Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not many of us have a problem with a more unified Europe.


But many of us have issues with the EU, how it was formed and the way it is going.

It's a massive project that needs work from the ground up. Yet the EU leaders are quite content to ignore the issues and carry on like everything is fine and dandy, gradually absorbing more and more power and making it harder for the EU to actually be effective at anything (see the refugee crisis and the Ukraine for examples.)

 Witzkatz wrote:

However, if the world is supposed to continue developing not only on a technological level,

What a curious statement. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining what you mean by it? (no sarcasm)

 Ketara wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

However, if the world is supposed to continue developing not only on a technological level,

What a curious statement. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining what you mean by it? (no sarcasm)

Perhaps it was a bit too short to carry a lot of meaning, sorry for that.

What I was trying to say - we are getting closer to reliable spacefaring technology, genetic engineering, large stepping stones that will hopefully be able to serve humanity well in the coming centuries. However, there's also immense potential for differences in tech level and wealth to divide people on a local and a global basis, in my opinion. The gap between rich and poor seems to be growing everywhere as well.

So, in the widest sense, I think at some point mankind must reach the point where there is more cooperation than mistrust, more working towards a shared goal than gritty competition. I am absoutely aware that this is a grandiose vision for the far future, but there have to be small starting points. One of those starting points would be a more united Europe, in my opinon - if that happens via the EU or some other peaceful process, I don't care. But from my lens, the EU is not beyond being saved as something that's doing something positive, and not just detrimental, for the continent.

I know this could be interpreted as trying to "homogenize Europe" and "eradicating differences in cultures" and so on. I have no intention of promoting that, I'm just looking for more cooperation than strife.

Edit: To maybe put it in one sentence: If we want to survive on this rock and getting off it, I think we need less of our tribal nature and more of "Federation of Planets".

 Witzkatz wrote:

Perhaps it was a bit too short to carry a lot of meaning, sorry for that.

What I was trying to say - we are getting closer to reliable spacefaring technology, genetic engineering, large stepping stones that will hopefully be able to serve humanity well in the coming centuries. However, there's also immense potential for differences in tech level and wealth to divide people on a local and a global basis, in my opinion. The gap between rich and poor seems to be growing everywhere as well.

So, in the widest sense, I think at some point mankind must reach the point where there is more cooperation than mistrust, more working towards a shared goal than gritty competition. I am absoutely aware that this is a grandiose vision for the far future, but there have to be small starting points. One of those starting points would be a more united Europe, in my opinon - if that happens via the EU or some other peaceful process, I don't care. But from my lens, the EU is not beyond being saved as something that's doing something positive, and not just detrimental, for the continent.

I know this could be interpreted as trying to "homogenize Europe" and "eradicating differences in cultures" and so on. I have no intention of promoting that, I'm just looking for more cooperation than strife.

Edit: To maybe put it in one sentence: If we want to survive on this rock and getting off it, I think we need less of our tribal nature and more of "Federation of Planets".

Thank you for your explanation. I find it very interesting (on a complete academic sidenote) to hear what people perceive the definition of technology to be and its place in the world.

Carry on gents!

Witzkatz wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

However, if the world is supposed to continue developing not only on a technological level,

What a curious statement. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining what you mean by it? (no sarcasm)

Perhaps it was a bit too short to carry a lot of meaning, sorry for that.

Spoiler:

What I was trying to say - we are getting closer to reliable spacefaring technology, genetic engineering, large stepping stones that will hopefully be able to serve humanity well in the coming centuries. However, there's also immense potential for differences in tech level and wealth to divide people on a local and a global basis, in my opinion. The gap between rich and poor seems to be growing everywhere as well.

So, in the widest sense, I think at some point mankind must reach the point where there is more cooperation than mistrust, more working towards a shared goal than gritty competition. I am absoutely aware that this is a grandiose vision for the far future, but there have to be small starting points. One of those starting points would be a more united Europe, in my opinon - if that happens via the EU or some other peaceful process, I don't care. But from my lens, the EU is not beyond being saved as something that's doing something positive, and not just detrimental, for the continent.

