I think you are right about the failure to communicate. I just had a little look at their Europa website and there's some really good stuff on there. But it's not all easy to find and it does't leap and and grab you attention.
Below are some very good documents about the benefits of The EU, but they are buried away and well out of date. It's almost as if they don't feel the need to put a lot of effort into this. This is a great shame because the EU does a wonderful job, but it's hard as a supporter to make a compelling case when their own publications on the subject are years old. I'd like to think that if there was one benefit of Brexit it would be that the EU started to take its PR a little more seriously. That the referendum was over 18 month ago though, it doesn't look it. I guess we're stuck with most people getting their views from Her Majesty's Gutter Press.
As I posted previously, Brexit will, ultimately, prove to be one of the catalysts for EU reform.
Whether we will be part of that depends initially on our government’s negotiations ... oh fuck ... and then whether or not Macron and Merkel can push forward a multi track approach.
What is it that David "Thick as Mince" Davis doesn't get about how the single market works? Or does he know we cannot possibly have "frictionless" trade without regulatory compliance but realises that most of the public don't, so he can get away with this nonsense.
"...Mr Davis will say this can be achieved if both sides recognise each other's standards and regulations, promising the UK will "continue our track record of meeting high standards" once outside the EU. "
Meanwhile, "...The EU has previously said the UK will not be able to adopt its own standards and regulations and expect them to be recognised across Europe.
Last year EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier said: "The UK wants to take back control, it wants to adopt its own standards and regulations.
"But it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. That is what UK papers ask for.
"This is simply impossible. You cannot be outside the single market and shape its legal order."
Precisely Michel. If the EU has a moment of lunacy and allows products to be sold that meet UK standards but not EU then it can expect to spend the next 10 years fighting court challenges around the world demanding the same access.
Why Brexit at all costs really is dispiriting Alex Massie
Peace in Northern Ireland and the break-up of the UK are secondary concerns to Leave voters
For neither the first nor I suspect the last time since Brexit my thoughts have in recent days been borne back to The Great Gatsby. Specifically, that moment when F Scott Fitzgerald writes: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
Well, the Brexiteers — Boris and Michael and Liam and David and Nigel and the rest of them — are careless people too. They like smashing things as well. Yesterday Daniel Hannan, the MEP sometimes considered the leader of Brexit’s intellectual wing, suggested that “the Good Friday agreement has failed”. This is about more than just the latest impasse in the saga of how best to restore devolved rule to the province; it’s also a question of the Good Friday agreement getting in the way of Brexit.
Now it is true that the Belfast agreement has, as Mr Hannan noted, been exalted to something near sacred status. Peace, albeit a qualified peace, came at a price. What passed for the centre of Northern Irish politics was hollowed out; the ensuing space was filled by the extremes. The SDLP and Ulster Unionist parties were the highest-profile political casualties of the process. Peace was revolutionary, you see, and the revolution devoured its parents.
A Sinn Féin-Democratic Unionist Party duopoly was not quite what the founders of the peace process had in mind. It is entirely reasonable to think this sometimes unseemly double act vastly preferable to some of the available alternatives while still maintaining it is a sub-optimal outcome. Trust has remained elusive and will continue to do so, not least since an atmosphere of mistrust bakes in the electoral supremacy enjoyed by the DUP and Sinn Féin in their respective communities.
Nevertheless, the manner in which Brexiteers casually dismiss the problems of the Irish question would be breathtaking if it weren’t so very unsurprising. The Good Friday agreement, which is to say, the entire Northern Irish peace process, complicates and even threatens Brexit. This being so, it is obvious that the fault lies with the Belfast agreement, not with Brexit, and if one of them must go, well, it is not difficult to discern which of them Brexiteers consider more important.
According to the most recent Future of England survey, a joint initiative of the University of Edinburgh and Cardiff University, 81 per cent of Leave voters in England believe destabilising the Northern Irish peace process a price worth paying if that’s what Brexit requires. That’s quite something. But then so is the discovery that 88 per cent of those Leave voters consider Brexit more important than the survival of the United Kingdom. That is, they would accept Scottish independence if doing so guaranteed Brexit.
Now some of this may be a matter of prioritising something that’s happening now — Brexit — over hypothetical scenarios that are, perhaps, too hypothetical to be properly quantified in the here and now. That is, if the UK were on the brink of collapse even Leave voters in England may recalibrate their priorities. And yet, even in the abstract, these findings seem — and feel — telling.
After all, what do they know of the United Kingdom who only England know? Precious little, it sometimes seems. We must risk burning the village to save it. The difference between England and other parts of the realm is that, for many voters, Brexit has become England’s national question whereas it is, in the main, a matter of only subsidiary importance in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Leave votes in England were markedly more likely to be an expression of identity than they were in Scotland or Northern Ireland (Wales, as so often, is sui generis).
Brexit was made in England — unavoidably so, given that England comprises 84 per cent of the UK population — and it was made by Englishness. The more British a resident of England felt, the more likely they were to vote Remain but the impact, or pull, of Britishness was much less powerful than the effect Englishness had on an individual’s propensity to vote Leave.
That impact was even more keenly felt among Conservative voters than it was among Leave supporters. Almost 90 per cent of Tory Leavers think the Northern Irish peace process an acceptable piece of collateral damage on the way to a clean Brexit and a staggering 92 per cent say they think Brexit must be achieved even if doing so were to come at the cost of independence for Scotland. We must take back control even if doing so leaves us a smaller country.
All of which further underlines the radical carelessness at the heart of the Brexit project. For all that many Tory voters and Tory MPs endorsed Brexit, it remains a profoundly unconservative manoeuvre. A Tory sensibility, after all, is supposed to look askance at grand and radical projects; it is supposed to privilege a known, if imperfect, status quo over the unknown consequences of pursuing great adventures. Brexit is a repudiation of that Tory sensibility not its proof, and the carelessness with which its adherents treat the rest of the country is as revealing as it is dispiriting.
Surely it isn't the case that some brexit intellectuals now think the Good Friday agreement is a bad thing to be ignored and/or got rid of? Really? That has been thought through has it? How come those suggestions weren't out there before the referendum?
