EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[a completely inoffensive name]

It used to be called the EEC (European Economic Community). By the time I was old enough to vote, it was the EC (European Community). There were some additional political and fiscal union measures introduced from 1992 onwards, but the UK was largely excepted from them. During the Labour government, we signed up to some of these measures, largely relating to workers' rights. Most of the additional integration that we experienced in the UK were to do with the common market, which we were one of the principal drivers of. Most of the additional measures like the common currency, Schengen and so on, didn't apply to us. The only additional political union thing that I can think of that we took part in was electing MEPs to the EU parliament. Which we didn't take seriously, as seen in the success of UKIP despite their MEPs doing sweet FA in the EU parliament except vowing to take all the money they were entitled to whilst doing none of the work.

I get the history and I get that you negotiated to be mostly exempt from many of the provisions but the Maastricht Treaty explicitly states: "resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" [...] "further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration".

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

I guess my complaint is that the Brexiteers pushed the subject now and not in 1992 and the question of how much does the UK plan to integrate themselves was kicked down the road until the choice became absolute economic upheaval or acceptance of a future Federalized Europe.

[Pannonian]

I get the history and I get that you negotiated to be mostly exempt from many of the provisions but the Maastricht Treaty explicitly states: "resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" [...] "further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration".

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

I guess my complaint is that the Brexiteers pushed the subject now and not in 1992 and the question of how much does the UK plan to integrate themselves was kicked down the road until the choice became absolute economic upheaval or acceptance of a future Federalized Europe.

My feeling, probably shared by all UK governments until Cameron made the referendum a manifesto promise to try and neutralise UKIP's threat to the Tories, was that the other European countries can engage in as much union as they want while we engaged at our own pace. We're not the only country with exceptions. Ireland has some, as does Denmark. The biggest markers of this ever increasing union were the common currency and Schengen. Both of which we were exempt from. Ireland isn't in Schengen, while Denmark doesn't use the euro. Why is it our business if the other countries want a currency and travel union?

[Montmorency]

So it is still a sovereignty issue at its core, but people always phrase things in the immediate economic benefit. 'I get to catch more fish' is really, 'EU can't tell me where and how much to fish'.

In other words, a matter of identity. The abstract issue of sovereignty, to the extent the UK ever gave any up, has historically weighed on few minds.

I get the history and I get that you negotiated to be mostly exempt from many of the provisions but the Maastricht Treaty explicitly states: "resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" [...] "further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration".

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

Only a handful of elite bureaucrats and ivory-tower philosophers ever had grand roadmaps for the EU, likely none viable. Furunc is getting at that ad-hoc nature of the existing institutions when he calls it a rollercoaster, but the metaphor doesn't succeed overall because anyone can see the defined track - start and end - of a rollercoaster.

the choice became absolute economic upheaval or acceptance of a future Federalized Europe.

Has the choice been made elsewhere? Maybe in 2100 at this rate...

[Pannonian]

In other words, a matter of identity. The abstract issue of sovereignty, to the extent the UK ever gave any up, has historically weighed on few minds.

Only a handful of elite bureaucrats and ivory-tower philosophers ever had grand roadmaps for the EU, likely none viable. Furunc is getting at that ad-hoc nature of the existing institutions when he calls it a rollercoaster, but the metaphor doesn't succeed overall because anyone can see the defined track - start and end - of a rollercoaster.

Has the choice been made elsewhere? Maybe in 2100 at this rate...

Before the referendum became a thing, the common travel area (Schengen) and the common currency were the usual Eurosceptic arguments as to why we were threatened by ever increasing union. Both of which we were exempt from, and both of which only involved countries which wanted to be involved. Every time other countries engaged in more multilateral activities which we didn't want to be involved in, it was painted as a threat to our independence because they were doing things without us. The more opt outs we negotiated, the more our independence was threatened because the other countries were going off and doing their own thing without us.

[Furunculus]

"when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?"

Not sure I understand.

As Pannonian explained, it wasn't something that we joined - from which there is an obvious branch in history where we could have said:
"Oh, you know what, I don't think I fancy that after all."

Ever closer union is a continual inevitable process, not a moment.
And we were already sat on the porch of our house as it serenely drifts down the valley on the mudslide.

