their politicians. They are very skeptical about all the promisses and the decisions of their "elites".

I've observed the French election with passion.
We will see what really will do Macron. But during the campaign he was a real weathercock. It was pathetic.
The only thing that I hope for the Frenchs, that's Macron will be a good president for them. Because there are 9 millions people who live in poverty in France.
That's huge.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by Devius

I don't think I'm ready for the "Brexit Broadcasting Corp" just yet...next thing you know, we'll be getting our 10pm News with headlines like these:

[....].

Very deep reflections , my compliment.

Yes, the EU needs reformation to a more democratic forum. This can only mean - in my opinion - to give more rights to the EU - parliament by taking them away from the EU - Commission. This would mean, that the egoism of the single state would bite less in favour to the majority of the EU - states.
Well, I think most English wouldn't like my thoughts...

What we are having now, is that the EU-Commission is only is dictated - theoretically - by a single state .... the common sense principe; they only can speak with one voice, if only one state gives a votum against there is no solution ... and not by any majority; meaning: the tail wagging with the dog and not opposite.

The main difference between Grexit and Brexit is: the Greek aren't going to leave the EU, they are only leaving (better to say: forced to leave) the EURO.

In my opinion, if GB decided once to rejoin the EU, this would be hard stuff. With warranty not with the conditions (those kind of British special treatments) they have gotten before leaving.

But seriously: GB is having more commons senses (mentality) with Germany, Netherlands, Austria or France ect. as with for example Greek, Hungary, Cyprus or Malta; or to say it clearer/stronger, with Turkey . But it seems to be a law of nature, that those states are working out those marginal differences they are having than working out those common senses. They are more natural ...... "better to mention/calling the (in my opinion) differences".

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

In my opinion, if GB decided once to rejoin the EU, this would be hard stuff. With warranty not with the conditions (those kind of British special treatments) they have gotten before leaving.

But seriously: GB is having more commons senses (mentality) with Germany, Netherlands, Austria or France ect. as with for example Greek, Hungary, Cyprus or Malta; or to say it clearer/stronger, with Turkey . But it seems to be a law of nature, that those states are working out those marginal differences they are having than working out those common senses. They are more natural ...... "better to mention/calling the (in my opinion) differences".

It is probably fair comment. When Britain joined (same day as Ireland and Denmark) the community grew from six to nine. That was manageable, partly because all nine members have known one other well for centuries. We have differences but we have a lot in common. We have much less in common with some of the later accession members and some of the consequences of their joining have not been pleasant, for example the sudden impact of organised crime stemming from Bulgaria and Romania, leading for example to a huge rise in vehicle theft.

It hasn't been sudden; the rise of dis-affection against the EU has been gradual. I think if we were still a smaller community without another 18 members this would not be happening now. But from my own perspective it has started to feel like my country is being assimilated into a Borg hive and when the time came to vote, I was so torn, it was a bitter decision, but in the end I decided that my own country and its future generations deserve to be free and I had to choose that way.

We shall not re-join. I doubt very much that any future government would win a referendum to get us to agree to re-join. Rejoining would mean accepting the Euro and being in the Eurozone and this will never wash here. Charles De Gaulle knew us well from living among us in the War and in his own aloof and rather supercilious way he was going right by Britain as well as by the EU by refusing to let us join. In the end, we are just not European enough to be in the EU and De Gaulle was absolutely right in that evaluation.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But from my own perspective it has started to feel like my country is being assimilated into a Borg hive and when the time came to vote, I was so torn, it was a bitter decision, but in the end I decided that my own country and its future generations deserve to be free and I had to choose that way.

Did you think about consulting the future generation before generously exercising your vote on their behalf?

The future generation doesn't seem to agree with your definition of 'freedom' indeed they would probably define your views at the very least as outdated. I would see it more as cultural insecurity that most young people don't seem to share. Like them I find I probably have more in common with most immigrants than those natives who seem to suffer from this cultural insecurity. This seems to mirror the divide in the USA.

I actually feel sorry for young people who won't have the opportunity to study, live and work in the EU like I did.