I know this could be interpreted as trying to "homogenize Europe" and "eradicating differences in cultures" and so on. I have no intention of promoting that, I'm just looking for more cooperation than strife.

Edit: To maybe put it in one sentence: If we want to survive on this rock and getting off it, I think we need less of our tribal nature and more of "Federation of Planets".

Or in other words:
“You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.”― Edgar D. Mitchell

 welshhoppo wrote:

It's a massive project that needs work from the ground up. Yet the EU leaders are quite content to ignore the issues and carry on like everything is fine and dandy, gradually absorbing more and more power and making it harder for the EU to actually be effective at anything (see the refugee crisis and the Ukraine for examples.)

That's curious. The EU was blamed as ineffective when during the Balkan conflict, then immediately pretty much the same people said it was overreaching when the common foreign and defence policy was instated as a reaction to that. Some EU members like Spain had been calling the EU border agency to be properly funded and operated for decades now (it exists in its present form only for a few years actually), but all the time the small-minded central governments said "overreaching" and "too expensive, not with my money", until of course it exploded in everyone's face.

You can sure criticise how the EU is reactive rather than proactive (most governments work that way) but you can't have it both ways. Either it's too overreaching or not effective enough.

OK, I have a slightly complex/radical idea to share, so bear with me as I try to get this down:

I'm going to call this the min/max concept; in this "minimum" means that you want local government to be as small and close to people as possible, to ensure that it is accountable and responsive to people's needs. Maximum references the fact that in the modern, globalised world, you need the maximum level of resources and cooperation/coordination available to deal with issues (be that climate change, controlling huge multinational corporations or countering belligerent individuals such as Mr Putin).

Essentially our current national governments are a bloated middle management that are getting in the way of this; they are too big to be responsive to the needs of all of their people, but too small and fractious to coordinate effectively on the really big issues.

I think the ideal end-point for Europe would be a true US-style federal model, with a lot of much smaller states (think Wales, Scotland, Nothern Ireland in size and composition), with a relatively high level of devolved power (again Scotland vs UK is probably in the right ballpark) and then straight up to a federal European government with proportional representation from each state, based on population.

The federal government would be responsible for the obvious stuff like foreign policy, defence, interstate "federal" crimes and boring stuff like product safety standards, environmental regulations, etc.

Local states would deal with health, welfare, education (you know, the stuff that most people actually care about and vote on).

There's a debate to be had over funding; i.e. whether you have funding parcelled out to each state based on population and development status, or whether you just let each state raise taxes as they see fit. I initially was thinking the former, but the more I think about it, the second option seems to fit the concept of local accountability better.

So that's my idea/vision. I think we have enough common history and culture in Europe to make it work and it would allow us to face up to the big challenges and players of the 21st century, but how we would get from here to there would be a tricky road. Not least because you'd be asking powerful national politicians to put themselves out of a job...

So that's my idea/vision. I think we have enough common history and culture in Europe to make it work and it would allow us to face up to the big challenges and players of the 21st century, but how we would get from here to there would be a tricky road. Not least because you'd be asking powerful national politicians to put themselves out of a job...

I generally like the overall approach you mention, but yeah, to be realistic - I think it'll take many decades before something like this would be feasible, and a myriad of problems to face along the way. Especially the finances, like you mentioned, could get very tricky. The EU and the economical and financial gaps between member countries illustrate this already to a certain degree, unfortunate as that is. Furthermore, I think you'd see more of the "local" politicians using methods and phrases like some Eastern European states have been using the last years - rallying against the evil EU, proclaiming to stand up to tyranny, while (in some cases) quietly cashing in all that sweet EU funding for their own economy and infrastructure.

A little bit like some politicians in the US like to cry havoc in face of their federal government, I guess? Maybe this is something that is unavoidable to a certain degree.

 Witzkatz wrote:

A little bit like some politicians in the US like to cry havoc in face of their federal government, I guess? Maybe this is something that is unavoidable to a certain degree.

I think it's unavoidable, unfortunately, just human nature.