Oh apparently the EU are orchestrating this whole Irish border thing and forcing Ireland to adhere to a treaty Ireland independently signed with the UK.
Out of all the bonkers Brexiter conspiracy theories, the one that it is the EU pressuring Ireland to maintain the GFA is perhaps the least credible.
Right then, continuing my personal view of how the EU could/should reform. The following is my own wishlist of key policy changes. Again this isn't addressing head-on the multitrack question, and again, I would suspect that a longer chat with citizens from other EU27 countries could change my mind on some points. Nevertheless here goes:
1. Reduce the eye-watering cost of the CAP. How, is above my pay grade, but I do think that Macron represents the best chance we have of getting that done soon.
2. Addressing the immigration issue....
2.1. Beef up the EU border force, with the specific goal of patrolling the EU borders, thus lending much needed support to especially Italy and Greece, as well as shutting up Orban. The second major role will be intelligence led war on the people smugglers. Yes, that sounds like an EU army. Why not? In line with this, it seems that all those refugees in Norhern France who declare that their destination is the UK, need to be let across the Channel for the UK to deal with. Why should the EU deal with them. Unless of course, the UK offers to take part in all aspects of what I've just outlined. 2.2 Forget immigration quotas. Morally they sound right to us in richer EU countries, they don't sound right at all in the less mature newer countries. If we have the border force, the quid pro quo is moral pressure or incentive for them to accept some of those immigrants anyway, in a time of labour shortages in several of those countries. There isn't a pub or restaurant in Prague not looking for staff. 2.3 Cameron was right to say we should focus on supporting potential refugees before they set off on their dangerous journeys. It's ridiculous that Lebanon has to look after 1m refugees and we don't support that country.
3. Take a good long look at State Aid rules. In each country, there are poorer economic pockets, and these are precisely the places where the anti-EU message gains traction. If State Aid gets in the way of government support to get these economic blackspots moving, it needs re-thinking.
4. Undertake a thorough public review of the wisdom of seeking to create markets in the field of utilities. Energy, water, railways. Has this attempt to create markets worked for EU economies and citizens? Bearing in mind that it was the Brits who persuaded everyone that privatising water was a great idea, and now the Brits have cleared off...
5. Start an honest and open discussion about the euro, how it works, and what is needed to make it worthwhile for others to join. Specifically:
5.1 What fiscal harmonisation is both desirable and feasible? An obvious one is a common corporate tax rate. No more undercutting each other via tax. Could be easy to agree if State Aid rules are relaxed. Then we can get on with making Google Facebook et al pay their dues. 5.2 Specifically discuss -publicly - the Greece experience. What has it cost both the EU and Greece to keep it in? Could it have been handled better? What are the implications for the future in countries whose economies are obviously structurally different from those of the mainly northern euro members?
@PragueAddick You have done an impressive amount of work. My overall impression is that there are things that can be improved from within, and if done right everyone's a winner. Brexiters don't think that will ever happen and we are now out. So the UK alone has to deal with some of the details you outline, not least the issue of deprived regions. I have no faith that there is any practical plan from brexiters to tackle the UK problems that would have been tackled within the EU as a whole.
Before I do my thing, I see that by coincidence Gideon Rachman in the FT has decided to write an excellent article about the CL Brexit thread. As its behind a paywall, I paste the whole thing.
Brexit has had the unfortunate effect of turning British political analysts into football fans. The issue is so divisive that the two camps — Leave and Remain — are no longer capable of dispassionate analysis. Instead, they react to news from Europe like football supporters; cheering anything that seems to confirm their prejudices — and dismissing any discordant information, with the partisan certainty of a fan disputing an offside call against his team.
Any new development — viewed from Britain — now goes through the distorting mirror of confirmation bias. So Leavers saw the recent crisis in Catalonia, as confirmation of their belief that the EU is falling apart and is, besides, an anti-democratic project. They were also delighted by the struggles of Angela Merkel to form a coalition government; further evidence, as they saw it, that the EU is collapsing. By contrast, Ms Merkel’s apparent success in forming a coalition government and the easing of the Catalan crisis is interpreted by Remainers as confirmation of the innate stability of the European project.
The truth is more nuanced and more interesting. After a lousy half decade, the EU has had a very good year. Fears of a populist surge were beaten back in France and the Netherlands in 2017.
In Emmanuel Macron, the French president, the EU has found a new and charismatic champion. Economic growth is reviving — undermining the Leavers’ claim that being a member of the EU is liked “being shackled to a corpse”.
Leavers are so desperate for confirmation that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe
But it is also true that the long-term questions facing the European project have not been answered. The pro-EU centre is shrinking and political developments that would once have seemed shocking are now greeted with a shrug.
A decade ago, the powers-that-be in Brussels regarded Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, as a dangerous populist and Eurosceptic. But the rise of more radical populists is now so pronounced that the EU is left hoping that Mr Berlusconi will emerge as the kingmaker, after next month’s Italian election. In 2000, the presence of the nationalist Freedom party in the Austrian government was shocking enough to provoke the rest of the EU to shun the country. But when the Freedom party rejoined the government in Vienna a few months ago, there was little reaction from Brussels.
This lack of comment reflects the fact that the EU now faces even more troubling political challenges in central Europe — where both the Hungarian and Polish governments have moved in an increasingly illiberal direction. And even if the “grand coalition” goes through in Germany, the political centre is likely to continue to shrink — as the venerable, centre-left Social Democrat party loses support to the far-right and the far-left.
The danger for Britain’s Remainers, (and I am one of them), is that they are so determined to prove the idiocy of leaving the EU, that they endorse a one-sided narrative, in which everything is rosy in the Brussels garden. When bad news from Europe comes along — and there will be plenty — Remainers will be in danger of looking loftily out of touch.
Leavers have the opposite problem. Their difficulty is being the “boy who cries wolf” — forever proclaiming the imminent collapse of the EU, and then looking petulant and dishonest when the much-anticipated crisis fizzles out.
