When will the UK rejoin the EU?

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

So any attempt by Starmer to stop short of rejoining but attempting to move towards that by way of even the customs' union is also telling those Leave voters they are idiots.

I do see the logic of SKS's position even though I would still judge it as being over-cautious but as I said only a few hours ago to YF it is only a potentially winning strategy whilst Johnson remains PM, and here we are already.........

Admittedly a Tory party that was stupid enough to elect Johnson just might be stupid enough to replace him with Truss but I think its more likely that Johnson has now provided them with a wake up call that will probably see them make a much more sensible choice - and if they do SKS can no longer sit on the sidelines and just wait for the Tories to throw the election. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

One thing that occurs to me is that, for all his faults, Johnson is amenable to throwing money at problems, which overall has been very important in keeping people going through the Covid crisis. If he is successfully shifted by the Conservatives and he's replaced by someone along the lines of Sunak, then the less well off are going to have a really nasty few years before the next election. 

[Baracouda 47]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

CM, Starmer's problem is not just that if he talks about rejoining the EU he will in effect be telling the 17m-plus who voted Leave that they are idiots.

All surveys showed that the vast majority (at least 90 per cent) who voted Leave did so on the interlinked issues of sovereignty and immigration. BoJo's ultra-hard Brexit is of course a self-harming disaster that has made the UK a laughing-stock, but the sad fact is that it is a logical result of what motivated those 17m-plus Leavers.

Whether they realised it or not their vote for control of borders meant the UK had to leave the single market and their vote for sovereignty (arguably a mirage but that's not the point here) meant a customs' union was also out of the question.

So any attempt by Starmer to stop short of rejoining but attempting to move towards that by way of even the customs' union is also telling those Leave voters they are idiots.

I voted leave on the sovereignty issues, I like most Brits would have been happy with the traditional free movement of people & goods, but when it started becoming a de-facto state, a single currency and speculation of a joint army. Along with the courts etc. You really have to wonder what it was becoming. 

Think it's perfectly fine for Starmer to come out and effectively call anyone who voted leave an 'idiot', if so many people in the country have changed their mind he would win by a landslide. But his problems go way beyond his policies. Whilst Corbyn wasn't the most popular in that, he didn't win the election. At least most people could articulate what Corbyn stood for and there was a believe Corbyn believed in his policies. Starmer on the other hand, doesn't appear to have any inherit values and says whatever he thinks will gain political traction. Starmer he also appears to lack any charism and considering, the Johnson government any competent opposition leader should be in a 15-20 point poll lead by now. 

 

[Well b back 3,190]

According to Hesseltine a few minutes ago, as soon as Johnson goes as he lied to get the leave vote.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

3 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

I voted leave on the sovereignty issues, I like most Brits would have been happy with the traditional free movement of people & goods, but when it started becoming a de-facto state, a single currency and speculation of a joint army. Along with the courts etc. You really have to wonder what it was becoming. 

Think it's perfectly fine for Starmer to come out and effectively call anyone who voted leave an 'idiot', if so many people in the country have changed their mind he would win by a landslide. But his problems go way beyond his policies. Whilst Corbyn wasn't the most popular in that, he didn't win the election. At least most people could articulate what Corbyn stood for and there was a believe Corbyn believed in his policies. Starmer on the other hand, doesn't appear to have any inherit values and says whatever he thinks will gain political traction. Starmer he also appears to lack any charism and considering, the Johnson government any competent opposition leader should be in a 15-20 point poll lead by now. 

 

Not calling the public stupid is politics 101. Everyone knows that a lot of the public are stupid, but you won't win their votes by telling them that. 

In my opinion, unless something radical happens in Scotland to bring the SNP into disrepute, even as things stand, an outright Labour majority is very unlikely indeed, so a Labour leader without any strong ideological leanings is actually ideal for running a coalition government. 

 

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Not calling the public stupid is politics 101. Everyone knows that a lot of the public are stupid, but you won't win their votes by telling them that. 

In my opinion, unless something radical happens in Scotland to bring the SNP into disrepute, even as things stand, an outright Labour majority is very unlikely indeed, so a Labour leader without any strong ideological leanings is actually ideal for running a coalition government. 