And yes, at the moment it looks like it would take a long time, but I think having the idea is an important part (if not the most important part). As others have commented in this thread, a major problem with politics at the moment, locally, nationally and internationally is that no-one seems to have a vision. Everyone knows there are problems with the way things are, but mainstream politicians are so middle-of-the-road, focus group driven "players" that they're unwilling, possibly incapable of sticking their neck out and suggesting something different. I think that was a big driver behind Macron's recent success (and Trump); at least they're something different.

jouso wrote:

You can sure criticise how the EU is reactive rather than proactive (most governments work that way) but you can't have it both ways. Either it's too overreaching or not effective enough.

One can quite easily have it both ways, in the same way one could say that the Euro is both a vast project that's plugged extensively into the European economy yet still has considerable fiscal issues that derive from not being powerful enough. In other words, what's being complained about is essentially a structural flaw, an issue with the way things are currently set up. It's the mismatch between what the EU says it does on the tin, what it actually attempts to do, and what it can in fact do.

And that is very much an issue the EU currently possesses as an organisation, irrelevant of Brexit. They've literally admitted it in the Parliament, it's not some over-fertile imagining of a Brexiter.

Right here and now, we have the EU Commission, the EU parliament, the European Court of Justice, half a dozen 'top' EU positions, and innumerable quangos. Each is appointed by a different process (many of which are somewhat opaque), each represents different interests, and few have any form of oversight. That's without even considering the involvement of the national governments and personnel, like Frau Merkel.

The only thing that most of these different factions have in common is a tendency towards building larger EU. Entirely aside from any ideology, bureaucracies and governmental structures have an internationally well charted habit of expanding continuously unless checked by executive oversight and personal accountability. It requires, in other words, a hand on the helm, a person or party to guide it to function effectively.

In a national format,that direction is provided by the government of the day; who is democratically elected, publishes a manifesto, wields executive power, and is held directly accountable/responsible. But in the EU, fear of the populace, a desire not to disrupt the gravy train, and the meddling of the national governments means that no high ranking European official is willing to stand up and begin an honest democratic or legislative process to begin federalising the EU.

Yet for many of them, they crave some form of unification. There's an ideology, a creed, that we are all better together in whatever flawed corrupt form than separate. It may even be correct (that's for your personal judgement). They hope that by slowly absorbing power, they can gradually reach the ideal end goal (the United States of Europe) over time whilst circumventing those three things mentioned above.

Problematically, the absorption of power leads to expectations. If you set up a national currency (to use the example from earlier) that crosses national boundaries, people expect it to function like any other currency. After all, it's there in their hand, and every other currency works a certain way. They expect this one to work that way too. Unfortunately, only half the relevant powers for controlling that currency have been taken on board by Europe. This creates a situation where the currency is neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring. It's stuck in a halfway house in the middle of a veiled transition process, with nobody willing to (or possible even capable of) taking executive control.

So the problem just sits there. Nobody will own it, or even attempt to. This is the situation with many other problems, like immigration, foreign policy, or even the matter of structural reform within the EU. Sufficient power has been absorbed to create the haze of an executive shaped space at the top, the need for someone to start directing that power and being accountable for it. Yet not enough power has been absorbed that anyone is willing to step into that haze, because the only effective way of wielding it directly would initially require absorbing considerably more power. Which would risk incurring the three factors mentioned before (national governments, breaking the gravy train, and public backlash)

That's why Europe is a mess. That's why these problems carry on, day in, day out. That's why Brexit ultimately happened. The EU is in the middle of a somewhat dishonest, and undemocratic transitory process which renders both it and the national governments which comprise it ineffectual. The buck has been passed around so much nobody even remembers who last held it. Maybe some great and noble government will pop out the other end in forty years. Then again, maybe not.

jouso wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

It's a massive project that needs work from the ground up. Yet the EU leaders are quite content to ignore the issues and carry on like everything is fine and dandy, gradually absorbing more and more power and making it harder for the EU to actually be effective at anything (see the refugee crisis and the Ukraine for examples.)

That's curious. The EU was blamed as ineffective when during the Balkan conflict, then immediately pretty much the same people said it was overreaching when the common foreign and defence policy was instated as a reaction to that. Some EU members like Spain had been calling the EU border agency to be properly funded and operated for decades now (it exists in its present form only for a few years actually), but all the time the small-minded central governments said "overreaching" and "too expensive, not with my money", until of course it exploded in everyone's face.

