8 ms·

> The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its

> The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia. More objectively: if you study the history of the EU, you will see that this "baggage" is quite old. For quite some time in the 70s vetoed UK's accession (to the then EEC), precisely because it feared that the UK was only interested in economic benefits and would sabotage any other aspect of the European project. That is more or less what happened when the UK eventually joined, and the EU had to build around the UK (Schengen, Euro, etc.). It is true that the EU likes rich countries, but it is also true that things are far from being as simple as you describe. Interesting detail: you mention Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. They are members of EFTA. EFTA was created by the UK during the time that they were not able to join the EEC. After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. So being rich is not enough once you become sufficiently toxic. Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, and it was given extraordinary rebates for its contributions to the EU budget. Should the UK wish to rejoin, it would have to accept Schengen, the Euro, no more rebates and the "ever closer union" political commitment spelled out in the treaties. I find it very hard to believe that the UK would accept such things in our lifetimes, and I find it very hard to believe that the EU would be willing to put up with the current circus that is UK politics and media in the forseable future. The UK government is now talking about not honoring the Withdrawal Agreement if there is no Free Trade Deal. Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This means the return of violence to that region. Even if the UK honors the WA, it is quite likely that the situation will degrade to a point that this border comes back. That was the crux of the negotiations for the last 4 years between the EU and the UK, that everyone is now forgetting about. There are also other issues, like Gibraltar. I am afraid that heavier baggage will necessarily accumulate before it can even start to dissipate.

blibble 6y ago
> In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia. pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity realpolitik always wins > After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires > Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
- normalnorm 6y ago
  > realpolitik always wins The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing. > this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either It was widely reported at the time. Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p... > the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article. > when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project". And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".

blibble 6y ago

> In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia. pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity realpolitik always wins > After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires > Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed

normalnorm 6y ago
> realpolitik always wins The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing. > this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either It was widely reported at the time. Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p... > the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article. > when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project". And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".