Brexit: Rejoining EU takes record 14-point lead in latest poll
independent.co.uk
independent.co.uk
I expect the long run to be at least three decades, though. Maybe seven. I'll be dead.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_model_of_trade
Quote: The model has been an empirical success in that it accurately predicts trade flows between countries for many goods and services, but for a long time some scholars believed that there was no theoretical justification for the gravity equation.
Lol, it works in practice but not in theory, so many economists choose to believe theory.
(France's debt-to-GDP ratio and I think possibly their deficit as well is worse than the UK's and even less compliant with Eurozone rules. This is probably directly linked to their lower inflation since they're reliant on heavily subsidising energy prices to keep that down.)
Bit like Turkey is now scrutinizing whether Finland is really living up to the democracy criteria of NATO. That Turkey isn’t even close is irrelevant.
That does not sound like something the UK would accept.
That's why so many exceptions were made for the UK when they were members.
The share of, at best clueless, but more likely spiteful and cruel, old people who ensured the absolutely inane brexit majority decision, before they unceremoniously were reduced to the fate of just dying off, is monotonically shrinking.
While the share of young people who weren’t even allowed to have a say in the rest of their future life, is monotonically growing.
It’s by far the most crystal clear example of the old desperately trying to eat the young, incontrovertibly to feed their petty greed, but it obviously does not have any effect on the biological realities.
A Norway style arrangement, while far worse than the previous deal, is and will always be better than the current quagmire.
Unfortunately the psychotic sadist in the ERG still have influence over British politics.
doing so would probably be a boon for all of europe and the west. and hopefully a history lesson for the entire west that it's time to finally find a way to solve the yellow journalism/murdochian media problem.
Of course, the UK is not required to rejoin the EU, even if the EU would consider allowing that. Of course, the EU can set any terms of admission. If the UK doesn’t like the terms, it will stay out of the EU. No one is forcing it.
Indignation doesn’t seem like a reasonable reaction here.
From the UK point of view the prospect of rejoining is even worse. How would anyone explain the UK public that they would be applying again for EU membership? "Hey guys, so we got out of the EU, got all this shit, lost the advantages we had and now we propose to rejoin in worse conditions and with a worse economy because of the economic damage caused by getting out of the EU (who could have expected that?)". That is not a winning argument to convince UK citizens to votes 'yes' on a EU membership application referendum...
Failing to rejoin UK could try to stay in the European Economic Area (EEA), à la Norway, or even in the EU Customs Union. This would in principle make a lot of economical sense and, in fact, the UK has all along only been interested in the single market and nothing else. But this solution is politically even worse, because it would come with the obligation to follow all the rules of the EU single market without having a saying on them, since they would not be participating in the EU democratic institutions (no seats at the Parliament or in the Council). Norway (and Iceland) doesn't lose a lot by being in the European Economic Area by doing this, since they are a small country and the power they give up is very small. But this is not the case at all for the UK. They are a big country and a big economy. It's not conceivable they would be giving up a significant chunk of sovereignty ir order to joint EU institutions while completely giving up their very significant voting rights.
UK is not rejoining the EU at the very least in the next 10 years. And even later than that, the only situation they could rejoin is if the differential of growth between the UK and the big EU economies (France, Germany) make the UK economy to significantly be left behind, which is exactly what happened in the 60s/70s and what forced the UK to joint the EU in the first place. It was obvious at the time that continuing being outside would cause the economy of the UK to continuing underperforming the economies of the EU and that is what is bound to happen now.
It's sad that UK left, but it is what it is and now they must find their own way.
Efficiency doesn't scale, I think EU is pretty good compared to other bureaucracies.
But they've only been out of the EU for a few years. Whatever benefits they imagined they would get could not possibly show themselves on a time scale that short.
I think the EU would have the UK back, but I suspect one of their biggest worries is that public opinion would shift back yet again. Voters are unhappy and want things to go back, but they haven't necessarily learned anything about why they made the wrong choice -- if they did.
I can't see them seriously considering the question for another five years, minimum. And when they do, it's going to come with assurances that it won't be fighting that fight again.
Not exciting at that point would arguably have been far more cynical.
"Brexit: No majority for any options after MPs' votes"[0]
I know several people that disliked Johnson but were scared by the prospect of Corbyn being allowed into power.
A curse on both their houses if ask me.