I always maintain that the moment it should have been obvious we were headed somewhere we didn't want to go was when Blair surrendered the opt-out Major negotiated on the Social Chapter.
From where what was principally an economic vehicle for external collaboration and cooperation, into something that was deeply intertwined with the organisation of society via internal regulations.
But, it was done after 14 years of divisive Tory government when the party was tired and discredited, and we were all dewy eyed at the joys of Nu Labour 'Cool Britannia'...
And of course, after we buckled the Social Chapter was disolved throughout Lisbon Constitution, making it essentially impossible to pick out the elements of social organisation (hereafter termed: domestic governance), from the rest of the EU.

[Furunculus]

So when Frun in the past on this forum demeans the ongoing process of "integration", again, it seems pretty clear the direction that the EU was going in from 1992. Yet here we are 28 years later and everyone is mad about too much EU control?
Did the UK expect special treatment and exceptions in perpetuity, did it believe that it would always hold a single member veto over future reforms, tell me how EU integration is in anyway not something that the UK implicitly agreed to by staying within the EU system for the past 30 years.

Again, Pannonian was giving a reasonable description of of what was animating 'brexiteers' in their public discourse with a largely disinterested populace.
But not really illuminating the problem:

a) In the EEC everything worked on Veto, and the project was shallow - and thus little threat.
b) After Mastrict we started to see the adoption of Qualified Majority Voting - but we were content to build blocking coalitions.
c) Then the Euro arrived and this is a fundamental threat to domestic governance, but we were outside.
d) Then 2007 and three things went wrong with the plan for blocking coalitions:
1. Financial Crisis brought areas of fundamental economic importance into the remit of the EU via the Eurozone - Bailout veto
2. The eurozone made it known that it intented to caucus Eurozone voting on economic matters - inc tools in #1 above
3. The post-Lisbon vote-weight changes diluted UK power in the parliament
e) So Cameron said; "look here, let's talk about how we're going to keep the UK getting entangled in the mechanisms you need to fix your flakey currency union?"
1. And the result was: "yes, you can have an exemption from ever-closer-union, but it will only be available for you. no-one else!"

The result:
Britain looking at how diminished was its ability to build blocking coalitions - then wondered how interested like-minded nations would be in joining them when they would not benefit - as the same understanding on being exempt from the integrating pressure did not apply to them.

[Crandar]

It's not about sovereignty or identity, it's about the economy. People may phrase it in a different way, but financial worries always lie beneath the surface. Even that Brexit lady admitted so in her 2019 interview. She may have said that she expected some difficulties in the beginning, but she hoped for a brighter future for her grandchildren. As far as I see it, what she means is that the adjustment will be costly, but the long-term benefits will eventually outweigh the disadvantages. That's why the deindustrialised north and Wales voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, but London and large urban centers that have transitioned successfully into a service-orientated economy supported Bremain.

Wales is in fact an interesting case. Brexit crushed the opposition there, especially in rural areas. Since the region is actually the recipient of EU's most generous packages, many journalists interpreted their stance as an example of tribalism surpassing the economy, but the reality is more nuanced. After all, the populations of immigrants or British citizens with immigrant background is one of the smallest in the Kingdom. In reality, many blame the EU for wage stagnation, deindustrialisation and unemployment. Even though it's largely Brussels that keeps these communities from being depopulated altogether, many still blame the EU for starting the troubles in the first place. On the contrary, Cardiff, a prosperous city with a vibrant university and service-orientated economy stood behind Bremain.

Patrick Cockburn wrote a nice piece about that.

[Greyblades]

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another "brexit wasnt about what it was about" post.

[Gilrandir]

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another "brexit wasnt about what it was about" post.

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another post discussing what has been a faut accompli for ages.

[Pannonian]

Another year, another month, another day, another drawn breath and with it yet another "brexit wasnt about what it was about" post.

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pan' you have consistently stood for the UK remaining in the EU.

You have consistently asserted that the pols advocating leave misrepresented/wishfully thought/misunderstood/and in some cases outright lied (with support).

You continue to assert your belief that the majority and minority opinions rendered during the leave/stay vote have reversed and that leave is now in the minority (and some statistics support this).