Britain’s anti-EU forces already have a record of consistently underestimating the resilience of the European project. This analytical flaw stems partly from a failure to understand the utter determination of the European elite to preserve the bloc’s integrity.
The Brexit process is also underlining another important point — the extent to which the EU underpins what businesses and ordinary citizens now regard as normal life in Europe. Breaking up the EU — by reimposing border controls and tariffs and restrictions on freedom of movement — would have a disastrous effect on the operations of businesses and a hugely disruptive impact on the lives of millions of people.
Ideology aside, Brexit is illustrating that the EU now provides the framework of laws and regulations that keep goods and people moving. The EU undoubtedly faces serious problems and — after a good patch — these may worsen again. But as long as the single market exists and the EU hangs together, the UK will still clearly suffer economically from leaving.
And then there is a moral question, as well as a practical one. Britain’s Leavers are so desperate for confirmation of their view that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe; tacitly supporting every nationalist movement, from Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France to Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in Hungary.
In that sense, the current problems of the EU actually support the case for remaining — not leaving. When faced with problems such as supporting liberal values in Hungary, dealing with the refugee crisis or preserving financial stability in Europe, there is no substitute for the EU. For all its flaws, it is the only real mechanism for trying to find solutions to pan-European problems that are legal, humane and equitable, and that prevent Europe sliding backwards into beggar-thy-neighbour nationalistic antagonisms. Britain should be part of the effort to find those solutions. Instead, through Brexit, it has become part of the problem.
You might want to read the two articles above and below it in the paper edition, by Janan Ganesh and John Thornhill, which both broadly make the point, from a Remain point of view by the way, that economic solutions are insufficient to satisfy people. The EU's future does not depend on its economic successes, but on its ability to solve what one of the writers refers to as the existential question. The revolt against the EU, across Europe, is broadly based on a sense that the European elites have lost the ability to maintain the existential security that people crave. This is as much a cultural as an economic question which the bureaucratic, technocratic elite seems incapable of addressing.
@rothko these figures are disgraceful ... I have been trying to get into the survey but cannot find a link anywhere, only comments and feedback on it.
Does anyone have a link to the survey itself?
I want to understand the mechanics of this and the actual questions asked.
Been trying to find the data for it, but they have presented it to the Tory and Labour conferences, so these might be the initial findings. Some more info on the Cardiff University site.
Before I do my thing, I see that by coincidence Gideon Rachman in the FT has decided to write an excellent article about the CL Brexit thread. As its behind a paywall, I paste the whole thing.
Brexit has had the unfortunate effect of turning British political analysts into football fans. The issue is so divisive that the two camps — Leave and Remain — are no longer capable of dispassionate analysis. Instead, they react to news from Europe like football supporters; cheering anything that seems to confirm their prejudices — and dismissing any discordant information, with the partisan certainty of a fan disputing an offside call against his team.
Any new development — viewed from Britain — now goes through the distorting mirror of confirmation bias. So Leavers saw the recent crisis in Catalonia, as confirmation of their belief that the EU is falling apart and is, besides, an anti-democratic project. They were also delighted by the struggles of Angela Merkel to form a coalition government; further evidence, as they saw it, that the EU is collapsing. By contrast, Ms Merkel’s apparent success in forming a coalition government and the easing of the Catalan crisis is interpreted by Remainers as confirmation of the innate stability of the European project.
The truth is more nuanced and more interesting. After a lousy half decade, the EU has had a very good year. Fears of a populist surge were beaten back in France and the Netherlands in 2017.
In Emmanuel Macron, the French president, the EU has found a new and charismatic champion. Economic growth is reviving — undermining the Leavers’ claim that being a member of the EU is liked “being shackled to a corpse”.
Leavers are so desperate for confirmation that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe
But it is also true that the long-term questions facing the European project have not been answered. The pro-EU centre is shrinking and political developments that would once have seemed shocking are now greeted with a shrug.
A decade ago, the powers-that-be in Brussels regarded Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, as a dangerous populist and Eurosceptic. But the rise of more radical populists is now so pronounced that the EU is left hoping that Mr Berlusconi will emerge as the kingmaker, after next month’s Italian election. In 2000, the presence of the nationalist Freedom party in the Austrian government was shocking enough to provoke the rest of the EU to shun the country. But when the Freedom party rejoined the government in Vienna a few months ago, there was little reaction from Brussels.
This lack of comment reflects the fact that the EU now faces even more troubling political challenges in central Europe — where both the Hungarian and Polish governments have moved in an increasingly illiberal direction. And even if the “grand coalition” goes through in Germany, the political centre is likely to continue to shrink — as the venerable, centre-left Social Democrat party loses support to the far-right and the far-left.
The danger for Britain’s Remainers, (and I am one of them), is that they are so determined to prove the idiocy of leaving the EU, that they endorse a one-sided narrative, in which everything is rosy in the Brussels garden. When bad news from Europe comes along — and there will be plenty — Remainers will be in danger of looking loftily out of touch.
Leavers have the opposite problem. Their difficulty is being the “boy who cries wolf” — forever proclaiming the imminent collapse of the EU, and then looking petulant and dishonest when the much-anticipated crisis fizzles out.
Britain’s anti-EU forces already have a record of consistently underestimating the resilience of the European project. This analytical flaw stems partly from a failure to understand the utter determination of the European elite to preserve the bloc’s integrity.
The Brexit process is also underlining another important point — the extent to which the EU underpins what businesses and ordinary citizens now regard as normal life in Europe. Breaking up the EU — by reimposing border controls and tariffs and restrictions on freedom of movement — would have a disastrous effect on the operations of businesses and a hugely disruptive impact on the lives of millions of people.
Ideology aside, Brexit is illustrating that the EU now provides the framework of laws and regulations that keep goods and people moving. The EU undoubtedly faces serious problems and — after a good patch — these may worsen again. But as long as the single market exists and the EU hangs together, the UK will still clearly suffer economically from leaving.
And then there is a moral question, as well as a practical one. Britain’s Leavers are so desperate for confirmation of their view that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe; tacitly supporting every nationalist movement, from Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France to Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in Hungary.