 

I dont mean literally, but if you come out with a pro-EU policy... and did it well and had the charisma to charm people. It would be fine especially when you all he has to do, is just point at the conservatives. 

I wouldn't vote for him and will abstain again, but in a democracy it should be fine for someone to stand on a policy they believe in. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Baracouda

[Herman 9,714]

4 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

I voted leave on the sovereignty issues, I like most Brits would have been happy with the traditional free movement of people & goods, but when it started becoming a de-facto state, a single currency and speculation of a joint army. Along with the courts etc. You really have to wonder what it was becoming.

 

Free movement was one of those things weaponised by the likes of Farage and Johnson. Getting rid of it was a leave vote winner. It wasn't popular amongst most Brits.

A joint army was pure speculation. It was a myth also weaponised by the vote leave gang.

The single currency was not on this country's agenda. We would have vetoed joining it anyway.

What courts?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

3 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

I dont mean literally, but if you come out with a pro-EU policy... and did it well and had the charisma to charm people. It would be fine. 

Nah. Farage would be back like a shot standing candidates in Northern traditional labour constituencies to split the vote before you could say 'immigrayshun'. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

Free movement was one of those things weaponised by the likes of Farage and Johnson. Getting rid of it was a leave vote winner. It wasn't popular amongst most Brits.

A joint army was pure speculation. It was a myth also weaponised by the vote leave gang.

The single currency was not on this country's agenda. We would have vetoed joining it anyway.

What courts?

I was merely expressing my opinion at the time, I was pro free movement of people & goods, but I was opposed to the direction it was heading in terms of a state. 

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Nah. Farage would be back like a shot standing candidates in Northern traditional labour constituencies to split the vote before you could say 'immigrayshun'. 

Maybe he would, but at least Corbyn will always have my respect for standing on what he believed. As opposed to 90% of politicians, who stand on what they think gets them elected. Then start back tracking on every promise over the course of their term. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

4 minutes ago, Herman said:

Free movement was one of those things weaponised by the likes of Farage and Johnson. Getting rid of it was a leave vote winner. It wasn't popular amongst most Brits.

A joint army was pure speculation. It was a myth also weaponised by the vote leave gang.

The single currency was not on this country's agenda. We would have vetoed joining it anyway.

What courts?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-army-idUSKCN1NB24Q Both Macron and the EU's rhetoric on this subject makes the aspiration far from a myth. 

[Herman 9,714]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-army-idUSKCN1NB24Q Both Macron and the EU's rhetoric on this subject makes the aspiration far from a myth. 

That's from 2 years after we voted to leave.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

2 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Maybe he would, but at least Corbyn will always have my respect for standing on what he believed. As opposed to 90% of politicians, who stand on what they think gets them elected. Then start back tracking on every promise over the course of their term. 

Corbyn gets zero respect from me. He was the Conservative party's secret weapon that ensured there was no viable alternative no matter how incompetent the Conservatives got. He's a protest politician, and a useful idiot for all the countries like Russia who would like to see democratic countries give up their nuclear arsenals so they can have everything their way. The man is a clown and a liability, even more so than Johnson, as evidenced by the fact that Johnson won a stonking majority against him in spite of his many failings. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Although a mainstream press that tilts right-wing (with the exception of the Guardian, Independent, Mirror, and Star) certainly gives the Tories an edge in the campaigning.

[Baracouda 47]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Corbyn gets zero respect from me. He was the Conservative party's secret weapon that ensured there was no viable alternative no matter how incompetent the Conservatives got. He's a protest politician, and a useful idiot for all the countries like Russia who would like to see democratic countries give up their nuclear arsenals so they can have everything their way. The man is a clown and a liability, even more so than Johnson, as evidenced by the fact that Johnson won a stonking majority against him in spite of his many failings. 