Can we PLEASE stipulate all of these as "givens" from you now? It's coming across as a rather repetitive "see I told ya so" kind of thing now.


Moving forward:

Is there the political will to reverse the decision and go back to the EU?

If not, then what steps are/should be taken to make the transition to a new living arrangement?

[Pannonian]

Pan' you have consistently stood for the UK remaining in the EU.

You have consistently asserted that the pols advocating leave misrepresented/wishfully thought/misunderstood/and in some cases outright lied (with support).

You continue to assert your belief that the majority and minority opinions rendered during the leave/stay vote have reversed and that leave is now in the minority (and some statistics support this).

Can we PLEASE stipulate all of these as "givens" from you now? It's coming across as a rather repetitive "see I told ya so" kind of thing now.


Moving forward:

Is there the political will to reverse the decision and go back to the EU?

If not, then what steps are/should be taken to make the transition to a new living arrangement?

Answer to your first question: no.
Answer to your second question: The government has been putting forward proposals to remove regulations (as Furunculus has been intimating), and Boris Johnson has personally appealed to industry leaders for ideas on what regulations to next remove. OTOH, industry frontliners have been saying that it's the separation from the customs union and single market that is the practical problem. So what is the way forward, when those doing the reporting and those doing the planning are of completely different perspectives?

And about the list of assertions that you say that I'm making: I've never said that Leave are now in the minority. I have little confidence that it is so, and zero confidence that it is so to any significant degree. But it is never not current news to point out that Leave lied and continue to lie. As you've seen on your side of the water with your version of the Tufton lot, democracy does not work when one side lies with impunity and are allowed to do so without check.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My feeling, probably shared by all UK governments until Cameron made the referendum a manifesto promise to try and neutralise UKIP's threat to the Tories, was that the other European countries can engage in as much union as they want while we engaged at our own pace. We're not the only country with exceptions. Ireland has some, as does Denmark. The biggest markers of this ever increasing union were the common currency and Schengen. Both of which we were exempt from. Ireland isn't in Schengen, while Denmark doesn't use the euro. Why is it our business if the other countries want a currency and travel union?

Because such union might become mandatory to participate in the trade union at the insistence of those other countries at some future date?

In other words, a matter of identity. The abstract issue of sovereignty, to the extent the UK ever gave any up, has historically weighed on few minds.
Only a handful of elite bureaucrats and ivory-tower philosophers ever had grand roadmaps for the EU, likely none viable. Furunc is getting at that ad-hoc nature of the existing institutions when he calls it a rollercoaster, but the metaphor doesn't succeed overall because anyone can see the defined track - start and end - of a rollercoaster.

The idea of a supra-national organization that prevented European countries from practicing nationalistic protectionism only weighed on a few minds post-WW2?

"when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?"

As Pannonian explained, it wasn't something that we joined - from which there is an obvious branch in history where we could have said:
"Oh, you know what, I don't think I fancy that after all."

Ever closer union is a continual inevitable process, not a moment.
And we were already sat on the porch of our house as it serenely drifts down the valley on the mudslide.

I always maintain that the moment it should have been obvious we were headed somewhere we didn't want to go was when Blair surrendered the opt-out Major negotiated on the Social Chapter.
From where what was principally an economic vehicle for external collaboration and cooperation, into something that was deeply intertwined with the organisation of society via internal regulations.
But, it was done after 14 years of divisive Tory government when the party was tired and discredited, and we were all dewy eyed at the joys of Nu Labour 'Cool Britannia'...
And of course, after we buckled the Social Chapter was disolved throughout Lisbon Constitution, making it essentially impossible to pick out the elements of social organisation (hereafter termed: domestic governance), from the rest of the EU.

You could very well be right (what do I know), but I'm not sure how I feel about the inability of UK politicians to recognize the slide for where it was going. If we take governments in general to be enterprises that naturally expand in scope and authority as time goes on, than by its nature a supra-national organization would seem to imply certain future structures...