In that sense, the current problems of the EU actually support the case for remaining — not leaving. When faced with problems such as supporting liberal values in Hungary, dealing with the refugee crisis or preserving financial stability in Europe, there is no substitute for the EU. For all its flaws, it is the only real mechanism for trying to find solutions to pan-European problems that are legal, humane and equitable, and that prevent Europe sliding backwards into beggar-thy-neighbour nationalistic antagonisms. Britain should be part of the effort to find those solutions. Instead, through Brexit, it has become part of the problem.
You might want to read the two articles above and below it in the paper edition, by Janan Ganesh and John Thornhill, which both broadly make the point, from a Remain point of view by the way, that economic solutions are insufficient to satisfy people. The EU's future does not depend on its economic successes, but on its ability to solve what one of the writers refers to as the existential question. The revolt against the EU, across Europe, is broadly based on a sense that the European elites have lost the ability to maintain the existential security that people crave. This is as much a cultural as an economic question which the bureaucratic, technocratic elite seems incapable of addressing.
Macron is 100% aware of it, as he made clear in the recent interview he gave. You didn't notice because you fastened in on his remark that a referendum in a France might produce the same result as ours, ignoring both the context of what he said ( in a second language) and the rest of his interview.
Quite patently, my own humbly presented prescriptions for change in the EU are not solely economic. And however much you may wish it, there is no sign of a broad based movement in Europe that says "look at those plucky Brits, we should do that too" . There are unsavoury gatherings of extreme right wing groups from across Europe, often involving Farage or "Tommy Robinson", which rail against the EU, Muslims, gays and quinoa, but you don't have anything in common with them, do you? ( pace the penultimate para. of Rachmann's article)
@PragueAddick wouldn't argue with most of your list.
Do you realistically believe that the EU can/will address these issues over the next 5/10 years? With Macron providing momentum, I am sure much will happen but, as you know, he is meeting resistance from those who do not support change.
A report from Dallago and Rosefielde in 2018 comments that the UK did not leave the EU because its economy was underperforming, but for a myriad of grievances that EU authorities refused to confront, including Brussels’ intrusive bureaucratic over-regulation. This is certainly one of the issues that I have highlighted in the past.
In addition, as the 'Relaunching the EU' report states, "For the past several years, the EU has suffered from weak and insipid leadership, as it has lurched from one crisis to another" ... which is one of the main reasons why many of us voted to leave - we did not believe that anything we did would change things.
As I have admitted, the emergence of Macron has changed the complexion somewhat, and with Merkel still around (and, to a fair extent, supporting Macron) there is definitely cause to be more positive than was the case previously.
As Macron points out, we need more flexible institutional structures - the 'multi-track' EU that many of us on both sides are seeking.
Not surprisingly, my biggest interest is in trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach and stated my preference that it should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs).
My comment on this in the past, which I still adhere to to, was: "I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries."
The way forward is a ‘multi-track’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. Accommodation is possible in an inclusive multi-track system.
"Multi-track supranationalism would reduce discord because the scheme is pluralist and tolerant. It accepts diversity and eschews conformity. Moreover, the approach is compatible with democracy at multiple levels. The European electorate might well prefer it, and it could reflect the will of people forming each of the multiple tracks. " https://degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/hjbpa.2017.8.issue-3/hjbpa-2017-0019/hjbpa-2017-0019.pdf
The Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. This is also in line with one of the proposals in the European Commission document of March 2017.
In essence we would have a 'More Europe' approach at the core, which will move closer towards fiscal integration of the Eurozone, and an outer ring, 'Less Europe', wherein a number of multi-track options would be available. Plus, of course, the ability for collective actions when consensus allows.
I am just a single EU citizen with an opinion. However my thoughts are not so radical, if you are having this discussion in Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam or Brussels. You just don't hear them discussed in the UK media.
Of course seeing these issues properly addressed soon, is a big ask. I would be about as optimistic as I would be that the UK will successfully address the challenges facing the NHS and elderly care over the same time period.
I am just a single EU citizen with an opinion. However my thoughts are not so radical, if you are having this discussion in Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam or Brussels. You just don't hear them discussed in the UK media.
Of course seeing these issues properly addressed soon, is a big ask. I would be about as optimistic as I would be that the UK will successfully address the challenges facing the NHS and elderly care over the same time period.
See what i did there ? :-)
If Macron manages to obtain sufficient support from other countries, and fights for treaty change, then, despite potential opposition from the likes of Verhofstadt, Juncker, Barnier, etc, we may just have a chance for these issues to be pursued.
If I had confidence in our political class, I would hope that they would also be talking to other European leaders about this during the negotiations over the coming months. However, I am not convinced I have that confidence.
Having said that, I believe that there is still potential for a positive UK/EU outcome. Perhaps I just have too much belief in Macron .. we will see over the rest of the year.
The EU needs to continue to be improved. That does not mean it's significantly flawed as it is. It merely reflects the fact that the EU works to improve the opportunities and rights of EU citizens. And as the requirements of the citizens of the EU change, so the EU needs to adapt to reflect those changes.
All of us in the EU benefit directly and indirectly from the rights and opportunities that are protected and promoted by the EU. And, if nothing changes in future, membership of the EU does more for UK citizens' rights and opportunities than anything the Brexit clusterf*ck can hope to offer. The worst EU model available (ie the current version of the EU, without any further reform or improvement) does more for UK citizens than the wildest estimate as to what Brexit might be able to deliver.
I get the point that Brexit offers us the opportunity to negotiate trade deals with many, far-flung countries. (Although, I think the words "urgent and desperate need" in that sentence, as opposed to "opportunity"). But I cannot see how UK citizens rights and opportunities could be protected and promoted better by Brexit than by the EU.
Brexit offers British people less opportunity, fewer rights, likely lower growth and significantly less say on how the EU is run, moving forward. But I am sure that, at some point, Johnson, Gove, Davis or May will come out with something to show that it might be worth while. Surely..?
The EU needs to continue to be improved. That does not mean it's significantly flawed as it is. It merely reflects the fact that the EU works to improve the opportunities and rights of EU citizens. And as the requirements of the citizens of the EU change, so the EU needs to adapt to reflect those changes.