1. We done vote for political leaders in the UK, we vote for our local MP and they choose a party leader to become PM.
1) MPs declined to support any Brexit proposal at all, because the house was majority Remainers who thought if they refused to act for long enough Brexit might never actually happen? Even the softest of soft Brexit was too much for them to stomach.
plus somewhat in parallel
2) the Labour party managed to select Corbyn to lead them
Q: is anyone actually surprised how the 2019 election turned out?
Seems the UK political elite had several chances, and one after another, blew them all.
So the voters sighed, swore, and the UK got Boris's Brexit.
The reporting and media class is either captured by the conservative and anything else slowly towards the conservatives views in a desperate effort to try and curry their favour, or sinks into the mud and joins the ranks of the tabloid trash no one takes seriously but buys anyway since it’s basically entertainment not really news reporting.
At worst Corbyn was a Bernie sanders, he would have shaken things up, rebuilding the social fabric that makes up various safety nets, refunded important social efforts like hospitals, infrastructure, that sort of thing, he might even have built more social housing and raised taxes on rich people that could afford it. That’s not Stalin, that’s not even Marx, it’s just someone who thinks government can genuinely help people by being a strong foundation that everyone gets to benefit from… as far as I can tell, he was scary because he was a “threat” to house prices continued unsustainable rise in value, and the bloated bank balances of rich people and companies who might have had to pay more taxes.
But as someone who’s only learned this perspective from remote sources (I live in Australia and follow various UK things with different perspectives) I’d love to add your own perspective on the whole failed social movement that was Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't know the answer to that but it's a very good question.
There is definitely a strong connection in the UK between right-wing, Oxford educated journalists and Tory politicians. Johnson himself was/is an Oxford educated journalist; he'd been fired for lying by various papers prior to becoming an MP.
Since you ask about Corbyn, I don't see him as similar to Bernie Sanders. He much further to the left but more than that he's unelectable as the author of his own FUD.
It's definitely not his stance on taxing the rich or house prices people worry about.
He's seen as "dangerous" by the great unwashed because he regularly talks about disbanding NATO and appeasing Putin[1]. If you take the view that Putin does what he does because he's an absolute ruler and a megalomaniac then that's a dangerous position.
In general he comes across as someone economical with the truth. E.g. He filmed himself sitting on the floor of a train saying he couldn't get a seat because the train was full[2]... except the train operator release CCTV footage that showed the train was empty at the time of filming. He was trying to make a point by using a lie, that makes him look untrustworthy.
Then there's his alleged association with various terrorist groups. I don't think he's involved with terrorism or even supports those causes but... he keeps turning up in dodgy places, and that makes him look untrustworthy too.
Like the laying of a wreath for the Black September terror group behind the Munich massacre[3]. He says he wasn't involved but just so happened to be photographed in Tunisia. In the same cemetery. At the same time, a few feet away, behind a microphone... and holding a wreath.
And who paid for the trip? We don't know because he didn't declare it. The reporting of that was clearly politically motivated but even with the benefit of the doubt that looks dodgy as hell.
Then there's the people close to Corbyn. Like Diane "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" Abbott[4]. For the sake of argument, you might agree with everything she says but surely you can see why others think she is against their best interests.
Or his brother, Piers Corbyn, the professional conspiracy theorist[5]. It's guilt by association but it doesn't make him look like a safe pair of hands.
Or his backing of Russia after the Salisbury Poisoning attack, or the allegations of antisemitism under his leadership, or... the list goes on and on.
You might think it's all circumstantial or whipped up by right-wing journalists, and let's face it there's a lot of that. Still, there's just too many gaffs to make him electable with the general public. Even when running against someone as blatantly awful as Johnson.
For the record I voted Labour in the last general election but I hated doing it with Corbyn as their leader. I held my nose because I dislike Johnson even more.
Sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for but it's an honest opinion at least. (Sorry for the length of this reply too).
1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/20/jeremy-corb...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traingate
3 https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-cor...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Political_controv...
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn#Promotion_of_cons...
You also added a few extra stories I didn’t hear before. I knew that his brother was a professional crank and the pro-Russia NATO stuff did get played pretty widely so I saw some of that in Australia, and while it looks particularly bad in hindsight now Russia started a war and ended any pretence of the legitimacy with regard to Russia-Ukraine relations since 2014 (there was at least for a while, consideration that the Crimea annexation was conducted legitimately given the cultural demographics involved, but we have all learned a lot about this since 2014), he wasn’t the only politician making that sort of statement.
