Lol, always a pointless exercise as long as you ask the question absent any context:
Q. "Would you like more things?"
A. "Yay!"
Versus:
Q. "Would you like to rejoin the EU if it also means; no opt-outs from the euro/schenghen/eurojust/bailout-mechanisms. You also get freedom of movement and the promise of ever-closer-union in terms of supranational political integration? Oh, and the rebate is gone baby."
@indisin - If that's your take then fair enough, I really do want to rejoin for one personal reason: me and my partner wanted to do a few of years as digital nomads. 6 months on 6 months off. As I'm also an Aussie now, my British passport is useless unless I wanna move back to the UK, which I do not.
you will understand, i hope, if i don't discard my principles on the best way to implement representative and accountable governance for UK citizens, in order to accomodate your gap year jaunt across european borders?
particularly to someone who's sole attachment to british citizenship appears to be the utility of the passport in taking him elsewhere! :D
I'm not sure the pound will be that much of a pain point in the future.
We are already a hugely cashless society, more so than a lot of other countries so the look of money isn't as much of an issue.
Beyond that there always seems to be complaints about the government/BOE and how they manage monetary policy, having a different body setting it is less scary when confidence in the people already doing it is low.
And do you think that would be a good basis for allowing UK accession?
"We were a pain your ass for the last thirty years, and there is a large core of skepticism that remains for the core project of Ever Closer Union, but can you let us back in on the basis that we won't take part in the integration process...?"
Yes? The pound is objectively a valuable and useful thing to have, and adopting the euro offers no upside to either the EU or UK. Delayed indefinitely suits everyone best.
And EU federalism ins't happening with or without the UK. If it was ever going to happen, it was going to happen early. It's a great idea, in an ideal world, it would have happened. But we very clearly are not heading in that direction.
I have to say that I am skeptical that the EU would be interested in letting us back in on the explicit basis that we're entirely resolved to continue our euroskeptic and anti-integration ways!
Yea, i think people think about the UK rejoining all wrong. "Keeping the pound" or "schengen" or whatever are downstream questions of "should we join the eu".
And the "should we join the eu" is not going to be a relevant question until there has been a reckoning in the uk where the media, political establishment (in all the parties) have dealt with the lies, consequences, etc. Since if there is a chance that the next pm can come in and just tear it all up again, its not worth the effort to get you in.
Once that has happend, we are talking about a climate where instead of 55% of people are for it, we are talking about 75-80% or so are for it. And they will trust the government todo their best to negotiate and prepare for joining. Petty questions like "the pound" or "schengen" then wont really matter.
The UK is just not joining until it is joining in a fulsome and good faith way. And exactly, being euroskeptical and anti-integration in the eu wont happen, since you wont have had that reckoning yet.
The main influence of the GBP comes from its use internationally. That use would not transfer over to the euro clearly, and for most of its international users, switching to the dollar would be more likely. The euro would see an increase, but not as big as the US’s.
The euro is already de facto optional. It doesn't matter, really. The idea that the EU wants to force the UK to adopt the euro is Brexiteer propaganda. As an EU citizen, believe me: nobody cares.
What is non-negotiable are the four freedoms: goods, services, capital, labour (aka freedom of movement). If you want some but not others then we'll complain about cherry-picking and refusing to make a deal.
All EU member states are in principle obliged to introduce the euro once they fulfil the convergence criteria. The only exception is Denmark, which has an 'opt-out clause' in the EU treaties, exempting the country from the obligation to adopt the euro.
Reminds me of the Simpsons where they are asking whether they want zany cartoon antics or down-to-earth real world problems and the kids go nuts for both
Yeah, sorry. I misunderstood exactly what you were referring to. The UK rebate was due to Britain's comparatively small agricultural sector in comparison to the rest of the EEC.
Everyone, please forgive this poor englishperson, they are not educated in their own history, and don't know why Ireland was screwed over for 800 years. They still think they can talk like an Empire.
the English go on about the Germans in 1966 The Unionists go on about 1690 every July. Cute to pick an invasion start date but Ireland hasn't even celebrated the centenary of its independence yet.
