This sounds kind of mildly dystopian to me, as an EU citizen. Back in the 1970’s the EU could not have functioned without UK, and the exemptions were necessary. Now we can, and if we go out of our ways with being extra nice to them after they’ve endangered the future of EU, other member states will be inclined to do the same whenever some populist party gains enough foothold. Creating such a precedent would kill the EU.
Yeah, we’d be better off with UK than without, but if UK joins on terms that will endanger the whole future of EU, as suggested here, then it’s still better without.
Either they should join on sane terms, which they will be ready for already in about two decades anyway, or they should not join. It’s pointless risking everything by unnecessarily hurrying up with this.
I don’t think it’s this grim to be honest. I don’t believe this precident will change much. It is painfully obvious at this point that EU brings benefits to it’s members and this flipfloping doesn’t achieve much. And if any country gets usurped by a group of people for whom it’s not obvious, they’re gonna shithead with or without UK precident.
However UK shouldn’t get special privileges this time, but mainly so they’re not doing this brexit-breturn shit every time they chose a new party.
So, are you saying that the membership fee rebate and such things that UK had just did not exist? Cool.
It wasn’t the EU, it was just the same members as those of EU when it renamed as EU, the same flag, the same capitals and the same legislation. Cool, cool. Understood :)
But, because it had a different name, it was a different thing. Because it had a different name, it was not the EU. Which kind of is true, but… meh. If a woman marries and takes her husbands family name, does it mean the person with old full name and the person with the new full name are not the same thing?
Sally Smith, born in 1981, becoming Sally Jones in 2005 means that in 2004 Sally Jones did not exist at all? Cool.
It’s ok to admit on what you’re wrong about; that doesn’t make you lesser. No big deal, we all learned a little more… that should be considered a good thing
This sounds kind of mildly dystopian to me, as an EU citizen. Back in the 1970’s the EU could not have functioned without UK, and the exemptions were necessary. Now we can, and if we go out of our ways with being extra nice to them after they’ve endangered the future of EU, other member states will be inclined to do the same whenever some populist party gains enough foothold. Creating such a precedent would kill the EU.
Yeah, we’d be better off with UK than without, but if UK joins on terms that will endanger the whole future of EU, as suggested here, then it’s still better without.
Either they should join on sane terms, which they will be ready for already in about two decades anyway, or they should not join. It’s pointless risking everything by unnecessarily hurrying up with this.
I don’t think it’s this grim to be honest. I don’t believe this precident will change much. It is painfully obvious at this point that EU brings benefits to it’s members and this flipfloping doesn’t achieve much. And if any country gets usurped by a group of people for whom it’s not obvious, they’re gonna shithead with or without UK precident.
However UK shouldn’t get special privileges this time, but mainly so they’re not doing this brexit-breturn shit every time they chose a new party.
The EU wasn’t a thing in the 1970s…
Actually it was. Back then it was called “European Economic Community”.
UK joined it in 1973.
That’s a different thing, which wasn’t the EU.
So, are you saying that the membership fee rebate and such things that UK had just did not exist? Cool.
It wasn’t the EU, it was just the same members as those of EU when it renamed as EU, the same flag, the same capitals and the same legislation. Cool, cool. Understood :)
But, because it had a different name, it was a different thing. Because it had a different name, it was not the EU. Which kind of is true, but… meh. If a woman marries and takes her husbands family name, does it mean the person with old full name and the person with the new full name are not the same thing?
Sally Smith, born in 1981, becoming Sally Jones in 2005 means that in 2004 Sally Jones did not exist at all? Cool.
Cool.
It’s ok to admit on what you’re wrong about; that doesn’t make you lesser. No big deal, we all learned a little more… that should be considered a good thing
I wasn’t wrong. They were, and defended it at length. I didn’t bother because of the overwhelming petulant sarcasm.