- cross-posted to:
- world
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- world
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Its not up to the UK. Its unlikely the EU would let them back in so soon, and if they did the UK would be in a weak bargaining position so they wouldnt get all the opt outs and exemptions they had before. Also EU progressives seek greater integration and the UK was the loudest voice against it. Its a lose lose.
As its been 8 years from the vote and the paperwork still hasnt been figure out, its probably going to be another 20-30 years until things have simmered down enough that people can objectively look back and say it was the worst decision in modern history without people getting all pissy and defensive (most of them will have died of old age). Then they can apply to join again.
Wouldn’t they now also have to adopt the Euro?
Yes thats one of the opt outs they would have had before. That being said there is no timeline on it, there are still 6 EU states which dont use the Euro and are supposed to change to it in the future. Only denmark has a permanent opt out.
Northern Ireland might get back in sooner though. Maybe Scottland as well, but less likely.
Yeah Northern Ireland could basically just vote to join Ireland.
Scottland would have a harder time. As much as i support the idea they would have to leave the UK, develop an economy good enough to meet the joining criteria (might need to create their own currency), then get permission to join from all member states, including the ones with seperatist movements which dont want to be seen as lenient towards seperatist causes.
It is possible as they could likely use the Euro in the mid term (but this would cause their borrowing rates to be higher than if they had their own currency, as they have no control over monetary policy) and maybe the countries with seperatist movements wouldnt care as they’re leaving the UK. But its a bit of a gamble…
Edit: added clarification about currencies
Bold of him. Does he plan to die in office?
Utterly insane take from him. Based on the strength of a single referendum that was likely influenced by a foreign power and carried out by some of the most determinedly incompetent leaders we’ve seen in a generation, we are to lose free trade, influence abroad, freedom to roam, consumer protections, and countless other benefits, to continue for the lifetime of an as yet unelected PM who has purged his party of anyone to the left of Barack Obama.
Ok, butttttt, bold of you to assume that we’d want the UK back
I’m fine with it in general. BUT under some conditions:
- No cherry-picking. Full rules apply or bust
- EU reform before adding any country. It’s already horribly inefficient to have 27 countries having to agree on everything
It should be enough to know that Russia prefers the current situation. I’d happily ditch the pound on that basis - it’s not exactly as if sir Isaac has been running the mint lately.
Eh, why feed Reform or Conservatives any on-the-edge voters at this late an hour by making them fear a vote for Labour is a vote for more Brexit madness.
His statements are full of weasel words too, as have other party member’s statements. It’s not an insane take, just a “I don’t think we will” to avoid arming opponents with something to fearmonger with.
They need a term, and if they can change the perspective on EU membership and see polling supports rejoining (and they’ve the funds to pump into the obscene political advertising it’ll require to not get drowned out by Conservatives like before the referendum), they just might go for it in a second term.
I was gonna say… “That can be arranged, Mr. Starmer”.
Well, he is 61. Even if Britain starts the process of rejoining right now, chances are high that he won’t see it.
Be careful what you vote for, that Labour party of yours looks like a bunch of conservatives in disguise. You might end up voting the Tories out of office only to get them back hidden under thin red veneer.
People who cannot see the clear and obvious reason why he’s said this, the day before an election, are being willing blind and/or obtuse.
“Circumstances have changed” would be what a Starmer talking doll would say if you pulled its string.
I think the main issue I have, and likely many others too, is how strongly it is phrased. If he thinks he’ll die in the next 5 or 10 years… fine, I guess? But that’s unlikely, and with how things have shifted just in the past 25 years, making a statement like this seems arrogant.
Is that overanalysing a one line answer to a question? Probably, but that’s what a politician gets and the effect of modern media.
Not to mention how the population and especially Labour supporters have turned pro-EU so he’ll likely alienate that part of his base. Strong stances are seen as better, but I really feel sometimes he should take a softer approach.
As a European, it seems reasonable to me. I think the UK should let one or two generations pass to assess its true power, influence, and wealth in the world before making any major decisions. Similarly, the EU needs to find its own way, see how far it can go without the UK (and possibly without the tutelage of the USA), and thus determine what concessions it might need to make to the UK in a negotiation and what aspects would be non-negotiable.
I so hope the Tories loose so badly, that the Lib Dems become the largest opposition party. They at least are for rejoing the EU and would argue for it.