You can sure criticise how the EU is reactive rather than proactive (most governments work that way) but you can't have it both ways. Either it's too overreaching or not effective enough.

That's exactly my point.

Some people see the EU as overreaching, and others see it as not doing enough because no one actual knows exactly what the EU is supposed to be doing.

The EU shouldn't have put It's nose into the Balkans, yet it did. Because it needed to do something because it's neighbour was going through a civil war. But on what right does the EU have to conduct foreign affairs? Does it have the right or does it not have the right? No one really knows for sure, which is why it needs replacing with something that actually understand.

The EU shouldn't have put It's nose into the Balkans, yet it did. Because it needed to do something because it's neighbour was going through a civil war. But on what right does the EU have to conduct foreign affairs? Does it have the right or does it not have the right? No one really knows for sure, which is why it needs replacing with something that actually understand.

But why the focus on first crashing and removing it before replacing it with something new - which, in politics, might take a decade and end up an even more opaque project than before - instead of trying to repair the issues with the current organization, the EU? I mean, I understand that a clean slate sounds refreshing, but I'm not sure if there will ever be something like a clean slate in the intermingled politics of a whole continent with dozens of nations.

It's a stretch of a comparison, I know, but it sounds a bit like the US Republican focus on "repealing and replacing" Obamacare - something that might have genuine issues, but trying to improve it instead of crashing it down and then making something new from scratch seems like it might be even more difficult and prone to new issues.

Concerning the rights or non-rights of the EU in conducting foreign affairs, that is something that could be figured out, certainly. Yes, the current politicians don't seem to do much about it, and yes, the bureaucracy of the EU looks overwhelming, but I don't see the how that is so much different from many national governments anyway.

Well I believe that the EU will shove its fingers in its ears and refuse any reform that will mean things change.


And I'd like to see it go back to an international trade agreement anyway.

It requires, in other words, a hand on the helm, a person or party to guide it to function effectively.

Another excellent post, Ketara. Sums up my feelings very well.

I've quoted that line in particular, because IMO, it cuts right to the heart of the matter.

Only two countries are capable of controlling the 'helm' of the EU:

Germany and the UK.

For obvious historical reasons, Germany can't be seen to 'dominate' Europe ever again.

So that leaves Britain, and there in lies the tragedy. Instead of taking our place at the heart of Europe, we were caught in this 1940 timewarp which regarded anybody east of Kent as suspect.

Add that to the chasing the special relationship bollocks by hanging onto America's coat tails, and it's clear we missed a golden opportunity to drive the EU into a better place.

Britain's leaving and Germany can't run the show...

what a mess.

And yeah, I know I voted leave, but playing devil's advocate here, I know my countrymen and women very well. Even if the EU was benign, and even if I were a Remain supporter, I still doubt if the British people would buy into Europe.

You can't in a day overturn centuries of stock assumptions and stereotypes about the French and Germans.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well I believe that the EU will shove its fingers in its ears and refuse any reform that will mean things change.


And I'd like to see it go back to an international trade agreement anyway.

Fair enough, I think nobody has any illusions about this being an easy goal to reach, and not in a short time. Before dropping the point, I can't help but to add that the UK would've been one of the most influential countries in any push for change, being very much at the top when it comes to MEPs representing it:

Britain has profited from relatively substantial influence in the Parliament. This power is the result of several factors. First, its size – with 73 MEPs (9% of the incoming Parliament), the UK is tied with Italy for the greatest representation after Germany (96 MEPs) and France (74 MEPs). Second, the UK delegation always brings large groups of MEPs from the same party, since the British political system has a comparatively small number of successful parties, compared to other EU states. Having substantial blocs of MEPs allows UK parties to have a significant say in their groups.

 Witzkatz wrote:

But why the focus on first crashing and removing it before replacing it with something new - which, in politics, might take a decade and end up an even more opaque project than before - instead of trying to repair the issues with the current organization, the EU? I mean, I understand that a clean slate sounds refreshing, but I'm not sure if there will ever be something like a clean slate in the intermingled politics of a whole continent with dozens of nations.

