Brexit matters

[najaB]

For example on Flightradar24, you cannot turn off various others such as "match and combine offline data sources", "technically deliver ads or content", and a few others. These do not sound like necessary cookies to me

I guess that depends on what "match and combine offline data sources" actually means. They might be unnecessary, it might be needed for the site to work, but they are being more specific than lumping everything under "necessary".

 

[nw1]

I just tried Flightradar24 in an incognito browser from the Netherlands (so no previous cookies) and I also cannot turn these options off, so apparently it is allowed in the EU in some way.

Ah ok, thanks for that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jun 2023 ==

I guess that depends on what "match and combine offline data sources" actually means. They might be unnecessary, it might be needed for the site to work, but they are being more specific than lumping everything under "necessary".

It's a bit vague, also there is "technically deliver ads or content".

I suppose in this case it's the "content" and not the "ads" (which should, presumably, be capable of being disabled).

Speaking as someone who has quite a bit of knowledge of web development I'm struggling to find anything besides implementing a login session that cookies are actually needed for. Other techniques could be used to implement the same functionality; the prevailing philosophy in the recent past has been to avoid cookies unless they are absolutely necessary, precisely because many uses are wary of them. That said, some of the alternatives (storing user's settings on a server) also potentially raise privacy concerns, so this also should only be done with the consent of the user.

But best stop there as we've established whether Brexit is a cause (no) and things will start going OT...

 

[Sm5]

It seems that HMG is doing little to nothing to help UK citizens in the EU maintain their rights. Surprising, I know!

Brits cannot keep citizenship rights, EU top court confirms | Euractiv

UK nationals cannot automatically retain rights as EU citizens after Brexit, the EU’s top court confirmed on Thursday (15 June).

www.euractiv.com

This was never going to win.

But sadly it also shows theres no going back now. We are out, the EU is vengeful.
We go back it will be on there terms not ours.

pay to leave, pay to rejoin, there wont be any special favours.

The UK is going to need to prove its way in the world, but so far weve done nothing but shrink.

Thats all weve done ever since 2008… there has to be a bottom somewhere, where by other countries sit up and think “hey the UK isnt that bad afterall”.. but right now were are like a popped tyre slowly deflating.. eventually we’ll stop and fix it, destroy it, or have a crash.

my bet is the crash will be just prior to the election, as the markets will line it up that way, to put it front and centre of peoples minds when they vote.

 

[najaB]

But sadly it also shows theres no going back now. We are out, the EU is vengeful.
We go back it will be on there terms not ours.

And, ignoring the "vengeful" comment, why should it be on our terms rather than theirs?

pay to leave, pay to rejoin, there wont be any special favours.

We had special favours and chose to give them up.

 

[jon0844]

We had special favours and chose to give them up.

We also set many of the rules that are now impacting us.

 

[E27007]

We also set many of the rules that are now impacting us.

???? We set the rules ????, The un-elected European Commission set the rules in the EU, the Commission proposes all new legislation , elected MEPs have no authority to introduce new legislation, leaving the EU means one less population subject to the insidious weakening of the power of the vote in our democracy.
I have often puzzled over how Socialists such as Neil Kinnock do not criticise this aspect of the EU Commission

 

[jon0844]

I suggest that you don't keep embarrassing yourself and take some to understand how the EU works. The UK was behind multiple rules that we still follow today, as well as other member states.

 

[nlogax]

???? We set the rules ????, The un-elected European Commission set the rules in the EU, the Commission proposes all new legislation , elected MEPs have no authority to introduce new legislation, leaving the EU means one less population subject to the insidious weakening of the power of the vote in our democracy.

You're suggesting the EU was something that just 'happened' to the UK, that we were passive recipients of policy that we had no part in shaping, based on processes with which we had zero involvement. This couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[E27007]

You're suggesting the EU was something that just 'happened' to the UK, that we were passive recipients of policy that we had no part in shaping, based on processes with which we had zero involvement. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Taking account of the "token" electoral turnout in the election of MEPs, "We" meaning the Electorate, how much influence did "We " the electorate actually have upon the legislation created by the EU Commission?

