Perhaps they should join the Union. I'm sure they'd qualify after some changes.
They certainly could ask.
They wouldn't get it because at this point they have negative leverage and I'd assume Brussels is at best mildly irritated by Downing Street.
It's quite noticable that the doom-porn regarding Brexit has now died down. It's gone from 'the shelves are empty' to 'person's passport was rejected'.
Better to partner with Norway, Switzerland, to develop some kind of meaningful coherence on trade issues with the EU and especially focus 1) on the US, the current superpower where there's obviously deep resonance 2) and especially Asia where all of the growth is, particularly India, Singapore and Hong Kong where UK has deep ties.
Joining EU makes sense for Ukraine and even Serbia, not necessarily others.
In legal and practical terms, the UK is still currently strongly compatible with the EU, despite Brexit. Another way to look at the situation: the UK is currently in an early fork stage of the codebase, and remains more-or-less compatible.
The biggest opportunity from Brexit -- which, strangely, may not only be available to the UK, but also to keen observers within the EU -- is the chance to introduce some local code changes without all the usual code review stages and interface negotiations.
Will everything that the UK does as a result create improvements? No: plenty of these attempted changes will fail -- some badly -- and hopefully we'll all learn from those mistakes. But there will certainly also be policy and procedural changes that result in unquestionable improvements that are re-usable elsewhere.
(disclaimer/context: I believe that Brexit was a mistake in economic and political terms, but that the UK could eventually rejoin the EU if-and/or-when the upsides are clearer to people, and that it's an opportunity to learn)
Sinn Fein, the former political wing of the IRA, won elections in North Ireland yesterday:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/northern-ireland-poised-wat...
I don't pretend to be an expert on Irish politics. It's unclear to me whether the Republic really even wants North Ireland given its lackluster economy. Maybe it's easier to have London keep sending billions there.
Instructive is https://bbc.co.uk . You can barely find news of this, it is way down the page. Superhero movies, Miami Grand Prix. dating apps, pilota, carbon bicycles etc. take precedence. England doesn't care, other than the loose ends remaining snagged Brexit somewhat.
That Original Sinn Fein splintered into Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, a bunch of random socialist parties, and eventually the workers party which merged with Labour 30+ years ago.
The Sinn Fein that did really well in the NI assembly elections yesterday is Provisional Sinn Fein, which is an outgrowth of the civil rights movement for Catholics that started in the 1960s.
This Sinn Fein was the political wing of the Provisional IRA, an armed group which engaged in violence to bring about a united Ireland.
So, yes they are IRA associated (though the pIRA haven't engaged in political violence since about 1997).
Part of the social contract of joining that sector is, I expect, that staff will be working across successive governments and policy changes, and yes, people are going to have some personal connections to day-to-day events, but the professionalism and processes of the institutions involved are intended to minimize and overcome those biases (and apply correction when they aren't, with supporting evidence and investigation).
That said, identification of weaknesses and opportunities for structural improvements are welcome. "Wait a hundred years" is always an option, although if there are shorter-term risks then I'll always be listening for those.
Deep ties is a warm fuzzy term to describe ex-colonies. Nearly up there with “commonwealth”.
I think your characterisation of the EU is extremely poor, no political union as massive as the EU gets away without issue, you can argue that there are too many to even bear, but it’s absurd to think the British can make a better economic Union, we have 500 years of history to look back on and it proves that we do not know what we’re doing and we do not learn from our mistakes.
The great irony being that the U.K. poured a huge amount of effort into making the EU and ECHR a reality, so as help ensure there wouldn’t be another war in Europe. So in many ways the U.K. has already proven it can’t come up with something better than the EU.
The resulting conclusion 'can't come up with something better than the EU' doesn't follow from the original statement, moreover, it wouldn't be hard at all to come up with something 'better' than the EU: A trade and customs union with relatively free movement (but not fully) would be 'better' than the EU, especially because it would likely include Turkey, and possibly already Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia.
A 'Decentralized European Bank' which allowed for national currencies but under tight regulatory oversight and exchange rules, obviously a more progressive concept that could only be enabled by tech, would be better than the ECB, which is a giant drag on periphery economies.
The EU is assumed so many responsibilities over time that it’s difficult to talk about the EU as whole in a meaningful sense. You need to break down each aspect of integration that’s been built around it, as assess each policy on its own merits. When you start doing that, it quickly becomes apparent that some aspects of the EU work incredibly well, but other aspects have failed, sometimes catastrophically.