It ultimately comes down, I suspect, to your personal political priorities. You mention 'crashing and removing it', but ultimately, the EU is still there regardless of Brexit. If they manage to fix everything up at a later date, and sort themselves out, well. Whirlwind and several others have expressed hope that changing demographic shifts and European development will end up with us rejoining. If the Europeans manage to put their house in order and put a simple honest plan for a federalised Europe on the table to the British public in thirty years, I'd certainly consider the offer with an open and willing mind.

I have no intrinisic objection to the concept you see, it's just the methodology for trying to build it I disagree with. Some people might say, 'well, so long as it gets us there, surely the methodology doesn't matter?' And if it was a guaranteed thing, I'd be inclined to agree. My issue I suppose, is that I don't see a shiny happy people utopian European ideal as a guaranteed end point. Too many supposedly noble projects failed or gone terribly wrong throughout history.

Another issue I see is that with all these powers and authority having been transferred (ineffectually) to Europe, it has begun to have a knock-on effect on my own government. Too many politicians pass the buck, can't respond to the desires of the electorate because of European law, and so forth. It's a bit like having the head of your department give half of his responsibilities/powers away to someone in a completely different department who's never in the office. The first manager denies all knowledge, power, and culpability and passes the buck to second one. And when you finally pin the second one down in their coffee break, they tell you that you don't understand the needs of their department and that they can't do what you need before you get the signatures of at least three other heads of department, none of which have the power to actually sign off on anything without getting the opinions of an external consulting body. Inevitably, nothing happens.

So to me, I'd rather retract those powers that have been absorbed by the European factions, and just put them back into the system which I know and have a far greater control over. That is to say, my own government. I believe that will improve the efficiency and accountability of whatever administration is power. So I'm not so much focused on 'repealing' without replacing Witzkatz, as I am trying to revert to what I thought was a more democratic and effective form of governance. I'm tired of this ineffectual, poorly structured halfway house between a federalised system and a set of national government.

I accept that this may not be sufficient reason for other voters, and respect that. The world would be a boring place if we all thought the same. But I personally have grown rather bored of the whole Brexit thing, a bit like Scottish independence, or Tory budget cuts. You can only read people raging about the same thing so many times over before becoming desensitized and moving on to other interests.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well I believe that the EU will shove its fingers in its ears and refuse any reform that will mean things change.


And I'd like to see it go back to an international trade agreement anyway.

Fair enough, I think nobody has any illusions about this being an easy goal to reach, and not in a short time. Before dropping the point, I can't help but to add that the UK would've been one of the most influential countries in any push for change, being very much at the top when it comes to MEPs representing it:

Britain has profited from relatively substantial influence in the Parliament. This power is the result of several factors. First, its size – with 73 MEPs (9% of the incoming Parliament), the UK is tied with Italy for the greatest representation after Germany (96 MEPs) and France (74 MEPs). Second, the UK delegation always brings large groups of MEPs from the same party, since the British political system has a comparatively small number of successful parties, compared to other EU states. Having substantial blocs of MEPs allows UK parties to have a significant say in their groups.

It could have been, but a lot of people in Britain feel like we got shoe horned into the EU, and voters aren't the most reliable of people anyway, and then you have a huge chunk of voter resentment on top of voter negligence too.

https://www.ft.com/content/b9c61fcc-88c7-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787

For several months, doubts have been growing about student emigration data produced by the Office for National Statistics’ passenger survey. The Financial Times revealed last November that the survey, which runs from 6am to 10pm at ports and airports, was potentially failing to count foreign students returning home on night flights.

The Office for Statistics Regulation, the statistics watchdog, warned last month that the estimate of around 100,000 foreign students overstaying their visas each year should be downgraded to an “experimental figure” because problems in the survey sampling could lead to “potentially misleading results”.

On Thursday, when the Home Office published new “exit check” data for the first time, it emerged that the real number of foreign student overstayers was 4,600 last year.

Always amazes me how one can fail upwards in politics.

Meanwhile, concerns have escalated about the Home Office’s ability to administer an entirely new visa regime from 2019, with many people’s worries seemingly confirmed earlier this week by the department’s erroneous attempt to deport EU nationals.