 

[class ep-09]

Taking account of the "token" electoral turnout in the election of MEPs, "We" meaning the Electorate, how much influence did "We " the electorate actually have upon the legislation created by the EU Commission?

The EU commission would not generate and impose any rules if national governments / legislature did not agree with them .
All EU countries have a veto .

???? We set the rules ????, The un-elected European Commission set the rules in the EU, the Commission proposes all new legislation , elected MEPs have no authority to introduce new legislation, leaving the EU means one less population subject to the insidious weakening of the power of the vote in our democracy.
I have often puzzled over how Socialists such as Neil Kinnock do not criticise this aspect of the EU Commission

I can’t waste my time explaining , how embarrassing your post is .

 

[VauxhallandI]

Taking account of the "token" electoral turnout in the election of MEPs, "We" meaning the Electorate, how much influence did "We " the electorate actually have upon the legislation created by the EU Commission?

something your were previously demonstrably not bothered about as you didn’t turnout that’s sudde was the most important thing in the world so quickly you didn’t have time to turn out for it. Definition of triggered?

 

[duncanp]

All EU countries have a veto .

It is most certainly not the case that all EU member states have a veto on all matters.

Whilst some matters require unanimity, others can be decided by simple majority or "qualified majority".

Furthermore, there is a clear push by some EU member states to increase the range of matters that no longer require unanimity.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/

Simple majority​

A simple majority is reached if at least 14 Council members vote in favour.

The Council takes decisions by simple majority:

• in procedural matters, such as the adoption of its own rules of procedure and organisation of its secretariat general, the adoption of the rules governing the committees foreseen in the treaties
• to request the Commission to undertake studies or submit proposals

Qualified majority​

When the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the proposal is adopted if a qualified majority is reached.
A qualified majority is reached if two conditions are simultaneously met:

• 55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 15 out of 27
• the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population

This procedure is also known as the 'double majority rule'.

Unanimity​

The Council has to vote unanimously on a number of matters which the member states consider to be sensitive. For example:

• common foreign and security policy (with the exception of certain clearly defined cases which require qualified majority, e.g. appointment of a special representative)
• citizenship (the granting of new rights to EU citizens)
• EU membership
• harmonisation of national legislation on indirect taxation
• EU finances (own resources, the multiannual financial framework)
• certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.)
• harmonisation of national legislation in the field of social security and social protection.

In addition, the Council is required to vote unanimously to diverge from the Commission proposal when the Commission is unable to agree to the amendments made to its proposal. This rule does not apply to acts that need to be adopted by the Council on a Commission recommendation, for example, acts in the area of economic coordination.
Under unanimous voting, abstention does not prevent a decision from being taken.

 

[nlogax]

Taking account of the "token" electoral turnout in the election of MEPs, "We" meaning the Electorate, how much influence did "We " the electorate actually have upon the legislation created by the EU Commission?

Ok. Don't even know where to begin with that response, so I'm not going to bother.

 

[RT4038]

I may be totally wrong in this, but I think the issue is that when new laws/regulations are being constructed, this is being done by civil servants of the various countries (including our own when the UK was a member). The civil servants are only one of 27, and may or may not be diligent in their work or acting in the interests of voters of their country. No conspiracy theory, just human nature. Compromises will have been made in the spirit of European unity, but not necessarily in the interests of an individual country (or a part of an individual country). There is no electoral scrutiny of their work from the point of view of an individual country. Presumably there is a committee of representative MEPs also involved in the process, but each country represented is only one of 27. The proposed law is then put forward to all the MEPs and a vote on the lines of #6432 takes place. By this time, the interests of an individual country may well be totally subsumed. It is then all but impossible for a member state to get any piece of EU legislation amended or repealed because it is not working in their interests (for reasons which may not have been thought about at the time), without substantial political horse trading, so in practice it doesn't happen very often.