All of us in the EU benefit directly and indirectly from the rights and opportunities that are protected and promoted by the EU. And, if nothing changes in future, membership of the EU does more for UK citizens' rights and opportunities than anything the Brexit clusterf*ck can hope to offer. The worst EU model available (ie the current version of the EU, without any further reform or improvement) does more for UK citizens than the wildest estimate as to what Brexit might be able to deliver.
I get the point that Brexit offers us the opportunity to negotiate trade deals with many, far-flung countries. (Although, I think the words "urgent and desperate need" in that sentence, as opposed to "opportunity"). But I cannot see how UK citizens rights and opportunities could be protected and promoted better by Brexit than by the EU.
Brexit offers British people less opportunity, fewer rights, likely lower growth and significantly less say on how the EU is run, moving forward. But I am sure that, at some point, Johnson, Gove, Davis or May will come out with something to show that it might be worth while. Surely..?
I disagree and believe that Macron has it right in his book, wherein he states that: The EU is suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. He further states that the EU is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
The United Kingdom’s departure from the EU will be the catalyst for change in Europe. Brexit has come as a big shock to Brussels and that shock wave which will impact on the 27 as well as the U.K. will provide the reformers a platform. It will be slow and often painful I’m sure but the tragedy is that the UK will not benefit from the eventual reformed European Union.
I do believe that an alliance of Merkel, Macron and a British Prime Minister could have shaped that future but both the EU and Britain missed that opportunity.
Some bloke called Daniel Hannan has floated this idea has he? How come now all of a sudden? An MEP I see. And a brexiter.
Daniel Hannan, you say? You are not familiar with him, Seth? He is often on TV. He has very strange eyes. Some might say they swivel. He also has memory issues...
If there is a Brexiter out there who gives a shit about the Good Friday Agreement and the consequences of scrapping it, they are in a club of one.
I still haven't seen an adequate reconciliation of the below red lines:
1) maintaining the GFA 2) not being in SM/CU or regulatory alignment 3) not having an internal border between NI and the mainland
Scholars and experts deal in truth and logic whilst politicians have to traffic in mood and tone. However that rhetoric is for campaigns, question time and Sunday morning politics shows.
This thread illustrates the difference where some resort to rhetoric whilst others look for truth and guidance, if only to confirm/support their own instincts.
We are led to believe that there will be a Parliamentary vote on membership of the Customs Union in around four-six weeks time. Hard to predict the outcome but we will certainly see how many Tory remain rebels stand up and whether Labour adopts a common sense and popular line.
Parliament is not solely for experts nor emotional campaign rhetoric. It is there to express the will of the people! Not sure what device is being used to force a vote on the CU but it could well be pivotal in the development of this process.
Should Parliament vote to reconcile the red lines by changing the second, it's hard to see where May goes. However, it's not hard to predict the response from Hannan, Rees-Mogg et al. And that's where the fun begins!
As you point out, if red line number two remains intact then how does that sit with one and three? What does that do to the December agreement with Dublin and Brussels. If the government threatens that then they surrender all credibility and trust. Hannan doesn't care as he wants to blow up the whole lot.
The EU needs to continue to be improved. That does not mean it's significantly flawed as it is. It merely reflects the fact that the EU works to improve the opportunities and rights of EU citizens. And as the requirements of the citizens of the EU change, so the EU needs to adapt to reflect those changes.
All of us in the EU benefit directly and indirectly from the rights and opportunities that are protected and promoted by the EU. And, if nothing changes in future, membership of the EU does more for UK citizens' rights and opportunities than anything the Brexit clusterf*ck can hope to offer. The worst EU model available (ie the current version of the EU, without any further reform or improvement) does more for UK citizens than the wildest estimate as to what Brexit might be able to deliver.
I get the point that Brexit offers us the opportunity to negotiate trade deals with many, far-flung countries. (Although, I think the words "urgent and desperate need" in that sentence, as opposed to "opportunity"). But I cannot see how UK citizens rights and opportunities could be protected and promoted better by Brexit than by the EU.
Brexit offers British people less opportunity, fewer rights, likely lower growth and significantly less say on how the EU is run, moving forward. But I am sure that, at some point, Johnson, Gove, Davis or May will come out with something to show that it might be worth while. Surely..?
I disagree and believe that Macron has it right in his book, wherein he states that: The EU is suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. He further states that the EU is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
Take a deep breath and re-read the first two sentences of my post. The one you highlighted (for some reason) and the one immediately before it, to which it refers.
If something requires continual improvement, it does not necessarily mean that it is fundamentally flawed.
A doctor isn't flawed simply because she continues to learn and develop her skills. A cake that needs twenty more minutes of cooking isn't flawed. Scientists aren't flawed simply because there are still more discoveries to be made.
You may *think* that the EU is fundamentally flawed. But you can't disagree with the sentence you have highlighted, because that sentence doesn't state that the EU is fundamentally flawed. It merely explains that the previous sentence doesn't demonstrate that it's flawed.
Maybe you didn't really want to address the topic of my post and, instead wanted to introduce some "quotes" from another EU Head of State. If so, fill your boots. But it would be interesting to see whether you disagree with the fundamental point I made in my post. If you can see it.
I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You see the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is a complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referendum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one off decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow a better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want that pesky reality to go away, to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Some bloke called Daniel Hannan has floated this idea has he? How come now all of a sudden? An MEP I see. And a brexiter.
Daniel Hannan, you say? You are not familiar with him, Seth? He is often on TV. He has very strange eyes. Some might say they swivel. He also has memory issues...
The EU needs to continue to be improved. That does not mean it's significantly flawed as it is. It merely reflects the fact that the EU works to improve the opportunities and rights of EU citizens. And as the requirements of the citizens of the EU change, so the EU needs to adapt to reflect those changes.
All of us in the EU benefit directly and indirectly from the rights and opportunities that are protected and promoted by the EU. And, if nothing changes in future, membership of the EU does more for UK citizens' rights and opportunities than anything the Brexit clusterf*ck can hope to offer. The worst EU model available (ie the current version of the EU, without any further reform or improvement) does more for UK citizens than the wildest estimate as to what Brexit might be able to deliver.