Again, Pannonian was giving a reasonable description of of what was animating 'brexiteers' in their public discourse with a largely disinterested populace.
But not really illuminating the problem:

a) In the EEC everything worked on Veto, and the project was shallow - and thus little threat.
b) After Mastrict we started to see the adoption of Qualified Majority Voting - but we were content to build blocking coalitions.
c) Then the Euro arrived and this is a fundamental threat to domestic governance, but we were outside.
d) Then 2007 and three things went wrong with the plan for blocking coalitions:
1. Financial Crisis brought areas of fundamental economic importance into the remit of the EU via the Eurozone - Bailout veto
2. The eurozone made it known that it intented to caucus Eurozone voting on economic matters - inc tools in #1 above
3. The post-Lisbon vote-weight changes diluted UK power in the parliament
e) So Cameron said; "look here, let's talk about how we're going to keep the UK getting entangled in the mechanisms you need to fix your flakey currency union?"
1. And the result was: "yes, you can have an exemption from ever-closer-union, but it will only be available for you. no-one else!"

The result:
Britain looking at how diminished was its ability to build blocking coalitions - then wondered how interested like-minded nations would be in joining them when they would not benefit - as the same understanding on being exempt from the integrating pressure did not apply to them.

Now that you broke it down like this, it makes a lot more sense, thank you. Follow up on the bold, was that anticipated and discussed in the House when Lisbon Treaty was being ratified?
I'm really trying to learn more about this topic since as an outsider it seems like such a mess (guess I know how you all feel on US elections). Here is something else I don't understand:

Lisbon passed under Gordon Brown, he refused to have a referendum on the issue for reasons that I don't understand. Cameron pushed for the referendum and made it a promise for the 2010 elections which Conservatives won.
But my understanding is that Cameron assumed such a referendum to leave the EU would fail and would quiet down the anti-EU faction in the Conservative Party. If that was the assumption, then at the time it would have strengthened Brown's position to move for a referendum that (assuming yes wins) supported the Labour Position of ratifying the treaty for greater EU integration.

So did Brown not think the EU question would have turned out in favor of pro-EU support? If so, why did he push forward on ratifying Lisbon. I'm so lost on what the motivators are here.

[Furunculus]

too my knowledge the bold text was not discussed as part of any live political debate which had salience with public news broadcasting.
**i say this as an utter outsider with no privileged knowledge - merely a political person deeply enthused by the europe question for the last twenty years**
but the vote weight changes were made for good reason, to rejig the parliament numbers in light of the huge expansion of national membership...
... so they were a 'problem' in their own right, but they were only a significant problem because of our desire to sit outside the structures of power (when taken with the other two factors listed above).

cameron backed down from a referendum on lisbon becuase it was a done deal - signed and sealed by Gordon in the years before the Tory's got into power. it would have been performative grievance mongering, not a useful pursuit in the effecting change with democratic power.
that gordon spent about fifteen minutes at the signing ceremony - grimacing all the time - should tell you everything you need to know about the the crowning glory of fifteen years of work to transfer power from the states to the EU.
cameron did promise a referendum on future 'significant' transfers of sovereignty, and this was duly signed into law. then the 2011 bailout veto crisis arrived, bringing to fruition the three bullet points of the apocalypse listed above.
this of course led to cameron promising a referendum on the eu itself if they got back into power - which they didn't expect to do (presuming coalition hagglings would see the death of that manifesto promise).
rofl's
i supported cameron's renegotiation - and wanted him to succeed.

[Pannonian]

Because such union might become mandatory to participate in the trade union at the insistence of those other countries at some future date?



The idea of a supra-national organization that prevented European countries from practicing nationalistic protectionism only weighed on a few minds post-WW2?




You could very well be right (what do I know), but I'm not sure how I feel about the inability of UK politicians to recognize the slide for where it was going. If we take governments in general to be enterprises that naturally expand in scope and authority as time goes on, than by its nature a supra-national organization would seem to imply certain future structures...



Now that you broke it down like this, it makes a lot more sense, thank you. Follow up on the bold, was that anticipated and discussed in the House when Lisbon Treaty was being ratified?
I'm really trying to learn more about this topic since as an outsider it seems like such a mess (guess I know how you all feel on US elections). Here is something else I don't understand:

Lisbon passed under Gordon Brown, he refused to have a referendum on the issue for reasons that I don't understand. Cameron pushed for the referendum and made it a promise for the 2010 elections which Conservatives won.
But my understanding is that Cameron assumed such a referendum to leave the EU would fail and would quiet down the anti-EU faction in the Conservative Party. If that was the assumption, then at the time it would have strengthened Brown's position to move for a referendum that (assuming yes wins) supported the Labour Position of ratifying the treaty for greater EU integration.

