EU & Brexit Bunker

[briantrumpet]

A reasonably balanced/realistic analysis of the EU/Canada situation from a former diplomat:

https://bylinetimes.com/2026/09/17/...p-with-a-better-deal-with-the-eu-than-the-uk/

Unlike many British politicians, particularly those guilty of completely botching the Brexit negotiations, Carney has not conveyed the attitude that the EU “owes” Canada anything, or that Canada “holds all the cards.” Where British politicians have repeatedly liked to boast about what they have “got” from the EU, Carney has made clear he is seeking win-win outcomes. Unlike too many British eurosceptics, who seem to gloat over challenges facing the EU, and relish the prospect of its failure, Carney understands that a strong EU is in Canada’s interests.

Moreover, unlike the political right in the UK, which still clings on to the fantasy of the US-UK special relationship, Carney understands that the US has fundamentally changed, and can no longer be fully relied upon as either a political ally or economic partner.

Perhaps most importantly, unlike many British politicians and commentators, Carney fully understands that the EU is far more than just an economic bloc, but an ideological one as well, forged out of the ashes of World War 2 and the Cold War, and committed to its democratic foundations. Hence the numerous references to shared values. He “gets” the EU, in a way that too many British politicians still don’t.

 

[Pblakeney]

A reasonably balanced/realistic analysis of the EU/Canada situation from a former diplomat:

https://bylinetimes.com/2026/09/17/...p-with-a-better-deal-with-the-eu-than-the-uk/

...and not just the British politicians.

 

[Milzy]

When do we rejoin the EU? By 22/06/2030 I reckon.

 

[briantrumpet]

Is it significant that unions seem to be pretty solidly behind rejoining now? In the 70s Michael Foot was dead against being in the EEC ("sovereignty"), Corbyn wasn't, shall we say, overly enthusiastic (probably with his fingers crossed).

 

[briantrumpet]

Canada - UK- EU. So I'll put this here, noting the similarities and differences in the Canadian & UK positions.

https://mostfavourednation.substack.com/p/gravity-always-wins

tl;dr - "Gravity always wins", so Canada is unlikely to develop trade in goods with the EU for the same reason the UK can't really break away from it. "Trade-adjacent schemes" is the most likely outcomes for Canada, in the writer's view.

 

[Ian H]

Is it significant that unions seem to be pretty solidly behind rejoining now? In the 70s Michael Foot was dead against being in the EEC ("sovereignty"), Corbyn wasn't, shall we say, overly enthusiastic (probably with his fingers crossed).

View attachment 17382

There are sound democratic and economic reasons for being sceptical about the EU, though COVID has ameliorated the economic ones

 

[monkers]

Is it significant that unions seem to be pretty solidly behind rejoining now? In the 70s Michael Foot was dead against being in the EEC ("sovereignty"), Corbyn wasn't, shall we say, overly enthusiastic (probably with his fingers crossed).

View attachment 17382

Labour resisted remaining in the 1975 referendum. Michael Foot took on Heath in televised debate. I wasn't born until later so don't have the lived experience of the age. While at Uni we had to examine the legalities of it though, so I gained some knowledge at that time and remember watching the Foot v Heath debates on youtube. If I remember correctly the ''ever closer union'' clause went back to at least The Treaty of Rome 1957 which led to the ''federalist'' claims. Maastrict later added fuel to that fire, then Lisbon.

The federal project was effectively killed off in 2004 when the French and the Dutch vetoed the 'Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe 2004'.

Jump forward to 2016 when social media became awash with gish gallop and false narratives about Lisbon Treaty and much else. Penny Mordaunt lied on live Sunday morning television that the UK would be unable to veto Turkey joining the EU agains the backdrop of the Brexit Party's famously faked poster. Brexiteers loved to falsely quote Churchill on the one hand and Tony Benn on the other. Benn's famous speech was in 1991 when he could not have foreseen either the Constitution for Europe in 2004 or its failure. This anachronistic misuse of his speech was also used by some Labour MPs in 2016.

Today, despite the commonly held misbelief, the EU remains a supranational entity (a bloc) and therefore can not become a full member of the UN or the Council of Europe. At the UN it has 'permanent observer status' which has been ongoing since 1974 - signaling that it does not have a sovereign entity. The EU is more entrenched at the Council of Europe though where the official status is beyond 'official observer' afforded to non-member sovereign states to ''Special Partnership'' making it a full participant in CoE meetings and intergovernmental work.