Now I realise that a similar situation can happen within a national legislature as well, and sections of the population can get quite upset, but it is not quite the same as dealing with sovereign nations.

 

[edwin_m]

Now I realise that a similar situation can happen within a national legislature as well, and sections of the population can get quite upset, but it is not quite the same as dealing with sovereign nations.

The need to get support from a wide range of nations tends to mean that anything the EU does is done by concensus.

By contrast, a UK government with a good majority in the Commons has almost unlimited power to impose anything on the electorate. The current UK government was voted for by 43.6% those voting or 29.3% of those eligible to vote, and the major changes of policy following from the appointment of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak as PM were based on "democratic" mandates from electorates of about 100,000 and 300-odd respectively.

 

[nw1]

Sounds like the Remoaners are still alive and kicking.
Funny thing is you have a democratic vote and when your view is rejected you carry on moaning and moaning and moaning, how many years ago was the vote?

(Moved from the Labour thread)

Because we think, personally, and in our opinion, that Brexit was wrong?

Why shouldn't we moan, rather than accept something that in our opinion is moronically stupid, harmful for the country, anti-freedom, xenophobic, and damaging to our relations with other European countries?

I am not going to act like a sheep and accept something that I am absolutely and fundamentally opposed to.

I recognise other people feel differently, however I dislike the idea that my views, and views of people like me, don't count and we should just put up or shut up.

I would imagine a lot of the right would have been "moaning and moaning and moaning" in the years following 1997. While I might have disagreed with them, they had every right to moan if they disagreed with Labour and Blair. Should the Tories have been forced to shut their mouths during the Blair years, because of what 43% of people voted for on May 1 1997? Of course not! Should the Countryside Alliance (who I disagree with regarding foxhunting, for point of clarification) have been denied the right to march? Of course not! People should not have their opinions silenced just because their preference was marginally less popular - I have no time for the "tyranny of the majority" and I similarly detest FPTP with a passion.

Brexit was not a compromise, and Remainers' views were wholly rejected despite getting almost half the vote. That is one of my absolute key objections. And Brexit is more damaging than a government you disagree with, because it's harder to reverse. Say what you like about Trump and Johnson, at least they have had their time. Brexit can't just be reversed in 4 years, and is thus very much more harmful than a "rogue" leader. A snapshot of opinion on some random miserable damp June day will harm the country for a long time to come.

Maybe you haven't been adversely affected by Brexit. A lot of us have.

And also do please note that in the post you were replying to, I was not demanding a quick re-join. I was actually being quite moderate and just recommending a resumption of friendly relations with the EU, and working towards rejoining the single market perhaps in a hypothetical 2nd Labour administration, or even a more moderate Tory administration post-Starmer, should they move back towards the centre. I was actually being quite reasonable, not "moaning and moaning and moaning". Maybe you're happy with the UK having a poor reputation in EU countries. I'm not.

And above all, please let me express my opinion rather than trying to denigrate it, thanks.

If you had some actual arguments for Brexit and how it will make life easier for the majority of UK residents, irrespective of nationality, then I would have very much more respect for your post. I have little respect for the "put up or shut up" argument.

Put it this way, in the years prior to 2016, would Brexiters have accepted the "we had a democratic vote in 1975, your opinions are out of date, quit moaning" argument? I suspect not.

 

[Senex]

Thank you for expressing so clearly a point of view that I wholly support. There is more that could be added about the form and conduct of the referendum itself, but unfortunately that is water under the bridge. I think the crucial point, which you bring out clearly, is that on the flimsiest of majorities the Tories saw fit to ignore the view of the almost-half who lost completely and go for the sort of extreme Brexit that no-one had put to the public during the referendum campaign. We've been "enjoying" teh results of their extremism ever since.

