|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On January 18 2019 21:23 Banaora wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 21:09 ahswtini wrote:On January 18 2019 20:59 Velr wrote:
Whats there to gain by an extension? Why would the EU be interested in it? The UK has proven that its totally incapable of comming up with a deal that isn't putting the UK above actual EU members.
This isn't cherry picking, this is taking the whole cake - for free.
an extension gives time to sort out a second referendum and possible revocation of article 50. otherwise, there may not be the time to organise a referendum before the deadline. If the reason for an extension is that the UK wants to hold another referendum on the exit deal this will probably be supported by the EU27. If the reason for an extension is to give parliament more time to debate the answer probably will be a no. One problem with an extension is the European parliament election in May 2019.
I think that if the extension is sufficiently long the European parliament election shouldn't be a problem. If we are looking at say something less than 9-12 months the elections are in a weird place as I don't think there's been any decision on what to do with the parliament itself after (and if) Brexit does happen. Do the seats held by UK get redistributed? Do they just get removed? How and when would the by-election be to refill the seats?
|
Precisely. While British politicians still talk about negotiating with the EU to get a better deal, they have moved on. And rightfully so, there are problems in the EU right now that demand attention. And then the prime minister is upset that the British position is described as nebulous... I get that it's very complicated but having liars like Johnson still being part of the brexit debate is just crazy!
|
On January 18 2019 19:21 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 03:25 mahrgell wrote:On January 18 2019 02:55 iamthedave wrote:On January 18 2019 02:33 mahrgell wrote:
People complain about NoDeal being the default.
May wants to replace that default with the MayDeal.
People again complain.
So... regardless of how good or bad either is: WHAT should be the default?
So just in case (pure hypothetically) somehow the great master negotiators do not manage to agree on a great new solution to the whole scenario... what should be the fallback? Because waiting forever, just in case (again pure hypothetically) no agreement is reached, until there is one, is not a viable path.
PS: From a German satire online newspaper came the suggestion today, that it would be easier and faster, if the other 27 nations leave the EU and form a new Union. Since you bring it up, I'm curious. How is coverage of the ongoing clusterfuck over in Germany? Are your news agencies pointing and laughing or still fighting the migraines to try and understand what's happening in parliament? The topic is quite dominant in the German news cycle. Generally you usually see 3 kinds of reports on it. a) A very factual reporting on who couldn't agree on something this time. Especially since it is only about the UK internal arguments and not about a back and forth between Brussels and London those are really dry and neutral. Just stating the facts, not much else. b) Explanations for the German readers, of what is really happening here and what option are there left. Those are mostly simply ELI5 articles detailing the possible options (and why they all won't happen) c) personal opinion pieces on who did what wrong and what should be done: Those are highly diverse and contradicting. The blame is in 98% of the articles found in the UK, but e.g. Mays and the parliaments role is highly disputed. Similarly some say that a 2nd referendum would be the absolutely worst, others call it the only option. One noteworthy thing is, that I have hardly seen anyone here consider the MayDeal to be as problematic (for the Brits) as the Brits do. The tenor is mostly that the moaning about the backstop is unreasonable but people's minds on it probably won't be changed. Well I doubt the German press has quite the connection to the Irish problem as we do. b) is the one that interests me most. What's the German view on why all our options basically don't exist? Our media mostly tries to be semi-positive, but obviously your guys have more of a view from the EU perspective. Why does your media say extensions and the like are unlikely? Our options currently are dead in the water because we don't expect the EU to let us prevaricate any longer.
There had already been some discussion, and the main points have been mentioned, but to just rephrase the media opinion without my personal opinion:
When talking about extensions, most media here actually quote EU officials, saying that extensions would be likely to be given (if requested), BUT only so that the EU parliament elections are not affected. And this means, an extension would be max. 4 weeks.
So when the elections happen, the UK has to be already out! (or if they somehow decide to remain, those elections have to be adapted)
|
Another intresting angle is that EU wasnt exactly overjoyed when the court decided that UK could infact unilaterally revoke article 50. I dont think its because we actually want the UK to leave but rather that it is highly likely that this shit will happen again in just a few years and that in the meantime there will be a host of obstructionist British politicians (not all but a significant minority) in the EU messing things up. Which is frankly unappealing.
Hard Brexit might be preferable to that. So giving extensions is not that clear cut.
|
On January 18 2019 21:06 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 20:59 Velr wrote:
Whats there to gain by an extension? Why would the EU be interested in it? The UK has proven that its totally incapable of comming up with a deal that isn't putting the UK above actual EU members.
This isn't cherry picking, this is taking the whole cake - for free.
The headlines in the last few days by a leftish paper (die Zeit):
"May isn't ruling out hard brexit" - "France is preparing for hard/chaotic brexit" - "Tell us what you (the UK) actually wants after brexit" - "The responsibility lies in London" - "Industry should prepare for hard/chaotic brexit".... + some blogs/stories/portraits about the british soul and the main brexiteers and various articles about how bad this will be and allready is for the economies of the UK and EU.