The EU has no flag or anthem. Because the EU is entrenched within the CofE, the EU parliament (not the whole of the EU) decided to co opt the CofE anthem and flag into its internal ceremonies. When Farage, Widdicombe et al famously turned their backs on it in the EU parliament they were effectively turning their back on the Council of Europe rather than the EU.

Many of the falsehoods told leading up to the referendum remain as unassailable truths in public memory.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Monkers you say the EU doesn't have a flag which is plain wrong - it's the blue one with the circle of stars:
https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/symbols/european-flag_en

It also has an anthem, Ode to Joy.
In 1972, the Council of Europe adopted it as an anthem to represent Europe, and later in 1985 it was also adopted by the European Union. (Source: Wikipedia)

 

[monkers]

Monkers you say the EU doesn't have a flag which is plain wrong - it's the blue one with the circle of stars:
https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/symbols/european-flag_en

It also has an anthem, Ode to Joy.
In 1972, the Council of Europe adopted it as an anthem to represent Europe, and later in 1985 it was also adopted by the European Union. (Source: Wikipedia)

I'm happy to explain further.

The first point is that Lisbon Treaty 2007 followed the failure of the Treaty of the Constitution 2004/5. It scrubbed the former text of the constitution, laws, and framework laws with the removal of formal articles enshrining the flag, anthem, and motto into new primary EU law.

Later the European Parliament decided to readopt them for their purposes within the EU Parliament. This was an informal process. Unless there is later EU law formally adopting them, of which I am unaware, they represent the internal celebrations of the EU Parliament only.

The second point is that the flag was first designed as 'The European Communities Flag'. It encompasses all European countries including the UK.

Therefore it is not a flag unique to the Council of Europe, or unique to the EU. It is not a flag that represents sovereignty, but a 'communities' flag embracing the peoples of Europe.

The anthem was adopted by the Council of Europe and remains so. All EU member states happen to be Council of Europe member states. On that basis, at least as I understand it, the European Parliament chose to coadopt it.

Therefore the flag, the anthem and former EU motto are former tokens of the EU - at least as a matter of law.

There is some confusion though, as other offices of the EU continue to fly that flag. This is legally a neutral act - the flag is not a property of the EU, but it remains a communities flag embracing all of its member states.

 

[PurplePenguin]

What does the EU Council of Europe flag have to do with anything?

 

[monkers]

What does the EU Council of Europe flag have to do with anything?

The removal of the flag from the Lisbon Treaty signifies that from the year 2007 that the EU had formally surrendered in its plan to become a federal state. Federal states invariably have tokens, so the removal of tokens from EU law was a significant moment.

The UK believed that the federal threat remained beyond the Lisbon Treaty as it had not removed the phrase ''ever closer union''. Cameron believed that this could be argued to remain a hook under the ECJ to oblige the UK to eventually join a federal state. That legal point remains arguable either way since it has never been tested (to the best of my knowledge).

From the so-called ''Basket of Four Demands'', the third was a demand to have an opt out from further political integration.

The reply letter from Tusk addressed the demand by framing integration via 'variable geometry' allowing member states wanting deeper political union to move ahead, while at the same time respecting those (like the UK) that do not, interpreting the treaty phrase as applying flexibly to "peoples" rather than imposing a federal superstate. Tusk went on to say that this approach would be written into the next round of treaty revisions.

This is a moot point with me since Cameron did not trouble to publish the detail. Instead he announced the referendum the very next day after the European Council meeting (Feb 2016). At this point it would have been entirely proper for Cameron to hold a referendum on the basis of consideration of the deal offered to the UK. Instead, he called an In/Out referendum saying that this would be binding on government rather than advisory to parliament. The intrepid Gina Miller later proved this was unlawful.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I don't really agreed. The EU has continued to federalise anything it can and, in any case, more than half the countries recognise the "EU flag" as the official EU flag.

 

[monkers]

I don't really agreed. The EU has continued to federalise anything it can and, in any case, more than half the countries recognise the "EU flag" as the official EU flag.

I didn't say that member states would not continue to move to ever closer union. I did say that if the agreement had been signed by both parties that the UK would not be obliged so to do.

As far as the flag issue goes. There is nothing within the Lisbon Treaty to cement tokens within the text.

There is a declaration though signed by 16 member states - it has no legal standing - but it reaffirms their attachment to those tokens. This is an emotional or sentimental response to that loss. Neither the UK or Ireland were among the signatories.

 

[briantrumpet]

How could we do that, pray, Ms Lettuce? Anything you might suggest??

 

[Ian H]

How could we do that, pray, Ms Lettuce? Anything you might suggest??

View attachment 17403

I suspect she and reality are poles apart.