So did Brown not think the EU question would have turned out in favor of pro-EU support? If so, why did he push forward on ratifying Lisbon. I'm so lost on what the motivators are here.

Have a look at this for some perspective on how important it was to get the Treaty of Lisbon ratified by the UK public. Polls by Mori, probably the most reliable general polling company out there. Until 2016, the percentage of UK people who deemed EU membership an important issue was generally in single figures, with a couple of months in the low 10s. As recently as January 2016 (the year of the referendum), only 1% of the UK public deemed EU membership to be the most important issue.

What was deemed an important issue, was immigration. Consistently polling in the 30s and one of the top 2 number one issues (another being the health service). In January 2016, immigration was the top issue according to 46% of Britons, the health service according to 38% of Britons, EU membership according to 1%. Between then and the referendum, you had posters from Leave like this.

Vote Leave said: “Since the birthrate in Turkey is so high, we can expect to see an additional million people added to the UK population from Turkey alone within eight years.

“This will not only increase the strain on Britain’s public services, but it will also create a number of threats to UK security. Crime is far higher in Turkey than the UK. Gun ownership is also more widespread. Because of the EU’s free movement laws, the government will not be able to exclude Turkish criminals from entering the UK.”

Thus folding immigration and the NHS, the top two issues according to the British public, into the Brexit debate. It was a lie, of course. Turkey is nowhere near joining the EU, and even if it applied, every single EU member could veto it should they so wish. In fact, overall, EU migrants to the UK make a net contribution to the economy, both being more liable to pay taxes to the state and being less liable to claim benefits of any kind, including NHS burden. But Leave, as was their wont, lied on pretty much everything to get the vote over the line, and once they'd reached their goal, redefined the debate away from immigration and the NHS and claimed it was all about sovereignty. If you want to see for yourself, here are the Mori archives. Here's OpenDemocracy's report on the Leave campaign and their use of anti-immigration adverts.

Cummings himself writes: ‘Would we have won without immigration? No’, and confirms that the key argument was: ‘Vote Leave to take back control of immigration policy. If we stay there will be more new countries like Turkey joining and you won’t get a vote. Cameron says he wants to “pave the road” from Turkey to here. That’s dangerous. If we leave we can have democratic control and a system like Australia’s. It’s safer to take back control.’ He adds, ‘It is true that we did not do much on immigration before the 10 week official campaign. That is because ... we did not need to. It was far more important to plant other seeds and recruit support that would have been put off if we had focused early on immigration. Immigration was a baseball bat that just needed picking up at the right time and in the right way.’

[Greyblades]

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

I lost my job because the world decided to shut down over a flu, noone asked me if we should; they just did it.

There is not a linguist alive who can adequately express how miniscule a shit I give that other people regret the one meaningful choice we were given in our lives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I lost my job because the world decided to shut down over a flu, noone asked me if we should; they just did it.

Sorry to hear that. I don't know anything about UK welfare but I hope you get some sort of credit or cash equivalent to the amount you can claim to have lost due to COVID. In the US we do it mainly through UI (unemployment insurance).
Last time you talked shop you mentioned being on zero-hour contract, we don't have those here but I hope you can at least extrapolate an annual salary to claim based on pre-COVID work schedule.

[Furunculus]

Thus folding immigration and the NHS, the top two issues according to the British public, into the Brexit debate. It was a lie, of course. Turkey is nowhere near joining the EU, and even if it applied, every single EU member could veto it should they so wish. In fact, overall, EU migrants to the UK make a net contribution to the economy, both being more liable to pay taxes to the state and being less liable to claim benefits of any kind, including NHS burden. But Leave, as was their wont, lied on pretty much everything to get the vote over the line, and once they'd reached their goal, redefined the debate away from immigration and the NHS and claimed it was all about sovereignty. If you want to see for yourself, here are the Mori archives. Here's OpenDemocracy's report on the Leave campaign and their use of anti-immigration adverts.

