EU & Brexit Bunker

[Rusty Nails]

It was a coincidence, Cameron, etc expected to win.

The vote in 1970s was to join a trading block, nothing else .

Of course that was what it was.

But it developed and we were part of it as it did.

You cannot deny the changes in attitude shown since the realities of Brexit have been seen.

 

[C R]

You cannot deny the changes in attitude shown since the realities of Brexit have been seen.

Oh yes it can (and probably will)

 

[briantrumpet]

A typically detailed (and long) post from Chris Grey on Brexit and all sorts of implications and observations about its relevance in the current febrile political situation. It doesn't save anyone any blushes, let along Labour. And it's not optimistic either.

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2025/12/is-tide-turning.html

These and other stories are undoubtedly contributing to the impression that the government is useless and dishonest, and its failure to counter that impression effectively could itself be held against it. But it’s not necessary to indulge in false or unfair accusations to sustain the claim of governmental disarray and, in particular, the claim that it lacks any sense of coherent strategy or purpose.

It’s not just the chaotic leaks and hints about the budget. It’s the way that policies and initiatives appear or disappear at random. Examples include refusing to lift the ‘two child benefit’ cap and then embracing it as a central part of the government’s “moral mission”. Or suddenly floating the Digital ID Card scheme as a “priority”, without any details of how it would work, and then delaying even the consultation about it. Or, most recently, and again out of the blue, announcing a major policy to restrict trial by jury but, again, with no apparent idea about how or when this will be implemented. This isn’t the place to discuss the merits or demerits of any of these policies: my point is simply that they come from nowhere and, very often, go nowhere, or get reversed.

In a post in January 2019, I argued that Brexit was a profound misreading of the nature of the contemporary political and economic world and represented an unprecedented failure of British statecraft. It was not simply a bad strategy, but was the abandonment of any strategy at all. I still think that is the best post on this blog, or at least the one which best-articulates why I was, and still am, convinced that Brexit was a national catastrophe. In summary, the argument was that Brexit was based on a failure to understand the regionalization of economics and the multi-polar nature of international relations.

I obviously couldn’t predict the events that have happened since, but they have amply justified that analysis. I mean, in particular, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the second Trump presidency, and the continuing rise of autocratic China, as well as some of the effects of the pandemic on international supply chains. Over and over again in the course of these events it has been clear that the UK’s interests and values are substantially aligned with the EU’s, on all sorts of international issues apart from Ukraine, such as climate change, even as Brexit has severed the institutional connection between them. And, just in the last week, this has been forcefully re-emphasised by the publication of the US National Security Strategy.

 

[the snail]

Even if it did we’d be in a weaker position than our original membership allowed. We’ll never get that back unfortunately.

That's not a logical argument - sunk cost fallacy. The question is whether we would be in a better position than we are now, not how we were then.

 

[Pross]

That's not a logical argument - sunk cost fallacy. The question is whether we would be in a better position than we are now, not how we were then.

That wasn’t my comment though, I was simply making the point that we enjoyed a very good position in the EU before we left that we will never get back even if we rejoin. We voluntarily gave up the best membership available.

Rejoining on the same terms as the newer members is still obviously better than not being a member but rejoining on those lesser terms would just make ceding more favourable membership even more frustrating.

 

[the snail]

That wasn’t my comment though, I was simply making the point that we enjoyed a very good position in the EU before we left that we will never get back even if we rejoin. We voluntarily gave up the best membership available.

Rejoining on the same terms as the newer members is still obviously better than not being a member but rejoining on those lesser terms would just make ceding more favourable membership even more frustrating.

I don't think we would be in a much worse position if we rejoined anyway. The rebate was a thing ofthe past,and I don't think a commitment to join the Euro or Schengen would hurt us.We've lost far more leaving the single market. It's all academic anyway,we're miles away from even thinking about rejoining.

 

[First Aspect]

A "generation" is 20-30 years. Somits parked as a policy for the mainstream for another decade at least.

 

[briantrumpet]

Totes normal.

 

[Pross]

Totes normal.

View attachment 11618

Always good to take the Trump approach to things. He'll probably sue the Mail for a gazzillion pounds if anything ever happens and it gets pointed out he made inflammatory comments.