I get the point that Brexit offers us the opportunity to negotiate trade deals with many, far-flung countries. (Although, I think the words "urgent and desperate need" in that sentence, as opposed to "opportunity"). But I cannot see how UK citizens rights and opportunities could be protected and promoted better by Brexit than by the EU.
Brexit offers British people less opportunity, fewer rights, likely lower growth and significantly less say on how the EU is run, moving forward. But I am sure that, at some point, Johnson, Gove, Davis or May will come out with something to show that it might be worth while. Surely..?
I disagree and believe that Macron has it right in his book, wherein he states that: The EU is suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. He further states that the EU is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
Take a deep breath and re-read the first two sentences of my post. The one you highlighted (for some reason) and the one immediately before it, to which it refers.
If something requires continual improvement, it does not necessarily mean that it is fundamentally flawed.
A doctor isn't flawed simply because she continues to learn and develop her skills. A cake that needs twenty more minutes of cooking isn't flawed. Scientists aren't flawed simply because there are still more discoveries to be made.
You may *think* that the EU is fundamentally flawed. But you can't disagree with the sentence you have highlighted, because that sentence doesn't state that the EU is fundamentally flawed. It merely explains that the previous sentence doesn't demonstrate that it's flawed.
Maybe you didn't really want to address the topic of my post and, instead wanted to introduce some "quotes" from another EU Head of State. If so, fill your boots. But it would be interesting to see whether you disagree with the fundamental point I made in my post. If you can see it.
Not sure if I am missing something here - it could be my misunderstanding - if so, I apologise.
To recap, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed in its current state ... as does Macron, Merkel and many others in positions of power.
It is not just me (and them) that believes that - many other commentators do (e.g. also refer to the report that @PragueAddick provided).
And why do you refer to the comments from Macron as 'quotes' - do you think I have provided an incorrect reflection of his statements? Read his book and you will see that they are exactly his thoughts.
I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You seem the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referundum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one of decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow some better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want the pesky reality to go away, to stick the fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Any chance of referring me to the statements I have made that fit in with your generic comments - highlighted - about those who voted Brexit?
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
But @Stonemuse...would you say the concept of the NHS is 'fundamentally flawed'? I believe not. Hardly any normal Brits want to change it, conceptually.
Yet it has huge, some might say intractable problems. It's always been on the political agenda hasn't it? And all kinds of people have various prescriptions for fixing it. Meantime people working in the frontline of it despair of the inaction.
But, fundamentally flawed? I don't think so.
There is no evidence either that the majority of citizens of the EU 27 think the EU is "fundamentally flawed" either. Not in France, not in Sweden, not in Poland. They think it's got some big problems for sure. "Fundamentally flawed" means that the whole design of the thing dooms it to failure. It hasn't failed. I just need to look out of my office window to see the evidence of that.
You might be on slightly less dodgy grounds if you use that phrase in respect of the euro, but that is not what you are referring to.
Comments
Whether we will be part of that depends initially on our government’s negotiations ... oh fuck
"...Mr Davis will say this can be achieved if both sides recognise each other's standards and regulations, promising the UK will "continue our track record of meeting high standards" once outside the EU. "
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43120277
Meanwhile, "...The EU has previously said the UK will not be able to adopt its own standards and regulations and expect them to be recognised across Europe.
Last year EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier said: "The UK wants to take back control, it wants to adopt its own standards and regulations.
"But it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. That is what UK papers ask for.
"This is simply impossible. You cannot be outside the single market and shape its legal order."
Precisely Michel. If the EU has a moment of lunacy and allows products to be sold that meet UK standards but not EU then it can expect to spend the next 10 years fighting court challenges around the world demanding the same access.
Alex Massie
Peace in Northern Ireland and the break-up of the UK are secondary concerns to Leave voters
For neither the first nor I suspect the last time since Brexit my thoughts have in recent days been borne back to The Great Gatsby. Specifically, that moment when F Scott Fitzgerald writes: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
Well, the Brexiteers — Boris and Michael and Liam and David and Nigel and the rest of them — are careless people too. They like smashing things as well. Yesterday Daniel Hannan, the MEP sometimes considered the leader of Brexit’s intellectual wing, suggested that “the Good Friday agreement has failed”. This is about more than just the latest impasse in the saga of how best to restore devolved rule to the province; it’s also a question of the Good Friday agreement getting in the way of Brexit.
Now it is true that the Belfast agreement has, as Mr Hannan noted, been exalted to something near sacred status. Peace, albeit a qualified peace, came at a price. What passed for the centre of Northern Irish politics was hollowed out; the ensuing space was filled by the extremes. The SDLP and Ulster Unionist parties were the highest-profile political casualties of the process. Peace was revolutionary, you see, and the revolution devoured its parents.
A Sinn Féin-Democratic Unionist Party duopoly was not quite what the founders of the peace process had in mind. It is entirely reasonable to think this sometimes unseemly double act vastly preferable to some of the available alternatives while still maintaining it is a sub-optimal outcome. Trust has remained elusive and will continue to do so, not least since an atmosphere of mistrust bakes in the electoral supremacy enjoyed by the DUP and Sinn Féin in their respective communities.
Nevertheless, the manner in which Brexiteers casually dismiss the problems of the Irish question would be breathtaking if it weren’t so very unsurprising. The Good Friday agreement, which is to say, the entire Northern Irish peace process, complicates and even threatens Brexit. This being so, it is obvious that the fault lies with the Belfast agreement, not with Brexit, and if one of them must go, well, it is not difficult to discern which of them Brexiteers consider more important.
According to the most recent Future of England survey, a joint initiative of the University of Edinburgh and Cardiff University, 81 per cent of Leave voters in England believe destabilising the Northern Irish peace process a price worth paying if that’s what Brexit requires. That’s quite something. But then so is the discovery that 88 per cent of those Leave voters consider Brexit more important than the survival of the United Kingdom. That is, they would accept Scottish independence if doing so guaranteed Brexit.