 

[Richard Scott]

Thank you for expressing so clearly a point of view that I wholly support. There is more that could be added about the form and conduct of the referendum itself, but unfortunately that is water under the bridge. I think the crucial point, which you bring out clearly, is that on the flimsiest of majorities the Tories saw fit to ignore the view of the almost-half who lost completely and go for the sort of extreme Brexit that no-one had put to the public during the referendum campaign. We've been "enjoying" teh results of their extremism ever since.

Part of problem there was Labour. Theresa May had proposed a much more moderate Brexit, which, if backed by Labour, would gave got through. They chose not to and then their hand was virtually forced by Johnson's proposal. They should hold their heads in shame too.

 

[najaB]

I am not going to act like a sheep and accept something that I am absolutely and fundamentally opposed to.

I recognise other people feel differently, however I dislike the idea that my views, and views of people like me, don't count and we should just put up or shut up.

The very definition of a representative democracy! I couldn't agree more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Brexit was not a compromise, and Remainers' views were wholly rejected despite getting almost half the vote. That is one of my absolute key objections. And Brexit is more damaging than a government you disagree with, because it's harder to reverse. Say what you like about Trump and Johnson, at least they have had their time. Brexit can't just be reversed in 4 years, and is thus very much more harmful than a "rogue" leader. A snapshot of opinion on some random miserable damp June day will harm the country for a long time to come.

Is there any way that it would have been possible for Brexit to be a compromise? I mean, I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that, particularly when the population are split almost 50/50, then you ideally need to find something that gives something to both sides. But I'm not seeing how you could have done that with Brexit. In particular, the two things that seemed to be most motivating people to vote for Brexit were Freedom of Movement, and decisions being made in Brussels rather than Westminster. But the problem there is, you either have Freedom of Movement or you don't. I've never seen anyone suggest any practical way that we could have half of Freedom of Movement! The usual 'compromise' solution that Remainers' tend to suggest would have been to leave the EU but remain in the single market. But that means we keep Freedom of Movement in its entirety, and keep vast amounts of legislation under EU control, with the UK actually losing influence on decisions. That wouldn't have been much of a compromise - it would've meant giving most Remainers most of what they wanted and most Brexiters almost none of what they wanted.

As long as the EU insisted the single market membership automatically goes with Freedom of Movement, I can't really see that any meaningful compromise would've been workable. And if no compromise is workable, then you basically have to go with what the majority have voted for - which is basically, what we got.

 

[edwin_m]

The question on the ballot was leaving the EU, nothing about the single market or the customs union or anything else. So a suitable compromise might have been to leave the EU but stay within those arrangements. There was no democratic mandate to do any more, and it can't be claimed to be the "will of the people". Given the way Leave campaigners were floating the possibility of remaining in the SM and CU, it's quite probable that if leaving those had been on the ballot, enough would have voted the other way to change the result.

One may argue that this would have been an unsatisfactory arrangement in some way. But I don't think many will consider the situation we are in now to be satisfactory.

 

[75A]

The question on the ballot was leaving the EU, nothing about the single market or the customs union or anything else. So a suitable compromise might have been to leave the EU but stay within those arrangements. There was no democratic mandate to do any more, and it can't be claimed to be the "will of the people". Given the way Leave campaigners were floating the possibility of remaining in the SM and CU, it's quite probable that if leaving those had been on the ballot, enough would have voted the other way to change the result.

One may argue that this would have been an unsatisfactory arrangement in some way. But I don't think many will consider the situation we are in now to be satisfactory.

I think we'd all agree on one thing, if we knew then what we know now the result of the ballot would have been very different.

 

[duncanp]

Part of problem there was Labour. Theresa May had proposed a much more moderate Brexit, which, if backed by Labour, would gave got through. They chose not to and then their hand was virtually forced by Johnson's proposal. They should hold their heads in shame too.

We have had two general elections since the 2016 referendum, which gave the people of the UK a chance to vote for the type of Brexit that they wanted, or whether they wanted to reverse Brexit completely.