That was true, he was unelectable purely on the grounds he would give up nuclear weapons. But nevertheless, he stood for what he believed in. You should blame the labour party for giving him the platform. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

9 minutes ago, Herman said:

That's from 2 years after we voted to leave.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

"Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army"

From March, 2015. So even at the time of the referendum, the aspiration within the EU for an EU army was no myth. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

"Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army"

From March, 2015. 

We could always have said no.

[Baracouda 47]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

We could always have said no.

we did and left

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We could always have said no.

Maybe, my point is that Herman's assertion was wrong. Also, the fact that people were calling it a myth before the referendum, in spite of evidence to the contrary, only added to distrust of the motives of pro-Europeans when they were so obviously lying. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[1902 1,167]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary

"Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army"

From March, 2015. So even at the time of the referendum, aspirations in the EU for an EU army was no myth. 

Im sorry but it says a lot about the understanding of the EU in this country that anyone thought that a statement on this from Junker meant anything at all in practical terms. 

Some people in the EU wanted an European Army, some people in the UK agreed, it was always a minority though and the hurdles it would have to get though would be huge.

To say it existed as an idea is true, that it was the aspiration of the President of the Commission is also true. To claim it was a realistic near term prospect is disingenuous.

Edited July 5, 2022 by 1902

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

3 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Im sorry but it says a lot about the understanding of the EU in this country that anyone thought that a statement from this from Junker meant anything at all in practical terms. 

Some people in the EU wanted an European Army, some people in the UK agreed, it was always a minority though and the hurdles it would have to get though would be huge.

To say it existed as an idea is true, that it was the aspiration of the President of the Commission is also true. To claim it was a realistic near term prospect is disingenuous.

Oh please. Speeches from top officials in the EU commission should be disregarded when considering the aspirations of the EU... that's just not reasonable. 

We weren't arguing whether it was a near-term realistic prospect, the question was whether it was on the table as a concept in the future, and it was, and dismissing that was basically dishonest. An honest answer was what you've said, but nobody was saying that back then. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Baracouda 47]

Just now, 1902 said:

Im sorry but it says a lot about the understanding of the EU in this country that anyone thought that a statement from this from Junker meant anything at all in practical terms. 

Some people in the EU wanted an European Army, some people in the UK agreed, it was always a minority though and the hurdles it would have to get though would be huge.

To say it existed as an idea is true, that it was the aspiration of the President of the Commission is also true. To claim it was a realistic near term prospect is disingenuous.

I dont think it is disingenuous, I thought it was the most natural direction of the EU on whatever timescales. When was the next realistic 'referendum'. So, as one leave voter, the joint army and direction of becoming a single state with no future prospects of a referendum. It felt the right choice. 

[Herman 9,714]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Maybe, my point is that Herman's assertion was wrong. Also, the fact that people were calling it a myth before the referendum, in spite of evidence to the contrary, only added to distrust of the motives of pro-Europeans when they were so obviously lying. 

It wasn't wrong. There was no threat to the UK of joining an EU army. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

30 minutes ago, Herman said:

Free movement was one of those things weaponised by the likes of Farage and Johnson. Getting rid of it was a leave vote winner. It wasn't popular amongst most Brits.

A joint army was pure speculation. It was a myth also weaponised by the vote leave gang.

The single currency was not on this country's agenda. We would have vetoed joining it anyway.

What courts?

I'm not arguing whether there was a near-future likelihood; I'm arguing whether it was pure speculation as you asserted. The existence of positive statements from major players in the EU in favour of the concept puts the prospect far more serious than pure speculation. 

And the fact that the EU was showing itself to be an organism that was consistently altering its mission and assuming competences as a supreme body over the constituent nations did cut to the heart of the debate of being in the EU. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[1902 1,167]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh please. Speeches from top officials in the EU commission should be disregarded when considering the aspirations of the EU... that's just not reasonable. 

It's really very reasonable if you understand the EU set-up and what would be needed in order to achieve such a drastic change. Defense is a national competency, it would need full scale treaty change which was not supported by the council, the EU parliament, national parliament's and would have been against some nations constitutions. 

EU commission presidents have very little say in the future direction of further integration in the EU. Even the President of the Councils statements have limited weight unless the council members are behind it.

