EU & Brexit Bunker

[briantrumpet]

This is a thoughtful & (I think) realistic piece on the UK & the EU from Stella Creasy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/08/brexit-failed-uk-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

[spen666]

This is a thoughtful & (I think) realistic piece on the UK & the EU from Stella Creasy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/08/brexit-failed-uk-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Pieces are only ever "thoughtful and realistic" when they agree with our narrow fixed views.

No one ever is open to differing views or consider that someone with a different viewpoint may possibly have something to add.

This forum ( not just this thread) is a place for people to ignore any other views and just repeatedly post their views or those of others with the same views.

This applies whatever the topic is and whichever side people stand on an issue

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Pieces are only ever "thoughtful and realistic" when they agree with our narrow fixed views.

No one ever is open to differing views or consider that someone with a different viewpoint may possibly have something to add.

This forum ( not just this thread) is a place for people to ignore any other views and just repeatedly post their views or those of others with the same views.

This applies whatever the topic is and whichever side people stand on an issue

I take it you disagree with the article?

 

[briantrumpet]

Pieces are only ever "thoughtful and realistic" when they agree with our narrow fixed views.

No one ever is open to differing views or consider that someone with a different viewpoint may possibly have something to add.

This forum ( not just this thread) is a place for people to ignore any other views and just repeatedly post their views or those of others with the same views.

This applies whatever the topic is and whichever side people stand on an issue

Posters who know me much better than you do will twig that the article represents a distinctly cooler version of what I would have liked to have happened once the die was cast. Hence the 'realistic'.

 

[spen666]

I take it you disagree with the article?

Nothing like being so closed minded that you take a post that expresses no view on the article as meaning I disagree with the article.

Thank you for helping prove my point

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Nothing like being so closed minded that you take a post that expresses no view on the article as meaning I disagree with the article.

Thank you for helping prove my point

You're welcome.

 

[PurplePenguin]

This is a thoughtful & (I think) realistic piece on the UK & the EU from Stella Creasy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/08/brexit-failed-uk-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I humoured you and read it.

It's just trying to reposition the same old thing. 1. Independent review which is not possible, but presumably she thinks will conclude Brexit is a disaster 2. No red lines, but she talks about avoiding a whole load of stuff 3. Involve parliament - how does that help?

 

[briantrumpet]

I humoured you and read it.

It's just trying to reposition the same old thing. 1. Independent review which is not possible, but presumably she thinks will conclude Brexit is a disaster 2. No red lines, but she talks about avoiding a whole load of stuff 3. Involve parliament - how does that help?

Any better ideas about how to mitigate the situation we're in now? Or do we just pretend everything's fine and muddle through with fingers crossed and hoping that the EU won't play silly buggers while the UK pins its hopes on Cakeism?

I'm not sure how *not* involving Parliament would be better than involving it, or why an independent review isn't possible, or why removing pre-conditions (red lines) that preclude flexibility and pragmatism wouldn't be helpful in showing that the UK is open to considering options.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I humoured you and read it.

It's just trying to reposition the same old thing. 1. Independent review which is not possible, but presumably she thinks will conclude Brexit is a disaster 2. No red lines, but she talks about avoiding a whole load of stuff 3. Involve parliament - how does that help?

I'm sorry but you may not have read forum rule 438a1 (listed below). Please clarify if you are
a) repeatedly stating your own views
b) trying to introduce debate.

This forum ( not just this thread) is a place for people to ignore any other views and just repeatedly post their views or those of others with the same views.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

1. Independent review which is not possible, but presumably she thinks will conclude Brexit is a disaster

I think that misses her point, as she suggests, if you want to plan for the future and make sensible determinations on what we want from any future relationship with the EU, having a clear understanding of the current economic effects of the relationship as it stands is helpful. If we have little clue which sectors or aspects of the relationship as a whole are not working for us, how can we begin to start developing a line of future negotiation?

Part of the argument (largely from Leave Voters) is what's done is done, move on. The problem with that approach is that is neglects to take into account the impacts Brexit has had and use this as a basis to improve UK/EU relations for our benefit. You can't argue for something if you refuse to ascertain what you are arguing for.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Any better ideas about how to mitigate the situation we're in now? Or do we just pretend everything's fine and muddle through with fingers crossed and hoping that the EU won't play silly buggers while the UK pins its hopes on Cakeism?

I'm not sure how *not* involving Parliament would be better than involving it, or why an independent review isn't possible, or why removing pre-conditions (red lines) that preclude flexibility and pragmatism wouldn't be helpful in showing that the UK is open to considering options.

The UK's position with the EU is a bit like Canada's with the US. Generally a trade off between economics and independence, but once in a while needing to adapt to a suddenly hostile neighbour.

I would play it like the UK did with the EU defence fund. Jump through a few hoops, be nice, but be prepared to walk away when the EU gets silly.

Involving parliament is fine. I'm just not sure it is a wild idea that will yield much.

The only red line she mentions dropping is paying the EU money. She doesn't want to drop the freedom of movement, customs union or single market red lines.

 

[briantrumpet]

The UK's position with the EU is a bit like Canada's with the US. Generally a trade off between economics and independence, but once in a while needing to adapt to a suddenly hostile neighbour.

I would play it like the UK did with the EU defence fund. Jump through a few hoops, be nice, but be prepared to walk away when the EU gets silly.

Involving parliament is fine. I'm just not sure it is a wild idea that will yield much.

The only red line she mentions dropping is paying the EU money. She doesn't want to drop the freedom of movement, customs union or single market red lines.

OK, thanks PP.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Also, whilst I think paying the EU to drop some of its rules might make sense in the short term, I'm not sure that establishing such a precedent would be beneficial in the long term, as I think the long term trend would be more rules and more money.

 

[AndyRM]

Pieces are only ever "thoughtful and realistic" when they agree with our narrow fixed views.

No one ever is open to differing views or consider that someone with a different viewpoint may possibly have something to add.

This forum ( not just this thread) is a place for people to ignore any other views and just repeatedly post their views or those of others with the same views.

This applies whatever the topic is and whichever side people stand on an issue

Gis a shout when you express a view on something.

 

[briantrumpet]

Obviously I wasn't going to be able to resist for long.

https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/peter-kellner-an-anti-brexit-majority-of-eight-million/