498
'Scandalous': Anger as BBC 'refuse to cover' anti-Brexit rally in London
(www.thenational.scot)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
498 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32318 readers
566 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
As an EU citizen, I'm very conflicted about the UK just rejoining the European Union.
Your administration made the weird decision to lean on a marginal difference on a referendum, and left with a whole lot of fuss and customised paperwork. Who's to say you won't do it again?
While I do like a stronger Union, the UK will likely try to get back the position they had before (with all kinds of exceptions), but the only way the UK should be allowed to rejoin (in my opinion), should be with a full commitment, not just "we're sort of joining but also not".
Didn't the EU say that if we were to rejoin, the UK would have to adopt the Euro and all the other shit that the rest of the EU got when they joined. I don't think we're really in a position to dig our feet in and demand exceptions that we threw in the EU's face when we left.
Right. If the UK tries to rejoin they're going to get no favors from the rest of the EU, as an example to other member states that you can't just play hokey pokey with a continental union. The UK will be miffed as a response. It'll potentially take decades for a deal to work out for the UK to rejoin the EU, if that's even its form at that point.
As a Brit, I fully support the idea that we should rejoin with full commitment. No way do I want a repeat performance where we can be taken out by a minority of gullible idiots.
When it was clear the referendum was going to be actioned, I never understood why the UK government didn't just try to implement a move to the EEA or similar satellite level. It would satisfy the terms of the referendum entirely. The referendum was to leave the European union. The wording was very succinct.
The UK probably would never have joined schengen (that's really of hugest benefit to mainland Europe), we never took the European parliament seriously (you can argue that we should have, but we sent fucking Farage, so. No, we never took it seriously).
But the common trading area and freedom of movement did benefit us (and the BS use of it to get votes from the right was filled with lies of course). Which (as I understand it) is the main features of being part of the EEA. It still of course means we'd need to adopt trade related laws of course (Oh my gaawwwd our sovereignty!!!!). But we already were and it didn't hurt us one bit!
But no, it had to be full brexit or nothing (for some inexplicable reason).
Yes, before people say anything. We'd need to be admitted into the EEA. I know that. But it wasn't even tried! That's the annoying thing. It was rejected straight off the bat.
Ha, that name only stuck around because of the BBC Radio 4 comedy podcast. Brexit caused a whole lot of ruckus, but the comedy shows were continuous gold.
That was the argument I heard a lot of from neolibs leading up to the referendum - "y'know, Norway and Switzerland aren't in the EU and they're doing fine".
I do wonder if Cameron had stuck it out if that's what we would have aimed for, rather than leaving it up to the "Brexit means Brexit" crew.
This is an entirely reasonable position. The (narrow) majority of the UK voting public has the relationship inverted; they think the EU needs them far more than they need the EU.
There's no way to come to a reasonable lasting outcome in negotiations.
Much like it makes all the sense in the world for the rest of NATO not to trust the US any more.