That is not an opinion I share.
The Ashcroft referendum exit polls would bear out my opinion on the importance of 'sovereignty':
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/0...voted-and-why/

In pollster terms the EU had what is termed as 'low salience' prior to the referendum build up. Which doesn't speak to how much they like/dislike the EU, just how high up the pecking order of concerns it is.

---------------------------

separately - the deficiency of the euro:

https://reaction.life/why-is-the-eur...most-anything/

[Pannonian]

The UK government is advising UK companies wanting to trade with the EU to set up in the EU, as the problems are financially insurmountable with the deal the UK government has signed. This advice is supported by the testimony of a number of people/business owners who were formerly vocal advocates of Brexit, but who say that they are no longer viable under the present regime, with the problems deriving from no longer being part of the customs union/single market (moreso the latter). One of these people being a fish marketer and Brexit Party candidate who was enthusiastic about Brexit as recently as December, but who now says, 3 weeks into Brexit, that her business and the industry will not survive.

[rory_20_uk]

The UK government is advising UK companies wanting to trade with the EU to set up in the EU, as the problems are financially insurmountable with the deal the UK government has signed. This advice is supported by the testimony of a number of people/business owners who were formerly vocal advocates of Brexit, but who say that they are no longer viable under the present regime, with the problems deriving from no longer being part of the customs union/single market (moreso the latter). One of these people being a fish marketer and Brexit Party candidate who was enthusiastic about Brexit as recently as December, but who now says, 3 weeks into Brexit, that her business and the industry will not survive.

When in an election are there not cases of voter regret? But voters often seem to expect to get what they want rather than what is realistic - the EU was never going to give frictionless trade since this is basically the main thing they offer to accept entry into their cartel - pay the protection money and they won't damage your trade.

The EU are also upset that their diplomat isn't being treated equally to other sovereign states by the UK... Although they aren't a sovereign state. Definitely not...

[Crandar]

A nice summary of several businesses and sectors of the economy that face difficulties in transitioning into the new situation. The video interview with the fisherman is also useful in exploring the deeper reasons behind Brexit. The repented Brexiteer keeps mentioning independence and alludes to sovereignty, but his concerns are primarily financial. Apart from the 350 millions bus, he seems to have believed that an exit from the EU would grant him greater access to fishing grounds and a privileged position in trade with European customers. As the cheese merchant had said, it was about the future of his children and grand-children. Also, Chris Grey's blog is offering regular insights over Brexit, its narrative and impact.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU is now unhappy with how they ordered vaccine late and want to be given supplies for other countries. Apparently for the UK not to give it is the UK starting a war over the issue.

Sovereignty - such a useful thing.

[Pannonian]

The EU is now unhappy with how they ordered vaccine late and want to be given supplies for other countries. Apparently for the UK not to give it is the UK starting a war over the issue.

Sovereignty - such a useful thing.

How is this a matter of sovereignty?

[rory_20_uk]

How is this a matter of sovereignty?

The EU has the power to withhold Pfizer vaccines to the UK from the EU. If the EU wants to get hold of the UK vaccines it will have to open a court case in the UK and argue that "best efforts" somehow mean their supply is more important than the UK.

I imagine that if we were still in the Blessed EU we first off might not have immunised anyone with the AZ vaccine yet since the EMA has only just approved but there might not even be the AZ vaccine; the doses we would have been given would also have been determined by the EU.

[Furunculus]

Laughing my breasts off at the NI art16 move by the EU:

“#fbpe understands and supports The Commission at this difficult time.”

What is sauce for goose...

[Pannonian]

The EU has the power to withhold Pfizer vaccines to the UK from the EU. If the EU wants to get hold of the UK vaccines it will have to open a court case in the UK and argue that "best efforts" somehow mean their supply is more important than the UK.

I imagine that if we were still in the Blessed EU we first off might not have immunised anyone with the AZ vaccine yet since the EMA has only just approved but there might not even be the AZ vaccine; the doses we would have been given would also have been determined by the EU.