Against a background of personnel cuts, the department will have to issue settlement documents to more than 3m EU nationals currently living in the UK, as well as deal with work permit and study visa requests from new EU arrivals who will no longer be granted automatic entry under free movement.

Nothing like a well thought out policy.

Literally.

I found the following lecture on Brexit a year after the Referendum very interesting.
A word of warning it is nearly an hour long.

Britain and the EU: One Year On - a lecture by Prof. Vernon Bogdanor, from BBC Parliament:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=L9edfG1utRg

 Ketara wrote:
It ultimately comes down, I suspect, to your personal political priorities. You mention 'crashing and removing it', but ultimately, the EU is still there regardless of Brexit. If they manage to fix everything up at a later date, and sort themselves out, well. Whirlwind and several others have expressed hope that changing demographic shifts and European development will end up with us rejoining. If the Europeans manage to put their house in order and put a simple honest plan for a federalised Europe on the table to the British public in thirty years, I'd certainly consider the offer with an open and willing mind.

Feel free to believe anyone in the EU is ever going to want you guys back.

 Korinov wrote:

Feel free to believe anyone in the EU is ever going to want you guys back.

Most of the EU officials have already stated that they'd be all over us rejoining later on.

Unless you're referring to the general population, in which case I daresay 95% couldn't give two figs one way or the other, and there's as many ardent federal unionists who would see it as starry eyed destiny as there are ones who act like jilted lovers. You have to be a special kind of person to get personally offended by a foreign country withdrawing from a treaty agreement, after all. And that's right now. Give it forty years and see how many people care one way or the other when Britain leaving happened ten years before they were born.

 Ketara wrote:
Most of the EU officials have already stated that they'd be all over us rejoining later on.

Could you provide some links regarding that?

And yes, I agree human memory is usually quite short-term, and in forty years nobody will probably care much about what is being said and done today.

 Korinov wrote:

Could you provide some links regarding that?

In all honesty? I could, but I can't be bothered. Such headlines have been in the papers several times with various EU officials, including Juncker IIRC. You can probably find them without too much hassle through google if you're really interested.

 Ketara wrote:

 Korinov wrote:

Could you provide some links regarding that?

In all honesty? I could, but I can't be bothered. Such headlines have been in the papers several times with various EU officials, including Juncker IIRC. You can probably find them without too much hassle through google if you're really interested.

Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.

Remember that the UK only got in the EEC over De Gaulle's dead political body, and Brexit will create a few more.

Back to the Balkans thing peace and stability is the reason the EU was formed in the first place. Of course the EU is going to be there. And look at them now, two countries are already in, the rest waiting to join in.

jouso wrote:

Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.

No. I've no idea why this is such an interesting topic, but since more than one person seems to care, here are a few quotes:

Juncker said ' “I don’t like Brexit because I would like to be in the same boat as the British. The day will come when the British will re-enter the boat, I hope.”

Verhofstadt said "“The relationship between Britain and Europe was never a love affair and certainly not wild passion. It was more a marriage of convenience. But it wasn’t a failure. Not for Europe and certainly not for Britain. I am 100% sure that one day there will be a young man or woman who will try again, who will lead Britain into the European family once again.”

There are others, easily locatable through google if you want to find them. If the British decide to get involved again in thirty years, with the EU having realised all the hopes that many have for it, I doubt that some vague grudge held by a handful of people three decades beforehand will prevent it.

jouso wrote:

Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.

Remember that the UK only got in the EEC over De Gaulle's dead political body, and Brexit will create a few more.

Back to the Balkans thing peace and stability is the reason the EU was formed in the first place. Of course the EU is going to be there. And look at them now, two countries are already in, the rest waiting to join in.