In the comment section of german newspapers the sentiment is pretty much:
Populist/Trumpist/Morons: Hard Brexit becaues fuck the EU/Brown people, go britain! Freedom!
Others: Goodbye and thanks for all the fish. PS: You can/should still stay, if you behave like everyone else and a "sorry" certainly wouldn't hurt.
You barely ever see anyone hoping that the EU would give even an Inch more to the UK.
That's what I figured. What are the actual projections for the damage our leaving is going to do to the EU?
It'll hurt.
But it'll hurt the UK more. That pretty much sums it up. There's the same kind of experts speaking to german media, we have people saying that the damage to the EU is underprojected, overprojected, and so on - but usually, on that specific point, they're mostly unified.
That's mostly in regards to no deal. There's no fuzz about "the vacuum" left by the UK.
Well I doubt the German press has quite the connection to the Irish problem as we do.
Yeah, certainly germany of all countries wouldn't be able to sympathise in that regard.
Yes, not specifically Ireland, but assuming that a country that only was unified 30 years ago, with many people alive and remembering (me included) isn't able to "fathom" the irish problem is a bold statement, that i personally would very much doubt.
|
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view.
|
On January 19 2019 03:09 Toadesstern wrote:
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view. But what do you renegotiate?
-The backstop? Can't because its the EU/UK border, can't leave a giant hole there.
-4 freedom are as ever non-negotiable. Compromise there and you will compromise with everyone else in the future on a core principle.
What other major problem is there? At best the UK pays a little less money to satisfy the financial commitments it made prior to deciding to leave and thats not going to get it through Parliament.
|
On January 19 2019 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 03:09 Toadesstern wrote:
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view. But what do you renegotiate? -The backstop? Can't because its the EU/UK border, can't leave a giant hole there. -4 freedom are as ever non-negotiable. Compromise there and you will compromise with everyone else in the future on a core principle. What other major problem is there? At best the UK pays a little less money to satisfy the financial commitments it made prior to deciding to leave and thats not going to get it through Parliament.
I've said a softer Brexit. What you're talking about are negotiations about a harder brexit than what may's deal lays out. Something I specifically said i don't see happening.
I've said that the EU would be willing to change the deal so it's closer to what it innitially was with the UK inside the EU (with all the "bad" things that come along for the UK).
|
On January 19 2019 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 03:09 Toadesstern wrote:
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view. But what do you renegotiate? -The backstop? Can't because its the EU/UK border, can't leave a giant hole there. -4 freedom are as ever non-negotiable. Compromise there and you will compromise with everyone else in the future on a core principle. What other major problem is there? At best the UK pays a little less money to satisfy the financial commitments it made prior to deciding to leave and thats not going to get it through Parliament.
A permanent customs union with potentially some level of access to the single market for instance. Many EU politicians, including Barnier, has said there would be an extension of a50 if the UK were to shift their red lines.
|
On January 19 2019 06:59 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 19 2019 03:09 Toadesstern wrote:
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view. But what do you renegotiate? -The backstop? Can't because its the EU/UK border, can't leave a giant hole there. -4 freedom are as ever non-negotiable. Compromise there and you will compromise with everyone else in the future on a core principle. What other major problem is there? At best the UK pays a little less money to satisfy the financial commitments it made prior to deciding to leave and thats not going to get it through Parliament. A permanent customs union with potentially some level of access to the single market for instance. Many EU politicians, including Barnier, has said there would be an extension of a50 if the UK were to shift their red lines. Once again, the 4 freedoms are non-negotiable. If you want access to the single market you have to accept free movement of people which the UK will not, its the whole reason they are leaving.
On January 19 2019 04:31 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 19 2019 03:09 Toadesstern wrote:
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view. But what do you renegotiate? -The backstop? Can't because its the EU/UK border, can't leave a giant hole there. -4 freedom are as ever non-negotiable. Compromise there and you will compromise with everyone else in the future on a core principle. What other major problem is there? At best the UK pays a little less money to satisfy the financial commitments it made prior to deciding to leave and thats not going to get it through Parliament. I've said a softer Brexit. What you're talking about are negotiations about a harder brexit than what may's deal lays out. Something I specifically said i don't see happening. I've said that the EU would be willing to change the deal so it's closer to what it innitially was with the UK inside the EU (with all the "bad" things that come along for the UK). A softer Brexit then May's plan is the Norway model which is like being in the EU but not having a vote. The UK won't go for that because then they might aswell remain and have the exact same situation, but a vote.
Hence my point, where can this deal be re-negotiated on, when the only way to soften it is for the UK to accept the 4 freedoms?
|
I'm not entirely following the "logic" of the EU peddling for a softer Brexit.
Some key facts were pointed out by Gorsameth already, such as the four freedoms being non negotiable. The EU from the very get go was very, almost rudely clear about that. It's not going to change. They never even in the slightest and remotely suggested that there was an option somehow.
Second, customs union. I understand that Corbyn is peddling that, and that's why this is constantly brought up, but fact of the matter is that you might as well not leave in the first place then. Do people understand what a customs union entails? And if so, could someone explain to me how "customs union" fits together with "no EU regulatory body" and "everyone is just waiting to throw the best trade deals at us" (not to mention that the US would throw their weight in as well because a customs union with the EU would prevent chlorinated chicken etc if the UK wants to prevent border checks)?