Personally I think the EU has been a rather grand, if lumpy, success so far, and I’m keen to see it continue growing. With it the merging of national identities across the EU into single European identity, with many nuanced sub-cultures.
> A trade and customs union with relatively free movement (but not fully) would be 'better' than the EU
On specific point. The EU has got a lot of flak in the UK for freedom of movement, usually focused on the stereotypical “Polish plumber”. It worth mentioning this was a self-inflicted pain by the UK. The EU gave all existing countries the right to limit immigration from the new joined eastern states, with 5 year ramp up period toward full freedom of movement. The UK opt-ed out, and decided for full freedom of movement from day 0, most other EU countries limited freedom of movement to prevent large economic migration. So all the limits on immigration the EU supposedly prevented the UK from implementing, were an completely legal option for the UK, it deliberately decided not to exercise them. Further proof that the EU has never prevented the UK from reducing immigration, is the fact that net immigration has fallen since Brexit.
I suggested 'economic ties' - which are being developed with those actors.
2) There is no benefit to EU political union and it is structurally impossible - unless - the states truly want to give up with everything sovereign and surrender to Germany which controls the Euro (to their benefit) and has just enough disproportionate influence to have 'the last word' on everything.
The 'EEC' is a success - the 'EU' is not.
There probably is a 'better way forward', something between Nation Sate and Federalization, but there's too much contention to talk about it - and frankly 85% of the benefits could be achieved with a comprehensive trade agreement.
Switzerland is very interested in keeping relations with the UK at a high level and is actively negotiating since Brexit.
The EU is not Europe and is definitely lacking in some aspects that might countries want to reconsider a membership.
Switzerland is in the European Free Trade Association and part of the Schengen area, again allowing for free movement of people.
Sure, they might sign deals to maintain trade with the UK, but won't accept any deal that would harm their ability to trade with the (much bigger and wealthier) EU.
This mindset of the EU trying to establish an implicit rule over Europe is the exact reason why it is so poorly regarded in Switzerland.
(I have no idea if what @not2b wrote is correct, but the causality in their comment is the exact opposite direction of what you’re asking is implied).
It's an ideological to pro-EU political types ... but from a populist sense, European citizens themselves have something a bit closer to the UK view.
'Ideological Free Movement' means basically what they have in the US.
Popularly, if it were put to a vote, European citizens would chose something more along the lines of 'unlimited, no visa travel and work' - which is not quite the same thing.
Finally - be careful with concerns about 'It's what UK hated the most' - it's not quite true.
The UK is the most open and tolerant country in the EU, it's also the one with considerably more migrants than most [1]
UK attitudes towards migration are a function of the large scale of migrants that chose, the UK, much like almost all of the nations on the periphery of Europe i.e. Greece/Italy etc have 'very negative' views of migrants, at least partly due to the fact that for whatever reason they're just not able to integrate them. (Which is obviously a complicated thing).
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-wor...
Appreciate the citation provided but this is beyond the pale, I can't imagine we're even talking about the same Britain where I come from.
Sweden and Germany bears more immigrants per capita than the UK does, Britain was complaining (extremely loudly) about an absolutely infinitesimally small fraction of migrants coming over the channel.
Britain is also AWFUL at integrating migrants, leading to "Polish" and "Pakistani" areas of cities. They're kinda cute and kitche in London, but the pakistani areas of Coventry are closer to isolated slums (and it's not their fault that it is that way).
Britain is also the place where when I go to the pub with my mum someone is within earshot talking down "ragheads" or quipping about "darkies". Coventry in particular has a little hate boner going on because a lot of the students are Chinese -- even my Mum complains about it. (since "Students aren't paying council tax", but she's fine with british students, go figure.)
The britain that I know is very far away from being "Open and Tolerant".
I am now part of the Immigrant population in Sweden, I've also lived in Finland. You're joking if you think that Britain is more open and tolerant than these places. That's before we get to the Netherlands (which, while less open than Sweden) puts tax incentives in place to promote migration to the country! Britain would never do that! (unless absolutely-absolutely desperate: EG truck drivers post-brexit).
