So acting in your own future interests in dealings with other states is wrong? I thought being able to do that was pretty much why the UK should leave? Guess the position is "it's great if we do it, but how very dare anyone try to do it to us!"

Jesus H Christ. That's a summary of the daftness of Brexiters right there.

It's like you don't understand that the EU act on behalf of the EU nations, or that EU rules apply even if the UK tabloids would prefer that they don't. It's also obvious that the comments were as much about the UK suffering economically as the EU aren't about to regard them as a charity project. It's not about the EU being vindictive.

That's right. If you are in a club and one rules changes that you don't like then you throw you toys out of the pram and leave. Of course then you have fewer toys than ever before and have made things worse, but whatever.

The exchange that preceeded this shows why leave positions on here often seem circular. First it's claimed the reason the UK should leave is because the EU dictated terms to the UK about which it had no say and is beholden to. Marty points out it did have a say and indeed has a recourse anyway. Then we get the post above, seemingly not realising that it effectively agrees the stated reason for leaving was therefore incorrect.

I'm sure leavers actually think the EU itself is bad because political organisation at that level is inherently illegitimate somehow. However why that's the case needs to be argued not just stated, as, as Marty is pointing out, the UK already includes lots of different communities, some of whom end up being 'dictated' to - that's essentially a 'feature' of the way democracies work at the moment.

It stinks when the whole episode is just a domestic policy spectacle gone wrong. The UK pushes for east expansion and chooses not to implement the available limitations to free movement that most/all other rich EU countries use to shield their welfare states. Inequality in the UK is actually highest among the rich EU countries and there would be plenty of domestic policy options to change that, but that's not what Tories have in mind. Easier to deflect the push-back from struggling workers and blame foreigners and the EU as the root cause of the problem. Then put up a referendum for show to calm the masses, and be flabbergasted when things don't quite go as planned.

If the majority of the UK electorate made an informed decision to leave, that would be perfectly fine. It's just not at all what happened.

Like a lot of people who voted remain made an informed decision to stay?

Who the hell knows where the EU is heading, or when the chance to vote in a referendum on leaving if you don't like it will happen again?

I didn't claim that remain voters were necessarily better informed, the referendum was a complete farce from both campaigns. It just sucks when 40+ years of cooperation are thrown into chaos because some domestic power play went wrong. It's reckless to make important long term decisions on the basis of a 52% majority in some low-info referendum.

If UK voters want to leave because they don't like the idea of an ever closer union, that's completely cool with me. Before making that decision they should be presented with realistic paths forward though, for both scenarios. Both sides failed to do that, it was "project fear" (no vision forward) vs "have cake and eat it" (also no realistic vision).

what would a political union actually mean? direct election of a president with the ability to overrule the council?

it would be more "democratic" maybe, but it's obviously never going to happen because you're asking the member states in the council to give up their power. they're only in as long as they make the decisions. the eu is a polling of sovereignty, not a handing over of it.

Actually I completely agree.


But, given the lack of info and misinfornation on both sides, it came down to principle. Being better informed would have worked fine, other than the civil service etc were clearly invested in showing EU membership in best possible light, and leaving in worst possible light, and much of the press were the polar opposite.

My vote was, in the end, either to vote to stay in EU with all its problems, or leave.

I seriously don't see the EU wanting to change itself in any way to allow power to flow any way except into itself, and I'm not comfortable with that.

anyway, all this seems fairly likely to be where this ends https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...d-irish-border

I do laugh tho when we get EUers complaining Britain's leaving means that those staying have to pay the bill for stuff they want. Wtf.

Who made that case though?

UK should pay for existing commitments, that's it. If the UK wants to keep some access to the single market then that's probably not going to happen for free, but that's their choice entirely.

the eu budget is so small the it hardly makes a difference to the other countries whether the uk pays or not. the uk net contribution is something like 0.05% of eu27 gdp

and if they're lacking money in the next budget they can just take it from the agriculture subsidies which are mostly wasted anyway

When the Brit gov can just ignore agreements made concerning peace here then I think little things like monies due can also be very easily ignored.

Bitterballs isn't a real person, surely nobody is so ****ing dumb.

This. Even if the UK goes full rouge and doesn't honor any of the ~60bn commitments, that's still only like 0.1% of EU27 GDP when stretched out over the remaining budget cycle. Not that dramatic, at least in the grand scheme of Brexit related damage.

No. We already have a good deal going. And Leave voters are going to find themselves in considerable personal danger when it all hits home.

David Davis tells EU not to put politics above prosperity.

the fiscal settlement according to the financial times



just agree on the €32bn and move on. all this talking about money is so gauche

lol

I dont think you get the joke.

The sticking point of Brexit isn't the money. 32bn, 50bn, pretty much token change in the grand scheme of things.

UK cares more about passporting rights for London and freedom of movement of capital/goods/services but not of people.

The numbers are highly politically important to the conservatives. Many of their core voters will not want to see a "big" number.

Many of their core voters and Brexiters especially look at a few tens of billions and think that's astronomically high because they don't know how big the GDP is.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-1988-cbi-says

I guess we managed to delay the forecast apocalypse again, at least by another few weeks.