Part of the problem was also Jeremy Corbyn, who was a Brexiteer at heart, but couldn't quite admit it.

 

[RT4038]

(Moved from the Labour thread)

Because we think, personally, and in our opinion, that Brexit was wrong?

Why shouldn't we moan, rather than accept something that in our opinion is moronically stupid, harmful for the country, anti-freedom, xenophobic, and damaging to our relations with other European countries?

I am not going to act like a sheep and accept something that I am absolutely and fundamentally opposed to.

I recognise other people feel differently, however I dislike the idea that my views, and views of people like me, don't count and we should just put up or shut up.

I would imagine a lot of the right would have been "moaning and moaning and moaning" in the years following 1997. While I might disagree with them, they had every right to moan if they disagreed with Labour and Blair. Should the Tories have been forced to shut their mouths during the Blair years, because of what 43% of people voted for on May 1 1997? Of course not! Should the Countryside Alliance (who I disagree with regarding foxhunting, for point of clarification) have been denied the right to march? Of course not! People should not have their opinions silenced just because their preference was marginally less popular - I have no time for the "tyranny of the majority" and I similarly detest FPTP with a passion.

Brexit was not a compromise, and Remainers' views were wholly rejected despite getting almost half the vote. That is one of my absolute key objections. And Brexit is more damaging than a government you disagree with, because it's harder to reverse. Say what you like about Trump and Johnson, at least they have had their time. Brexit can't just be reversed in 4 years, and is thus very much more harmful than a "rogue" leader. A snapshot of opinion on some random miserable damp June day will harm the country for a long time to come.

Maybe you haven't been adversely affected by Brexit. A lot of us have.

And also do please note that in the post you were replying to, I was not demanding a quick re-join. I was actually being quite moderate and just recommending a resumption of friendly relations with the EU, and working towards rejoining the single market perhaps in a hypothetical 2nd Labour administration, or even a more moderate Tory administration post-Starmer, should they move back towards the centre. I was actually being quite reasonable, not "moaning and moaning and moaning". Maybe you're happy with the UK having a poor reputation in EU countries. I'm not.

I note you live in Northern Ireland, surely Brexit must be causing particular complications there, due to the (soft) land border with an EU country (the Republic).

And above all, please let me express my opinion rather than trying to denigrate it, thanks.

If you had some actual arguments for Brexit and how it will make life easier for the majority of UK residents, irrespective of nationality, then I would have very much more respect for your post. I have little respect for the "put up or shut up" argument.

Put it this way, in the years prior to 2016, would Brexiters have accepted the "we had a democratic vote in 1975, your opinions are out of date, quit moaning" argument? I suspect not.

There is no point in going back over the referendum and its circumstances. It was always going to be a divisive thing - there was no real room for compromise on either side - the crux was either we were in the single market (and accepting of EU hegemony) or we were out of the single market (and not). Any of the compromises were just noise in this critical question. The divorce was never going to be pleasant or easy, whatever politicians may have had you believe. But that is just my opinion.

The UK's relationship with the EU has been reset. You are quite right that anyone can campaign to amend that, and good luck to them, although I would suggest merely trying to reinstate the previous relationship would be an uphill battle, as clearly there was a lot of unhappiness, but if that is your view then so be it. Slinging names and labels at each other in the debate is not going to help much.

I am not sure how much the UK has a poorer reputation amongst EU countries than before Brexit (it did not appear particularly high then), or the proportion of UK citizens that really care that much. I don't think there is much cultural affinity between the UK and mainland Europe - we are more comfortable with countries far away.

 

[najaB]

We have had two general elections since the 2016 referendum, which gave the people of the UK a chance to vote for the type of Brexit that they wanted, or whether they wanted to reverse Brexit completely.

I must have missed the "What type of Brexit do you want?" option on the ballot paper. My mistake.