Didn't each country have the freedom to act as they wished? AFAIK the EU batch ordered a number of different vaccines, but each individual country could do whatever they saw fit on top of that.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU took a lot longer to negotiate with companies - hence why they had an agreement 3 months after the UK.

And no, Germany bought doses outside of the EU system: Link - not something that the EU seems to mention often. Why was this? Because Germany wanted more doses than the EU thought they should get, and wanted them faster.

[Montmorency]

Disclosure: I judge purely-materialist models of political behavior to have weak explanatory power, both in history and in recent world trends. Theories that accommodate status threat and relative deprivation/gratification account for observed correlations of demography and class (hint: it's not the lower classes) behind phenomena like Brexit. The advantage is of course that facts on the ground get woven together as a product of interactive socioeconomic factors (which can't actually be cleanly severed). There is after all little reason in principle why social conservatism would be synonymous with a self-reported belief that Brexit would either bring economic advantages or be worth any economic disadvantages... Not that, to be clear, almost any Brexiter claimed that economic motivations, which being a prominent preserve of Remainers, were their decisive factor.


I don't really understand the vaccine thing. As far as I can tell, despite all or most manufacturers having had a rought start of it, the bottleneck is not any lack of vaccine stock but the distribution to and by local health providers; certainly such is the case in the US. Germany's top-up doesn't appear to have ushered it upward in the ranking of vaccination rates (they're average among the EU-27). I have some dim appreciation for why every country seems to have applied for vastly more doses than is strictly apportionable by population, but widening that pipeline won't on its own facilitate inoculation. The EU is scheduled to receive hundreds of millions of doses next month anyway...

The idea of a supra-national organization that prevented European countries from practicing nationalistic protectionism only weighed on a few minds post-WW2?

Yes: "elites'."

By the way, I found the quote I was looking for.
https://europa.eu/european-union/abo...declaration_en

"World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it."
"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."
"The pooling of coal and steel production... will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."

Most human beings were not actively cogitating the mechanisms of world peace, let alone their relationship to sovereignty. Not in 1945, not in 1815, not in 1648, not today.

I lost my job because the world decided to shut down over a flu, noone asked me if we should; they just did it.

There is not a linguist alive who can adequately express how miniscule a shit I give that other people regret the one meaningful choice we were given in our lives.

If Greyblades were making this comment from a place of ideological anarchism I would have marginally more respect for it, but he certainly isn't an anarchist. In fact, it's kind of enraging that in the very same breath he implicitly accepts the consensual legitimacy of the party, government, and institutions that have delivered Brexit, while lapsing on this very consensual legitimacy when it comes to something he doesn't enjoy as much (yet is more fundamental to the role and nature of the state in its relationship to the polity).

While as a leftist I believe everyone should be helped, this is the kind of mentality that riles me: 'Fuck You, I Got Mine.' It's not about you dude.

Sorry to hear that. I don't know anything about UK welfare but I hope you get some sort of credit or cash equivalent to the amount you can claim to have lost due to COVID. In the US we do it mainly through UI (unemployment insurance).
Last time you talked shop you mentioned being on zero-hour contract, we don't have those here but I hope you can at least extrapolate an annual salary to claim based on pre-COVID work schedule.

We don't need a name for such contracts in the US because we have "independent contractors" - of whom, a quick search shows, there are proportionally more of than zero-hour workers in the UK.

UK, please let Labor do something about this very blatant slippery slope.

That is not an opinion I share.
The Ashcroft referendum exit polls would bear out my opinion on the importance of 'sovereignty':
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/0...voted-and-why/

In pollster terms the EU had what is termed as 'low salience' prior to the referendum build up. Which doesn't speak to how much they like/dislike the EU, just how high up the pecking order of concerns it is.

"Little England" indeed.



The poll implies that people who agree with sovereignty claims around Brexit are extremely likely to agree with Brexit, but that said agreement is significantly less relevant to driving decisions on Brexit compared to all the other popular justifications.