Now some of this may be a matter of prioritising something that’s happening now — Brexit — over hypothetical scenarios that are, perhaps, too hypothetical to be properly quantified in the here and now. That is, if the UK were on the brink of collapse even Leave voters in England may recalibrate their priorities. And yet, even in the abstract, these findings seem — and feel — telling.
After all, what do they know of the United Kingdom who only England know? Precious little, it sometimes seems. We must risk burning the village to save it. The difference between England and other parts of the realm is that, for many voters, Brexit has become England’s national question whereas it is, in the main, a matter of only subsidiary importance in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Leave votes in England were markedly more likely to be an expression of identity than they were in Scotland or Northern Ireland (Wales, as so often, is sui generis).
Brexit was made in England — unavoidably so, given that England comprises 84 per cent of the UK population — and it was made by Englishness. The more British a resident of England felt, the more likely they were to vote Remain but the impact, or pull, of Britishness was much less powerful than the effect Englishness had on an individual’s propensity to vote Leave.
That impact was even more keenly felt among Conservative voters than it was among Leave supporters. Almost 90 per cent of Tory Leavers think the Northern Irish peace process an acceptable piece of collateral damage on the way to a clean Brexit and a staggering 92 per cent say they think Brexit must be achieved even if doing so were to come at the cost of independence for Scotland. We must take back control even if doing so leaves us a smaller country.
All of which further underlines the radical carelessness at the heart of the Brexit project. For all that many Tory voters and Tory MPs endorsed Brexit, it remains a profoundly unconservative manoeuvre. A Tory sensibility, after all, is supposed to look askance at grand and radical projects; it is supposed to privilege a known, if imperfect, status quo over the unknown consequences of pursuing great adventures. Brexit is a repudiation of that Tory sensibility not its proof, and the carelessness with which its adherents treat the rest of the country is as revealing as it is dispiriting.
Really?
That has been thought through has it?
How come those suggestions weren't out there before the referendum?
I still haven't seen an adequate reconciliation of the below red lines:
1) maintaining the GFA
2) not being in SM/CU or regulatory alignment
3) not having an internal border between NI and the mainland
How come now all of a sudden?
An MEP I see.
And a brexiter.
Does anyone have a link to the survey itself?
I want to understand the mechanics of this and the actual questions asked.
Out of all the bonkers Brexiter conspiracy theories, the one that it is the EU pressuring Ireland to maintain the GFA is perhaps the least credible.
1. Reduce the eye-watering cost of the CAP. How, is above my pay grade, but I do think that Macron represents the best chance we have of getting that done soon.
2. Addressing the immigration issue....
2.1. Beef up the EU border force, with the specific goal of patrolling the EU borders, thus lending much needed support to especially Italy and Greece, as well as shutting up Orban. The second major role will be intelligence led war on the people smugglers. Yes, that sounds like an EU army. Why not? In line with this, it seems that all those refugees in Norhern France who declare that their destination is the UK, need to be let across the Channel for the UK to deal with. Why should the EU deal with them. Unless of course, the UK offers to take part in all aspects of what I've just outlined.
2.2 Forget immigration quotas. Morally they sound right to us in richer EU countries, they don't sound right at all in the less mature newer countries. If we have the border force, the quid pro quo is moral pressure or incentive for them to accept some of those immigrants anyway, in a time of labour shortages in several of those countries. There isn't a pub or restaurant in Prague not looking for staff.
2.3 Cameron was right to say we should focus on supporting potential refugees before they set off on their dangerous journeys. It's ridiculous that Lebanon has to look after 1m refugees and we don't support that country.
3. Take a good long look at State Aid rules. In each country, there are poorer economic pockets, and these are precisely the places where the anti-EU message gains traction. If State Aid gets in the way of government support to get these economic blackspots moving, it needs re-thinking.
4. Undertake a thorough public review of the wisdom of seeking to create markets in the field of utilities. Energy, water, railways. Has this attempt to create markets worked for EU economies and citizens? Bearing in mind that it was the Brits who persuaded everyone that privatising water was a great idea, and now the Brits have cleared off...
5. Start an honest and open discussion about the euro, how it works, and what is needed to make it worthwhile for others to join. Specifically:
5.1 What fiscal harmonisation is both desirable and feasible? An obvious one is a common corporate tax rate. No more undercutting each other via tax. Could be easy to agree if State Aid rules are relaxed. Then we can get on with making Google Facebook et al pay their dues.
5.2 Specifically discuss -publicly - the Greece experience. What has it cost both the EU and Greece to keep it in? Could it have been handled better? What are the implications for the future in countries whose economies are obviously structurally different from those of the mainly northern euro members?
Right, back to work...
My overall impression is that there are things that can be improved from within, and if done right everyone's a winner.
Brexiters don't think that will ever happen and we are now out.
So the UK alone has to deal with some of the details you outline, not least the issue of deprived regions.
I have no faith that there is any practical plan from brexiters to tackle the UK problems that would have been tackled within the EU as a whole.
Also elites is a nonsense term.
Quite patently, my own humbly presented prescriptions for change in the EU are not solely economic. And however much you may wish it, there is no sign of a broad based movement in Europe that says "look at those plucky Brits, we should do that too" . There are unsavoury gatherings of extreme right wing groups from across Europe, often involving Farage or "Tommy Robinson", which rail against the EU, Muslims, gays and quinoa, but you don't have anything in common with them, do you? ( pace the penultimate para. of Rachmann's article)
Do you realistically believe that the EU can/will address these issues over the next 5/10 years? With Macron providing momentum, I am sure much will happen but, as you know, he is meeting resistance from those who do not support change.
A report from Dallago and Rosefielde in 2018 comments that the UK did not leave the EU because its economy was underperforming, but for a myriad of grievances that EU authorities refused to confront, including Brussels’ intrusive bureaucratic over-regulation. This is certainly one of the issues that I have highlighted in the past.
In addition, as the 'Relaunching the EU' report states, "For the past several years, the EU has suffered from weak and insipid leadership, as it has lurched from one crisis to another" ... which is one of the main reasons why many of us voted to leave - we did not believe that anything we did would change things.
