Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

Started by Josquius, February 20, 2016, 07:46:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How would you vote on Britain remaining in the EU?

British- Remain
12 (11.8%)
British - Leave
7 (6.9%)
Other European - Remain
21 (20.6%)
Other European - Leave
6 (5.9%)
ROTW - Remain
36 (35.3%)
ROTW - Leave
20 (19.6%)

Total Members Voted: 100

HVC

The EU letting the uk back in would be like a battered wife letting her husband back into the house. Mind boggling stupid, but not unimaginable.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Sheilbh

It'd be insane. The only country in the EU where there wasn't broad cross-party consensus on the fundamental idea of membership in Europe and broad support for the idea of the EU. There's a lesson to be learned there (I think relevant for some of the more challenging accession countries currently tbh).
Let's bomb Russia!

HVC

You were a bad actor when you were there, a bad actor on the way out, and a bad actor still. If you had an economy the size of an Eastern European state no one would consider it. But greed. Always greed. Plus stupidity lol.

*edit* Or create a a red headed step child membership tier, no voting rights :lol:
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Sheilbh

#33648
Quote from: HVC on Today at 05:21:36 PMYou were a bad actor when you were there, a bad actor on the way out, and a bad actor still. If you had an economy the size of an Eastern European state no one would consider it. But greed. Always greed. Plus stupidity lol.

*edit* Or create a a red headed step child membership tier, no voting rights :lol:
I'm sorry I think that's nonsesne :lol: And greed seems an unusual way of framing one of the EU's 2-3 net contributors (at that point) :P Or rather I think it's wanting good things to go with good things, bad things to go with bad things, morality tales and the world lets us down. But I think this sort of goes to my point that I think the European project itself was (and is) contested in Britain in a way that it isn't in the rest of Europe - and that's a very different conversation than "of course we should do this, the question is how?"

Within the remit of the EU I think the UK is a really strong driver of the EU that exists to this day - but I agree it comes in waves or is on specific areas. To use your framing I'd basically say the UK was out but supportive until the 70s, a "bad actor" in the 70s, under Major in the 90s and then under Cameron. But constructive and important under Thatcher, Blair and (to a lesser extent) Brown. I think the single market as it exists is hugely shaped by and was pushed by Thatcher - this was why so many older Europeans and older Eurocrats were baffled by Tory Brexiteers (Mario Monti famously said to a Tory minister - "why are you doing this? We all agree with you now"). Similarly I think of the big EU countries the UK was the most consistent and strongest advocate of enlargement - ironically enlargement and the UK choosing not to impose transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries like everyone else was a big factor in the Brexit vote (worth adding the UK government's assessments was that fewer than 500k people would come to the UK over several years - millions did, which meant they hadn't quite prepared for that scale :lol:).

On a more nuanced area - in my area of law the UK is missed because our regulator was (and still is) by some distance the best-resourced in Europe. It used to be very communautaire and basically volunteer to do the first draft of regulatory guidance - which was a form of soft power. I think that's true in a few areas and then in other areas UK regulators were broadly hostile to any "encroachment" from Europe - the BofE and ECB didn't always get on.

I think the UK being the awkward member allowed a lot of other countries to hide behind it. Now the UK has gone the awkward squad tends to be Poland leading a bit more on most things. But there were member states that were kind of happy to let Britain take the lead on being the difficult one - and have now had to become a bit more vocal themselves.

Separately I think given Britain's contribution over the years to European defence I'm not sure it's a bad actor on that field either - though we need to spend more.

Edit:  I mean my observation on that would also be that significant and effective PMs domestically (Thatcher and Blair) were also important and relevant in driving policy at a European level. Weak and ineffective PMs, especially over divided parties (Wilson, Major, Cameron) were the same domestically and in Europe. Brown's a bit sui generis beause I think on both he was a bit of a disaster but also 100% the right man to be in charge in 2008 with the crash. I think that's probably true across Europe and why historically German Chancellors and French Presidents play a big role, why Poland tends to be punch above their weight - and perhaps why Italy, historically, hasn't.
Let's bomb Russia!

HVC

Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 05:40:36 PM
Quote from: HVC on Today at 05:21:36 PMYou were a bad actor when you were there, a bad actor on the way out, and a bad actor still. If you had an economy the size of an Eastern European state no one would consider it. But greed. Always greed. Plus stupidity lol.

*edit* Or create a a red headed step child membership tier, no voting rights :lol:
I'm sorry I think that's nonsesne :lol:

No need to be sorry, I can't be right  about everything. Don't everyone disagree at once :P
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.