 

[jon0844]

I've never seen anyone suggest any practical way that we could have half of Freedom of Movement!

Well, the Government seems to be trying just that by planning to give visas to farm workers, people in healthcare, builders, plumbers, and maybe even hospitality. In other words, allowing EU citizens to return here to do the jobs they did before.

Yet we don't get a deal the other way.

Now I know you've always been against bringing in EU workers to do these types of job, so what do you think about this? Doesn't this rather undermine Brexit and make it worse for us, but not for the EU?

 

[MikeWM]

Part of problem there was Labour. Theresa May had proposed a much more moderate Brexit, which, if backed by Labour, would gave got through. They chose not to and then their hand was virtually forced by Johnson's proposal. They should hold their heads in shame too.

While I think there is something to be said for this position, the problem there is - with the experience of looking at what has happened now to Northern Ireland - that under May's deal the entire UK would almost certainly have fallen into the 'backstop', which would have been nearly impossible to extract ourselves from but really wasn't somewhere we would have wanted to be for any length of time (as we'd have still be bound by all manner of rules that we no longer had any democratic say over).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think we'd all agree on one thing, if we knew then what we know now the result of the ballot would have been very different.

I suspect that's in part a case of, the grass is always greener....

Yes, of course we've actually seen the history of Brexit and all the problems that version of history has thrown up. But we have no idea what the 'Remain' version of history post 2016 would have looked like, or what difficulties that would have thrown up. (Net migration about 200K higher than it currently is, for example?) For all we know, if the UK had voted remain, people might today be looking back and going, if only I'd known, I'd have voted Leave....

 

[nw1]

Is there any way that it would have been possible for Brexit to be a compromise? I mean, I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that, particularly when the population are split almost 50/50, then you ideally need to find something that gives something to both sides. But I'm not seeing how you could have done that with Brexit. In particular, the two things that seemed to be most motivating people to vote for Brexit were Freedom of Movement, and decisions being made in Brussels rather than Westminster. But the problem there is, you either have Freedom of Movement or you don't. I've never seen anyone suggest any practical way that we could have half of Freedom of Movement! The usual 'compromise' solution that Remainers' tend to suggest would have been to leave the EU but remain in the single market. But that means we keep Freedom of Movement in its entirety, and keep vast amounts of legislation under EU control, with the UK actually losing influence on decisions. That wouldn't have been much of a compromise - it would've meant giving most Remainers most of what they wanted and most Brexiters almost none of what they wanted.

As long as the EU insisted the single market membership automatically goes with Freedom of Movement, I can't really see that any meaningful compromise would've been workable. And if no compromise is workable, then you basically have to go with what the majority have voted for - which is basically, what we got.

Given that the referendum didn't ask about freedom of movement, I'd say leaving the EU but retaining freedom of movement could in fact be one realistic possiblity, and one, which as a Remainer, I could accept.

They could have even, for instance, introduced more paperwork and checks before freedom of movement was granted, but the basic rule would be, as long as it can be proven you're not a criminal, terrorist or security risk, you'd be allowed in. I believe this is what some other European countries do regarding FoM within the EU.

But in any case, I don't think there was actually any real need to restrict freedom of movement if the justification for adopting Brexit was "we have to literally follow the referendum result".

Why have those who dislike freedom of movement got such special treatment in any case? There are plenty of other blocs within the UK voting public representing certain interests, who make their opinions known but which don't get listened to in the same way: those of us who want more money spent on public services, those of us who don't like the DfT/Treasury running down the railways, those who want to see US-style liberation of cannabis rules (I'm on the fence about that one, unlike the other two), and so on. Such other interest groups don't get listened to by the Government; why should the anti-FoM bloc get that special treatment which other pressure groups do not?


Controversially also, if a compromise deal could not have been reached, the government could always have adopted the "sorry guys, we did try for a sane Brexit but couldn't get one" and just kept the status quo.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2023 ==

I suspect that's in part a case of, the grass is always greener....