As I have admitted, the emergence of Macron has changed the complexion somewhat, and with Merkel still around (and, to a fair extent, supporting Macron) there is definitely cause to be more positive than was the case previously.
As Macron points out, we need more flexible institutional structures - the 'multi-track' EU that many of us on both sides are seeking.
Not surprisingly, my biggest interest is in trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach and stated my preference that it should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs).
My comment on this in the past, which I still adhere to to, was: "I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries."
The way forward is a ‘multi-track’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. Accommodation is possible in an inclusive multi-track system.
"Multi-track supranationalism would reduce discord because the scheme is pluralist and tolerant. It accepts diversity and eschews conformity. Moreover, the approach is compatible with democracy at multiple levels. The European electorate might well prefer it, and it could reflect the will of people forming each of the multiple tracks. "
https://degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/hjbpa.2017.8.issue-3/hjbpa-2017-0019/hjbpa-2017-0019.pdf
The Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. This is also in line with one of the proposals in the European Commission document of March 2017.
In essence we would have a 'More Europe' approach at the core, which will move closer towards fiscal integration of the Eurozone, and an outer ring, 'Less Europe', wherein a number of multi-track options would be available. Plus, of course, the ability for collective actions when consensus allows.
Just a quick answer to your initial question.
I am just a single EU citizen with an opinion. However my thoughts are not so radical, if you are having this discussion in Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam or Brussels. You just don't hear them discussed in the UK media.
Of course seeing these issues properly addressed soon, is a big ask. I would be about as optimistic as I would be that the UK will successfully address the challenges facing the NHS and elderly care over the same time period.
See what i did there ? :-)
If I had confidence in our political class, I would hope that they would also be talking to other European leaders about this during the negotiations over the coming months. However, I am not convinced I have that confidence.
Having said that, I believe that there is still potential for a positive UK/EU outcome. Perhaps I just have too much belief in Macron .. we will see over the rest of the year.
All of us in the EU benefit directly and indirectly from the rights and opportunities that are protected and promoted by the EU. And, if nothing changes in future, membership of the EU does more for UK citizens' rights and opportunities than anything the Brexit clusterf*ck can hope to offer. The worst EU model available (ie the current version of the EU, without any further reform or improvement) does more for UK citizens than the wildest estimate as to what Brexit might be able to deliver.
I get the point that Brexit offers us the opportunity to negotiate trade deals with many, far-flung countries. (Although, I think the words "urgent and desperate need" in that sentence, as opposed to "opportunity"). But I cannot see how UK citizens rights and opportunities could be protected and promoted better by Brexit than by the EU.
Brexit offers British people less opportunity, fewer rights, likely lower growth and significantly less say on how the EU is run, moving forward. But I am sure that, at some point, Johnson, Gove, Davis or May will come out with something to show that it might be worth while. Surely..?
The United Kingdom’s departure from the EU will be the catalyst for change in Europe. Brexit has come as a big shock to Brussels and that shock wave which will impact on the 27 as well as the U.K. will provide the reformers a platform. It will be slow and often painful I’m sure but the tragedy is that the UK will not benefit from the eventual reformed European Union.
I do believe that an alliance of Merkel, Macron and a British Prime Minister could have shaped that future but both the EU and Britain missed that opportunity.
This thread illustrates the difference where some resort to rhetoric whilst others look for truth and guidance, if only to confirm/support their own instincts.
We are led to believe that there will be a Parliamentary vote on membership of the Customs Union in around four-six weeks time. Hard to predict the outcome but we will certainly see how many Tory remain rebels stand up and whether Labour adopts a common sense and popular line.
Parliament is not solely for experts nor emotional campaign rhetoric. It is there to express the will of the people! Not sure what device is being used to force a vote on the CU but it could well be pivotal in the development of this process.
Should Parliament vote to reconcile the red lines by changing the second, it's hard to see where May goes. However, it's not hard to predict the response from Hannan, Rees-Mogg et al. And that's where the fun begins!
As you point out, if red line number two remains intact then how does that sit with one and three? What does that do to the December agreement with Dublin and Brussels. If the government threatens that then they surrender all credibility and trust. Hannan doesn't care as he wants to blow up the whole lot.
If something requires continual improvement, it does not necessarily mean that it is fundamentally flawed.
A doctor isn't flawed simply because she continues to learn and develop her skills. A cake that needs twenty more minutes of cooking isn't flawed. Scientists aren't flawed simply because there are still more discoveries to be made.
You may *think* that the EU is fundamentally flawed. But you can't disagree with the sentence you have highlighted, because that sentence doesn't state that the EU is fundamentally flawed. It merely explains that the previous sentence doesn't demonstrate that it's flawed.
Maybe you didn't really want to address the topic of my post and, instead wanted to introduce some "quotes" from another EU Head of State. If so, fill your boots. But it would be interesting to see whether you disagree with the fundamental point I made in my post. If you can see it.
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear"
Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You see the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is a complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referendum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one off decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow a better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want that pesky reality to go away, to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
To recap, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed in its current state ... as does Macron, Merkel and many others in positions of power.
It is not just me (and them) that believes that - many other commentators do (e.g. also refer to the report that @PragueAddick provided).
And why do you refer to the comments from Macron as 'quotes' - do you think I have provided an incorrect reflection of his statements? Read his book and you will see that they are exactly his thoughts.
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
Yet it has huge, some might say intractable problems. It's always been on the political agenda hasn't it? And all kinds of people have various prescriptions for fixing it. Meantime people working in the frontline of it despair of the inaction.
But, fundamentally flawed? I don't think so.
There is no evidence either that the majority of citizens of the EU 27 think the EU is "fundamentally flawed" either. Not in France, not in Sweden, not in Poland. They think it's got some big problems for sure. "Fundamentally flawed" means that the whole design of the thing dooms it to failure. It hasn't failed. I just need to look out of my office window to see the evidence of that.
You might be on slightly less dodgy grounds if you use that phrase in respect of the euro, but that is not what you are referring to.