The train stuff and the wreath in Tunisia were new to me though and I hadn’t heard anywhere near as much about Dianne Abbot as that wiki link provides. It’s definitely a more complete picture of someone that you could rightly have reservations about trusting. It’s hard for me to say he could have been worse than any other politician, they all say and do things to appease and entice voters and then actually do different things and provide elaborate reasonings why that was actually what people wanted all along, or completely change their minds about things once they are in power and discover that the full picture of how things are that they were not privy to while campaigning as an outsider or even while in opposition. And as someone who lives in Australia where voting is compulsory and we get this sort of dampening effect “for free”, kudos for still voting against a bad politician when many others in the UK and USA would simply not have bothered.
And thanks again for the excellent reply!
Funny how imaginary benefits that they promised must take at at least a decade or more to manifest themselves. When the downsides everyone could see before the entire brouhaha started and warned about are already here.
That said, the UK is globally important country and has Europe’s only truly global city in London. Not one other European city can wield the level of financial and soft power that London did and still does.
the UK can indeed go it alone on the global stage and they well may. Their historical connections to the USA and the commonwealth realms are something no other European country has. They will likely struggle for a while but i would not be surprised if they managed to succeed in the longer term. the magnitude of their success would have been better inside the EU but alas…
Post-WW2 near bankrupt London got where it is today by being the global dirty money laundering capital of the world[1]. Not something to be proud of, although the economic opportunities in London are second to none vs the continental EU, including the tech sector.
Brexit heavily benefited the financial industry there as now they'll have more room to launder away form EU regulators. The ones who got screwed were the small and medium businesses who made honest money by selling their products in the EU and the youth cheated away from free study and travel opportunities. They're now shafted.
At this pace, the UK economy will turn into a Hunger Games dystopia with the financial elites in the London making insane money along with the service industry catering to the Wolf-of-Wallstreet sharks who work there and to the Saudi royals, Russian and CCP oligarchs who vacation and park their wealth there, while every other business in the rest of the country will be struggling, further eroding whatever is left of the middle class and the already underfunded social services.
> Their historical connections to the USA
You are parroting brexiteers' talking points who think that it's still the end of the 19th century.
Reality is, while UK has (had?) a large enough economy to put it in the 6th place globally, it's simply dwarfed by EU, US, and China. As for Commonwealth... The Commonwealth has the EU, the US and China as the actual important global players. BTW, India's GDP has surpassed the UK's.
And you could see it during Brexit. The UK had to renegotiate trade deals with all the countries, and Commonwealth countries with which the UK has "historical ties" couldn't care less about these ties and the UK's looming deadlines. Speaking of India, there's still no trade deal with India. Meanwhile EU is India's third largest trade partner, after US and China. UK is... number 18. Truly global and important.
And this continues across the board. Companies had no issues relocating from London to EU countries to continue friction-free operation in one of the world's largest markets. London might not be the great big city for long, when momentum carrying it forward subsides.
Is Covid not a recent crisis?
The UK response to Covid, specifically to sourcing vaccines and vaccinating the vulnerable and elderly population, appeared to be significantly more nimble and efficient than that of the EU. Judging by the investigation launched into the EU's vaccine procurement[0] more transparent, too. The UK also dropped restrictions in early 2022 after high vaccination rates and the arrival of Omicron appeared to break the link between infections and hospitalisations.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-pfizer-...
"For 2021 as a whole, UK GDP growth was 7.5%. This was the highest in the G7. The UK had the largest decline in GDP among the G7 in 2020 (-11.0%) and its relatively strong performance in 2021 was to some degree a recovery from weakness in 2020.
Please note that headline GDP growth figures across countries are not 100% comparable. For example, the UK takes a different approach to others in calculating output in the education and health sectors. This has resulted in the UK’s GDP growth figures being lower in 2020, and higher in 2021 (as this effect unwound), compared with other G7 economies than they otherwise would have been."
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02...
I suppose it's not the dumbest idea. But the conservative party indulged too many eurosceptic cranks, turning it into an "us vs them" sort of deal, alienating would-be European partners who would become clients of such a tax/regulatory haven. Such clients either stick with the EU as a show of solidarity or just park their holdings outside of Europe as to not "take sides" in the messy Brexit ordeal.
To make matters worse, the conservative party ultimately lacked the fiscal discipline necessary to make the necessary tax cuts without ballooning debt. They needed the political will to make deep, painful cuts to government services, but instead chose to run against austerity. You can't have it both ways!