A lot might depend on status of the UK in future as to how willing the EU will accept the UK back in. If we continue to have similar government as now where they become more authoritarian and stripping the public of their rights so they can spy on them to control the publics view of the world (whilst noting it's all to protect us) then the EU may not accept a country until they improve our human rights/environment etc. policies. They might not also allow us back in if we again become the "sick man of Europe" noting it was only 40 years ago when we in such a state. With an aging population, ridiculous immigration targets and so on then we may find that our economy flounders relatively and the EU will see less reason to have us in. On the other hand we may be faced with the question of Europe again way before 40 years. As the older population moves on and a more pro-EU, less closed population develops (as the surveys indicate) then the desire to return to the EU may get much louder and once we lose the older dead weight politicians like May, Davis, Fox, Johnson and so on then the newer younger politicians may be more inclined to ask the question sooner. As I've also pointed out before, if the leave the EU and the UK provides 'settled' rights to EU citizens then all of a sudden you have 2-3 million people that can vote in UK referendums that will also be supportive of re-joining the EU as well which would easily swing the result.

My personal hope is that even if we leave the EU that they do allow those in the UK that wish to retain EU citizenship can do so (and retain the benefits of being in the EU to some extent).

As for the Balkans, it could be argued that the EU are only trying to stabilise regions in a manner that fits their ideals. At the same time Russia is doing the same. This is just about two political battles between types of regimes. The EU could have decided not to get involved but then that would effectively give Russia a free hand in their influence. So the question about the Balkans is whether you would prefer Russian or EU influenced region? There is a risk however that where these two regions mix there will be conflict of one form or another.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:
Whirlwind, I'm not sure whether your contradicting me or agreeing with me. You start of calling it tripe and then perfectly illustrating the point that the situation is no longer logic but emotion at this stage.

Cheers

Andrew

No they were different. The first was saying that [sic] Leavers were all bigots and Remainers were all saints is an emotional response because it isn't true and is disingenuous on both parties. The statements are used however generally to try and end debate - so when the immigration argument comes up some people will provide a statement that all Leavers are bigots because it is an attempt to distract from the discussion by trying to turn a large group of people against the person or group positing the argument. However it is not unreasonable to state that the rhetoric against "anyone not the from round here" has increased since the vote (some of which is racist). It does not however mean that this applies to all 'Leavers' and for those that might now be more willing to express bigoted (such as immigrants are taking all our jobs) or racist views aren't necessarily supportive of national front type groups.

However a lot of the people that are still 'loud' about Wrexit primarily focus on immigration as an issue and it is both giving the perspective that a) the UK is hostile to people coming to the country and b) that those that support Wrexit are bigoted or racist because in the majority they are the loudest voices being heard (and conversely this then makes some of those that argue against them vehemently a halo mentality).

The whole situation is not helped by the Tory (aka newUKIP) government who spend a lot of time focussing on immigration and figures as an agenda to persuade certain groups of the population to vote for them rather than UKIP or similar parties. They could of course just come out now and state whatever happens free movement around the UK and EU would remain (but newUKIP knows that would split the right wing vote and give Labour the next government by a mile)

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:

Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.

Remember that the UK only got in the EEC over De Gaulle's dead political body, and Brexit will create a few more.

Back to the Balkans thing peace and stability is the reason the EU was formed in the first place. Of course the EU is going to be there. And look at them now, two countries are already in, the rest waiting to join in.

A lot might depend on status of the UK in future as to how willing the EU will accept the UK back in. If we continue to have similar government as now where they become more authoritarian and stripping the public of their rights so they can spy on them to control the publics view of the world (whilst noting it's all to protect us) then the EU may not accept a country until they improve our human rights/environment etc. policies. They might not also allow us back in if we again become the "sick man of Europe" noting it was only 40 years ago when we in such a state.

Economy is not the issue. The EU has taken basket case economies before.

It's the fool me twice, shame on me aspect of it. There were key voices predicting the UK would be a disruptive partner in the EU, not just De Gaulle, and it turned out to be quite true.

At the very least, a future EU will be much less accomodating of any special treatment.

I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.

By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.

However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.

By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.

However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"

Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.

If we ever did apply to re-join the EU, they'd probably lay down the law to us: no rebates, opt-outs, special treatment, adopting the Euro is mandatory etc etc

I doubt that the British public would buy it.

For better or for worse, there is no going back.

I suspect if it did happen, we'd end up doing something more the lines of Norway's relationship, where about 20% of EU law applies and we join the trade zone.