Yes, of course we've actually seen the history of Brexit and all the problems that version of history has thrown up. But we have no idea what the 'Remain' version of history post 2016 would have looked like, or what difficulties that would have thrown up. (Net migration about 200K higher than it currently is, for example?) For all we know, if the UK had voted remain, people might today be looking back and going, if only I'd known, I'd have voted Leave....

I suspect the country would have gone on exactly as it had been doing between 1973 and 2015, so not perfect, but a great deal better - and there'd be considerably less division as a result. We'd probably still have someone like Cameron or Osborne as PM (with, as now, a likely Labour replacement in the works in a hypothetical 2025 election) and while doubtless austerity would be ongoing, the old social liberal ways the country enjoyed in the 90s, 00s and 10s would still be present and we wouldn't have a Home Secretary, for instance, who slags off the liberal left every 5 seconds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2023 ==

There is no point in going back over the referendum and its circumstances. It was always going to be a divisive thing - there was no real room for compromise on either side - the crux was either we were in the single market (and accepting of EU hegemony) or we were out of the single market (and not). Any of the compromises were just noise in this critical question. The divorce was never going to be pleasant or easy, whatever politicians may have had you believe. But that is just my opinion.

The UK's relationship with the EU has been reset. You are quite right that anyone can campaign to amend that, and good luck to them, although I would suggest merely trying to reinstate the previous relationship would be an uphill battle, as clearly there was a lot of unhappiness, but if that is your view then so be it. Slinging names and labels at each other in the debate is not going to help much.

I am not sure how much the UK has a poorer reputation amongst EU countries than before Brexit (it did not appear particularly high then), or the proportion of UK citizens that really care that much. I don't think there is much cultural affinity between the UK and mainland Europe - we are more comfortable with countries far away.

Is that the case? There's plenty of shared history for starters. Mainland Europe has a similar railway system to us, for one thing (opinions vary as to whether it's better or worse). The castles, the cathedrals and so on. The relatively liberal attitudes to countryside access present in much of Europe, in contrast to the rest of the world. The UK is part of the Old World, as is mainland Europe.

I don't particularly like this notion of countries constantly quarrelling and arguing with each other. It's a very outdated view, and unless a country is doing something really objectionable (Russia being the most obvious example) I think it's in countries' interests to be friendly with each other. Places like the USA can probably afford to be more aloof, because they're so big and powerful, but we cannot.

You could say we speak a different languages, but then again France and Germany speak different languages to each other. And Ireland is mostly English-speaking, and geographically remote from the mainland (much more so than the UK) but still in the EU.

I just find the vision that your post seems to be painting profoundly depressing. And certainly the vision of the UK as a conservative (socially and economically), isolationist nation is one which makes me feel very uncomfortable. The UK was a decent place in the 90s, 00s and 10s - but seems to have got very much worse lately.




== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2023 ==

We have had two general elections since the 2016 referendum, which gave the people of the UK a chance to vote for the type of Brexit that they wanted, or whether they wanted to reverse Brexit completely.

The general elections gave the people the choice as to whether they preferred a Tory or a Labour government. There were plenty of other issues influencing people's vote, as evidenced by the number of liberal Remainer seats who probably hated Brexit but feared Corbyn, and thus went for Boris as the least-worst option.

 

[RT4038]

Well, the Government seems to be trying just that by planning to give visas to farm workers, people in healthcare, builders, plumbers, and maybe even hospitality. In other words, allowing EU citizens to return here to do the jobs they did before.

Yet we don't get a deal the other way.

Now I know you've always been against bringing in EU workers to do these types of job, so what do you think about this? Doesn't this rather undermine Brexit and make it worse for us, but not for the EU?

I guess because it is the control of numbers and activity and length of stay etc through visas, rather than rights.

If there are shortages of particular skills in the EU, for which there is a surfeit in the UK, then I am sure visas can be issued in quid pro quo.