Additionally, Junker was always known as pro closer union even when member states and parts of his own commission weren't. His word didn't speak for even his own cabinet let alone for the European Union. It wasn't even agreed with the other two major institutions. If you don't understand that, then you are either ignorant of the European Union's workings or are just being disingenuous as I said before.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

Just now, 1902 said:

It's really very reasonable if you understand the EU set-up and what would be needed in order to achieve such a drastic change. Defense is a national competency, it would need full scale treaty change which was not supported by the council, the EU parliament, national parliament's and would have been against some nations constitutions. 

EU commission presidents have very little say in the future direction of further integration in the EU. Even the President of the Councils statements have limited weight unless the council members are behind it.

Additionally, Junker was always known as pro closer union even when member states and parts of his own commission weren't. His word didn't speak for even his own cabinet let alone for the European Union. It wasn't even agreed with the other two major institutions. If you don't understand that, then you are either ignorant of the European Union's workings or are just being disingenuous as I said before.

Where there's a will a way. I'm sure as many people would have dismissed the idea of the Eurozone in the early 70s, yet it became a reality. There exists political will among major players in the EU to create an EU army. Personally, I wouldn't argue that that's even a bad thing, but I would argue that dismissing the prospect  entirely given the massive changes to the EU from the time when we joined the EEC is just not right. 

[1902 1,167]

7 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

I dont think it is disingenuous, I thought it was the most natural direction of the EU on whatever timescales. When was the next realistic 'referendum'. So, as one leave voter, the joint army and direction of becoming a single state with no future prospects of a referendum. It felt the right choice. 

That's up to you Baracouda, but as you put it, it was on 'whatever timescale'. Even 7 years later, there's been hardly any movement in that direction whatsoever and everything that has been done was done without a British veto, through one Danish referendum or involved coordination between militaries which are still completely (and absurdly in terms of procurement) separate.

I might see an EU army in my lifetime, but even that seems unlikely.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

2 minutes ago, 1902 said:

That's up to you Baracouda, but as you put it, it was on 'whatever timescale'. Even 7 years later, there's been hardly any movement in that direction whatsoever and everything that has been done was done without a British veto, through one Danish referendum or involved coordination between militaries which are still completely (and absurdly in terms of procurement) separate.

I might see an EU army in my lifetime, but even that seems unlikely.

When an EU army eventually happens, it will likely happen on the same basis that occurred with the Eurozone: That any member countries that objected would be given indefinite leave to not participate, and maybe other concessions elsewhere in order to gain unanimous approval. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I do see the logic of SKS's position even though I would still judge it as being over-cautious but as I said only a few hours ago to YF it is only a potentially winning strategy whilst Johnson remains PM, and here we are already.........

Admittedly a Tory party that was stupid enough to elect Johnson just might be stupid enough to replace him with Truss but I think its more likely that Johnson has now provided them with a wake up call that will probably see them make a much more sensible choice - and if they do SKS can no longer sit on the sidelines and just wait for the Tories to throw the election. 

Quite! The sensible choice, given the paucity of talent, would be Hunt. But he doesn’t count as a true believer, and it would require a screeching u-turn for the hardline Brexiters/low-tax zealots to back him.

[Baracouda 47]

5 minutes ago, 1902 said:

That's up to you Baracouda, but as you put it, it was on 'whatever timescale'. Even 7 years later, there's been hardly any movement in that direction whatsoever and everything that has been done was done without a British veto, through one Danish referendum or involved coordination between militaries which are still completely (and absurdly in terms of procurement) separate.

I might see an EU army in my lifetime, but even that seems unlikely.

Maybe we wont, maybe the EU would have gone in a different direction should 'remain' would have won. 

Personally, I thought 'remain' was going to win by a good 20-25 points, and whilst being a third party to other conversations in the office, it was clear many didn't really know what they were voting on. Personally, I thought the whole process was a joke, there was no real clear this is what you are voting on, and this is what your getting if you leave. But hey that's modern day Politicians. 

Bit like the first Scottish vote, but you get to keep the pound just with no fiscal or monetary controls on it. So all good then. 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Baracouda