Striking how most respondents claimed to have come to a decision in 2016. They could be lying or mistaken of course, but this is less likely with (formerly) low salience issues. Paired with this at the end it's staggering:

More than three quarters (77%) of those who voted to remain thought “the decision we make in the referendum could have disastrous consequences for us as a country if we get it wrong”. More than two thirds (69%) of leavers, by contrast, thought the decision “might make us a bit better or worse off as a country, but there probably isn’t much in it either way”.

separately - the deficiency of the euro:

https://reaction.life/why-is-the-eur...most-anything/

The real issue is not whether there exist joint institutions, policies and procedures. The essential issue is to what extent they correspond to a stable and wide-spread will of member state populations to abandon present nation states.

As is well known, the centralization of power has been tried numerous times before in Europe and so far with less than sterling results. If this time the goal is to achieve unity through peaceful means it is, arguably, necessary to ensure explicit popular support for important unifying measures. Secrecy, misinformation or pressure could, at some time, become a focus for popular resistance to the very idea of a union.

While I agree in principle with the latter, I must have said at least once over the years that the greatest obstacle before EU integration is that almost any given European country is and almost always has been centrifugally fractious. If European countries are constantly disintegrating (as has long been observed in the so-called Third World) then how could those countries, individually, design to univocality for empowering a unitary government of higher order? Pretty much any deficiency of the EU is factually a deficiency of its constituent parts. Admittedly more so the large countries, in proportion to their size...

That's why I don't take as credible the typical assumption among both friends and foes that the EU is on a rapid or continuous path toward integration or federalization. For such a thing to become available (hypothetically edging on security cooperation and sporadic fiscal transfers ain't it), it would not be by a deepening of the current equilibrium but by either a radically top-down or radically bottom-up process. In the top-down process, either EU institutional actors overwhelm fragile member states to consolidate power, or the member governments durably unify on a much more pro-EU agenda than they ever have. I can't imagine either of those are forthcoming. In the bottom-up process, the general publics of fragile or failing European states would have to decisively reject their national establishments and appeal to the EU to fulfill the traditional functions of the state. Could happen after a generation of global turmoil, but just as conceivable are some worse outcomes. So - expect further trundling.

[Furunculus]

purely as anecdote, rather than a response:

on english-british identity - i seem to be an oddity in that i have a wholly british identity.
on making decisions in 2016 - this was in fact true for me for while i have been a 20-year sceptic I wanted Cameron to succeed, and was tipped over to the other side when belgium ensured that an exclusion to ever close union must apply only to britain. whether that too is an oddity i have no answer.

[rory_20_uk]

The UK left the EU. What waited with irrelevance, food shortages and so on and so forth. Because without the EU, what could the UK be?

The whole point of the EU is that how collective action is more useful than unilateral action. Not just collective action of course, but functions centralised as collective action would have been the EEC - but how many jobs could such an organisation support? Preventing wars was what NATO was created for - armed forces that were integrated and used to working together more than apart and has worked pretty well in the main.

Then the pandemic happened. And the UK didn't join in with the EU. If it had joined all would have been fine. All countries banned from talking to the pharma companies and only the EU in charge. The concept of "better" and "worse" is irrelevant if all are together. But the UK did decide to go alone and hence why the EU had a slower process in getting a licence and slower in getting the contract . In essence adding an additional level of failure rather than helping. Unsurprisingly, people are wondering why on earth they have the EU if in their time of need it hasn't helped.

And to truly show that the gloves are off they decide to invoke Article 16 - an event of such massive hubris that it managed to unite even the DUP and Sein Fein in speaking against it - along with many in the countries of Europe who aren't buying the narrative that this is all the perfidious British / AZ's fault or that the contract says they should get product before those who purchased it before them when it patently doesn't.

The EU is currently having a spat with the UK on whether their ambassadors are for a sovereign power or not. Although they are not a country their argument is that they have a foreign policy and a diplomatic policy they should be treated as a country.

So those in the EU appear always to be looking for ways to further unify but in this case they have been let down by their own incompetence. The Financial crisis enabled the ECB to take powers that had hitherto been viewed as impossible and here was the time to take a control over health systems - at least in terms of the emergencies. But currently besides having a spat with an anachronistic irrelevance (the UK) over a vaccine that Macron (and to a lesser degree the Germans) have dismissed as ineffective especially in the elderly there's little evidence of success. In essence, as rapid as their competence allows which is very, very slow. If they had been more discerning with who was admitted this might have integrated more easily.