It didn’t affect you so why mention it!
Being accused of scrounging by a bunch of EU rebate lovers is an effect. Ireland did get necessary funding from the EU for infrastructure (see 800 years) but has been paying more to the EU than it gets back since 2013.
The likes of Germany and France are the main contributors to the EU, with wealth comes special privileges, and the special privilege is to make decisions for the rest of the EU because of power and wealth
That’s because we were one of the largest contributors, don’t think that the EU is a level playing field, that’s extremely delusional. France and Germany run the EU and the rest of the minions do as they are told.
agreed. but franco german 'engine' rules the EU not just because they are the largest, but beecause they are the largest [and] lean into the integrationist mandate of the Commission and Council.
It was a political campaign and both sides played to their strengths and downplayed their weaknesses.
Remain flat-out lied every bit as much as Leave in the way they downplayed future political and economic integration, not to mention the absudist claims to economic doom in the event of voting to leave.
Can you name one lie told by the remain camp with source, that is equally stupid as making up a number and lying this much money can be spent on public health while neither the number was based on any facts nor was there any intention to improve the public health system?
Since we're basing this argument on the NHS claim on the bus, it is only fair to point out that health spending reached and exceeded the claim on the bus in the years succeeding brexit.
After Brexit, the UK government did increase NHS funding. Theresa May pledged an extra £20.5 billion by 2023/24, and more increases have followed. But it’s misleading to say this money directly came from Brexit savings. In reality, the economic damage from Brexit (estimated at around a 4% GDP loss) has far outweighed any savings from leaving the EU.
So: NHS funding did rise, but the £350 million claim was never fully realized, and the broader economic picture makes the “Brexit dividend” largely a myth.
Still waiting for the lies from the remain camp.
You are being lied to by crazy right-wing charlatans. They don’t even believe in liberal economic theory
This was always an end reduction in future net growth over a ten/fifteen year horizon.
And the 'damage' was predicated in large put due to reduced immigration rather than increased trade friction. There was no reduction in immigration.
So the 'cost' brexit doesn't exist; there has been no 4% reduction in ecomomic output. And there never will be, because the assumptions the [model] was built on are not accurate.
Of course. Not accurate. So did Britain profit from Brexit economically or not? The additional investment was most likely due to compensating for the resulting inflation and lack of skilled labour.
Obviously 350mio. was the wrong number.
So what about the lies from the remain camp?
"Q. "Would you like to rejoin the EU if it also means; no opt-outs from the euro/schenghen/eurojust/bailout-mechanisms, and the promise of ever-closer-union in terms of political integration? Oh, and the rebate is gone baby.""
Where do I sign up?? I have no strong ties to the Pound, it's just a piece of paper that, in current society, we are seeing less and less of (and we can still have our "heroes" on it).
Passportless travel in and out of the mainland, brilliant no queues (unless you're really british and love your queues)
Eurojust - Do we not think criminal justice cooperation is a bad thing (or is that only the tax dodging UK billionaires??)
Bailout - part and parcel of general economics, did we not bailout our UK banks at great expense (and now we're thinking about removing all to protections that we put in place to prevent another instance)
Closer Union - take a look around the rest of the world, a stronger Europe is no bad thing given our "Allies" and enemies.
oh absolutely not. I have no doubt that my Europe unionism, is fairly unique. I just don't have a problem with the issues as mentioned in your comment, though I totally understand that others do not and will never feel the same way.
I just don't see them as "negatives" enough to stop re-joining from my POV, that's not to say that there exists another issue, as yet undiscovered, that could change my mind
222
u/Jedibeeftrix May 14 '25 edited May 14 '25
Lol, always a pointless exercise as long as you ask the question absent any context:
Q. "Would you like more things?"
A. "Yay!"
Versus:
Q. "Would you like to rejoin the EU if it also means; no opt-outs from the euro/schenghen/eurojust/bailout-mechanisms. You also get freedom of movement and the promise of ever-closer-union in terms of supranational political integration? Oh, and the rebate is gone baby."
A. "...Erghh!"