IMO they should abandon this boondoggle of a political project, rejoin the EU, and give up their extreme tax and regularity plans and go back to providing good public services to citizens.
I think you mean "to preserve".
In the wake of the GFC the EU adopted much stricter financial transparency laws.
Smearing, scorning, talking bad about everyone have become habits in British public discourse, as if they are exempt from the consequences of such conduct and everyone has to 'just take it' without having a reaction. A kind of exceptionalism that looks like a remnant of the old imperial era. Many Brits strongly assert that they do not live in Victorian times, but they sure behave like they do.
And if it's about interest rate setting I think as one of the top economies the UK wouldn't have any issues.
Don't stick with the pound out of sentimentality. It's a liability.
It’s a source of part of the national identity.
And, even if right now I’m not correct and most people don’t care, if this became the condition for joining then anyone who opposes the EU would make this a division issue, highlighting that it’s part of the national identity, oldest currency still in use, how can we sacrifice that etc etc.
Then suddenly people would care.
And yet in the last few weeks the UK government managed to cause a run on sterling. If they were using the Euro then that wouldn't have happened / limited effect and Mrs Truss could potentially have implemented her tax changes. Not that I support that, just pointing out there are also downsides to a sovereign monetary policy. I personally think that being in the bigger club, the EU trade zone and Euro, would be better for Britain.
Greece is a cautionary tale, but not necessarily a currency one. Yes, they had limited options after everything blew up, but they were heading in that direction because they kept taking loans and the loans kept being given. If they had been able to devalue their currency its not actually clear that would have solved the problem - doing so also requires tight fiscal policy. Iceland did it, with a tight fiscal policy.
What happened to Greece is a cautionary tale, and Britons would be wise to reject joining the Euro absent major political and fiscal reforms.
Greece is a cautionary tale, but not necessarily a currency one. Yes, they had limited options after everything blew up, but they were heading in that direction because they kept taking loans and the loans kept being given. If they had been able to devalue their currency its not actually clear that would have solved the problem - doing so also requires tight fiscal policy. Iceland did it, with a tight fiscal policy.
Much as I like the Euro, it hasn't gone to plan. I suspect if the EU could back out of it gently, it would - but it can't. It even bailed out Greece to prevent the idea of a country leaving the Eurozone. Everyone who doesn't have the Euro now is either committed to getting it eventually, or has a very special exception, like the UK did.
The EU might not want to, therefore, write a side letter for a new applicant, letting them pick and mix on Euro membership, as it might make the single currency more optional and less unremovable.
That said, when there is a will, there is a way: the pound could be pegged to the Euro, exchange rate volatility dropped, and eventually you could have Euros and Pounds be like Pounds and Scottish Pounds (which are separate but fungible). If there is a will...
They are required to adopt the Euro, as soon as they fulfill the Convergence criteria Those convergence criteria include "Compatibility of legislation", and Sweden simply doesn't make their laws compatible. (Details here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-financ...)
In summary, they have to join, if they are compliant. For that they have to pass laws, and they chose not to. So, it isn't quite as mandatory as some people paint it.
To quote from the report:
> The Swedish authorities are invited to remedy the abovementioned incompatibilities
Avoiding those laws was the reason for Brexit in the first place. London is the money laundering capital of the world.[1]
1. 2017: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/lon...
2014: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/london-is-money-launderin...
2022: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/21280-why-is-london-m...
That's only the bureaucratic angle that is related to the Eu rules. A country joining must be confirmed with referendums in other countries for it to happen. And the UK will never get in because of that.
For it to get in, the UK must totally change, leave the delirious cultural and political adherence to its long-gone empire behind, and prove that it is a modern, civilized neighbor to everyone. And that would take up to 50 years and more, if it ever happens.
Ultimately the EU is stronger with the UK as a member, and I’m sure if it’s willing to pay a high enough price it will be let back in (metrication, no-rebate, the euro etc).
No, really, it wasn't. The UK always acted as the trojan horse of the US inside Europe and sabotaged practically every initiative that could make the Eu a more synchronized, powerful entity. It sabotaged all central initiatives. It even acted as de facto pusher of US trade deals like TTIP, which would turn the Eu into a colonial corporate backyard for the US.
Which is one reason there wasn't much reaction from the European countries' establishments to the UK leaving the Eu, and it even looked like they wanted to facilitate it as fast as possible.