Wealthier? Where did you get that idea? The EU is not particularly wealthy. Large parts of it are still considered poor, that's why so much IT gets outsourced to the eastern European countries. Italy GDP hasn't grown for 20 years. Germany is a surprisingly poor country relative to where it should be.
If what you care about is size+wealth then the USA dominates. And, the only way to get better trade deals with the USA is to be outside the EU. Whether the USA wants to play or not depends a lot on whether a Democrat is in the White House because the Dems are very pro-EU (large centralized unaccountable power structure hmmm wonder why they love that). But politics comes and goes, eventually there will be another Republican in power and deals can get done.
Certainly, for looking towards economic growth and enterprise, you don't want to be looking to the EU. It's all about heading over the Atlantic and then maybe, the Pacific.
With regards to who plays most by EU rules, I would indeed expect that the UK has not yet actually diverged, but diverging was (and remains) an explicit point of the exercise judging by the rhetoric of the politicians who campaigned for Brexit.
Oh, they absolutely are.
They do not like the marginal to zero power they have in their relationship with the EU.
The EU plays pretty aggressively with individual states, it's 'EU First!' in the Trumpian sense to the maximum extent.
Switzerland and Norway have little power vis-a-vis the EU and therefore have to 'do what they are told'.
UK has a bit more influence and outside relations, so it's not quite in the same position.
... but 3 'key states together' are almost (not quite) a critical mass.
I don't think UK/Norway/Swiss are 'quite enough' to form a bloc - but they are 'one country short'.
Every two years, there's an election somewhere in Europe won, or almost won by a Eurosceptic party.
There is always Turkey - the 'odd man' on the border of Europe.
And, in the meantime, Ukraine, which has been told by Austria that they are 'minimum 10 years away' - but in the meantime there's ample opportunity for trade harmonization.
One more added to the group and effectively 'it's a block'.
I think there's a 50/50 chance you see a 'Trans European Trade Group' forming with those kinds of countries - basically between EU and non-EU European countries.
They are not part of the EU because very obvious parts of their economy are 'we got lucky and don't want to share that luck.' Why would they then want to share that luck with the UK?
Surely it's de jure? As both are single market members. Norway through the EEA, and Switzerland through a series of bilateral agreements.
Despite the UK exiting from the EU, and therefore no longer benefiting from its trade agreements effective 1st January 2021, from your list of countries the UK has only successfully ratified trade agreements with Switzerland and Singapore.
There is also a provisional agreement with Norway.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-trade-agreements-with-non-eu-...
the EU still hasn't ratified the Canada deal from 2017
in that time the UK managed to exit the EU, negotiate and ratify the Canada deal
I believe it's rather disingenuous to describe a continuation deal as a "deal" since essentially it's... a continuation.
But it's good that we have them.
FWIW: Negotiations are underway right now between Canada and the UK though, from the UK Governments own website: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-launches-negotiations-...
Both with the EU and the UK. Because that's what the "continuance" was.
Canada _does_ have a trade deal with the EU, there's a more comprehensive Free-Trade (IE; not just a Trade agreement like the UK's) one that's on the table since 2016 but is actually already in active use, despite not being officially ratified.
But that's different to the one that the UK has "continued".
yes, which was what this entire thread was about
we got there eventually
It's not the same thing? Am I talking to a brick wall?
Do you understand that the UK's deal is the same as what the EU had before the <<NEW DEAL>> that has yet to be ratified (but is in effect).
And yes, it makes sense that it's quicker to say "we continue what we're doing" than it is to hash out a new trade agreement, especially a free trade agreement.
Going for the type of deal these countries have with the EU would have been very smart. You still get to have your borders, you are not paying in, etc. But trade deals are approved by the whole bloc. If you don't want that then you are less integrated with the European economy than Turkey.
Honestly, if you aren't aware of the different layers of collaboration within Europe (with an EU member state being the highest form), you really shouldn't pretend to be able to say anything meaningful about it.
This is so far removed from reality, i have to ask: which Murdoch outlet has been misinforming you?
Your comments about 'getting the benefits of an EU deal' are a bit glib when not contemplating the innumerable other costs and constraints of such a deal.
Moreover - as you hint they are 'economic benefits' for which the political layer of the EU are mostly not necessary.
An evolved EEC (with a different kind of ECJ, different kind of Euro) would be much better for European nations than the EU - and everyone including Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, probably even Turkey could be part of it.
(and has more than the EU)