Minor correction: the countries' peoples don't really have a lot of say in any EU-level policy. They elect their national governments, who do.
If you need an example of this, read up on the 'Spitzenkandidaten' process and how - despite it, and the Parliament - Ursula von der Leyen ended up getting her job.
There is a lot of good stuff that results from the EU. A shining example of direct democracy in action, not so much.
That's factually false:
Every single Eu rule and initiative must be approved by the European parliament. The European Parliament's members are elected directly by the European people through proportional representation. Its much more democratic than the UK with its veto-powered royals, upper house with hereditary aristocrats and FPTP system.
I'm not sure what good that does. When did your MEP last initiate a piece of legislation?
The EU is as far from a direct democracy as it's possible to be. I'm currently in Switzerland, they have regular referendums, that's what makes a direct democracy.
Ursula von der Leyen was picked for her job in an intransparent closed-doors process, she wasn't even a candidate for anything.
"On 2 July 2019, von der Leyen was proposed by the European Council as the candidate for president of the European Commission"[0]
Now years later, I'm so thankful Brexit happened. The EU has gotten so much worse since the UK has left, and I can't see a future where the EU will be any better.
The UK lost alot of great benefits since we left the EU, but it has gained a lot more sovereignty. We don't have to abide by completely ridiculous laws the EU attempts to implement anymore.
The papers bring up various laws often, usually out of context, occasionally just made up. There are problematic farming laws (same rings true just about everywhere though).
An old colleague of mine used to run a farming operation under greenhouses and sold the business due to EU law changes that would make it unprofitable. This might be ridiculous, or it might be sensible across the whole EU, but he was unhappy about it.
You only asked for one, but there’s multitudes, for those who seek in good faith!
ROHS restrictions on leaded solder; vacuum cleaner wattage limitations; and EU/IFRA restrictions on perfumery ingredients (oakmoss, et al.), resulting in perfumiers declaring the art of perfumery “dead”, in the EU - are just a few that spring to mind, immediately.
Proudly, the uk has an ethnic minority pm, while the eu is still grinding its roma minority. Thats just the most recent example of how fundamentally messed up it is.
But it has good potential, hence i would have preferred the uk to remain so it can reform it or assert more influence to its advantage. I am still baffled as to why british banks and companies didnt establish a presence in all eu states as germany did. Would have been a breath of fresh air and very profitable.
Perhaps you want to return to asbestos, too?
Nice try - but I gave three examples of ridiculous regulations/legislation/law - not one.
Your cherry picking, and attempted distortion of my example(s), only demonstrates my previous statement.
The quantities of lead, in solder, is not hazardous to workers assembling boards. With the current state of electronics recycling, there is no danger of the “lead” being leeched into the ecosystem.
The higher temperatures required to solder, non leaded varieties, are also antithetical to the so called “energy conservation” rhetoric, favoured by the EU borg.
You provide no response to the ridiculous vacuum cleaner wattage limitations? Lower wattage cleaners, with less “suck”, take longer to clean the same surface area. Not only a waste of human effort, but electricity, too.
Also, no response(s) to my EU/IFRA perfumery example?!
These were just examples that came to mind, immediately. I’m sure if I could be arsed, I could completely eviscerate the comments from you, and others here - but I already know, that you’re not interested, and it’ll simply result in more “drive by quips”, and probably admin warnings, from your ilk.
That’s how Hacker News works. Flagging, downvotes, drive by ad hominem attacks, from pseudo intellectuals...
Where’s that picture of a teste in an egg cup, when you need it?!
Second, it takes significantly more effort to disprove misinformation and lies than to produce those.
Yes, I latched on to just one of the examples because if one is not a valid example, why am I to believe that the other examples are somehow good?
To continue with the first example, no, our methods of recycling are not enough. The vast majority of electronics end up in landfills, so it makes sense to both a) reduce the amount of hazardous materials in them (this "ridiculous law") and b) improve recycling (possibly other regulations).
The same, undoubtedly, goes for other "ridiculous" examples: misinformation, uncritical quotes from biased parties, and possibly outright lies.
However, it costs you nothing to spew this. It costs a lot of time to disprove you.
The government seems to want to change those laws anyway, to the frustration of many businesses.
For the sake of honest discussion can you enumerate which EU directives exactly are 'completely ridiculous'? And in what way they hold back UK sovereignty?
GP is angry his iPhone will have USB-C.
please.