Like, everything the Brexit entails would be void with both these options. It's absolutely moronic to suggest these. The UK does not want the EU to fuck with their shit, and they went on for years now how great the trade deals will be. Both of which is void in a customs union.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/22/customs-union-trade-policies-steel-garment-imports-brexit
Here's what a remainer has to say, a former trade minister, so one would argue that he knows his stuff. Doesn't seem to be too hot for that option.
edit: but people that constantly bring up stuff like this are the reason as to why the UK is in a shithole in the first place. Brexiteers constantly daydreaming of rebuilding "the umpaire", and getting all the good stuff from the EU vastly overestimating their own importance, and Remainers constantly daydreaming about how Brexit can be stopped and if and but, or.
There's only two options. Either the UK crashes out of the EU, which is more likely, or no Brexit at all. There will not be a deal, since UKs red lines are what they got the votes for in the first place, and the EU already offered what they can without compromising an entire bloc of 27 countries for that one special snowflake.
|
On January 19 2019 08:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 06:59 Longshank wrote:On January 19 2019 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 19 2019 03:09 Toadesstern wrote:
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view. But what do you renegotiate? -The backstop? Can't because its the EU/UK border, can't leave a giant hole there. -4 freedom are as ever non-negotiable. Compromise there and you will compromise with everyone else in the future on a core principle. What other major problem is there? At best the UK pays a little less money to satisfy the financial commitments it made prior to deciding to leave and thats not going to get it through Parliament. A permanent customs union with potentially some level of access to the single market for instance. Many EU politicians, including Barnier, has said there would be an extension of a50 if the UK were to shift their red lines. Once again, the 4 freedoms are non-negotiable. If you want access to the single market you have to accept free movement of people which the UK will not, its the whole reason they are leaving. Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 04:31 Toadesstern wrote:On January 19 2019 04:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 19 2019 03:09 Toadesstern wrote:
I think there's a serious chance for the EU to be willing to give the UK some slack in hopes of a softer Brexit-deal.
That's obviously not what the people voting for Brexit want but I think you have to look at these two things strictly separately:
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal? An extension to effectively get a similar but slightly altered deal? Unlikely in my opinion.
Chance to renegotiate parts of the deal in hope that it becomes a softer Brexit or an extension because in their minds that could lead to Brexit being thrown out of the windows alltogether? That's something I could easily see happening from an EU point of view. But what do you renegotiate? -The backstop? Can't because its the EU/UK border, can't leave a giant hole there. -4 freedom are as ever non-negotiable. Compromise there and you will compromise with everyone else in the future on a core principle. What other major problem is there? At best the UK pays a little less money to satisfy the financial commitments it made prior to deciding to leave and thats not going to get it through Parliament. I've said a softer Brexit. What you're talking about are negotiations about a harder brexit than what may's deal lays out. Something I specifically said i don't see happening. I've said that the EU would be willing to change the deal so it's closer to what it innitially was with the UK inside the EU (with all the "bad" things that come along for the UK). A softer Brexit then May's plan is the Norway model which is like being in the EU but not having a vote. The UK won't go for that because then they might aswell remain and have the exact same situation, but a vote. Hence my point, where can this deal be re-negotiated on, when the only way to soften it is for the UK to accept the 4 freedoms?
you're trying to misunderstand both of us really hard here... neither of us is saying that a new deal would try to circumvent the 4freedoms or anything else the EU wants. I've simply made the statement that if the UK gives the EU what they want because they've come to realize how much May's deal is worse than Norway-deal as well as normal EU-membership, the EU would obviously be willing to adjust the deal in that direction and in that direction alone.
I'm not making a statement about what's likely to happen. Of course the UK (or rather, the people voting for Brexit) don't want that. I'm simply making a statement about what's possible.
I'm making that statement because I think it's important to realize what the EU doesn't want given that Mays deal didn't pass and she has to look for alternatives now.
If a harder Brexit doesn't work, because the EU doesn't want to open the deal again (when talking about those kind of changes), then one of her options is to instead appease the people in her party&opposition who want a softer Brexit, with all the responsibilities that come attached to such a softer Brexit-deal like the 4 freedoms, EU regulatory body etc.
Or, well, No-Deal but i think it's plenty obvious she's only keeping that on the table because she thinks it helps with negotiation.
So what I'm saying is, that there's 3 options imo:
1) No-Deal (duh)
2) somehow get Mays deal through after all because MPs panicked in fear of No-Deal
3) Give the EU what they want and get a softer Brexit making everyone scream that this isn't actually Brexit
The 4th option "give the EU less and get a harder Brexit" doesn't exist because the EU doesn't want to open the deal again but I'm pretty sure the 3rd one does exist.
Again, not trying to talk about wether or not it's likely.
|
No one has suggested that the EU would budge on the four freedoms. And a CU or Norway deal is obviously worse in every way than remaining but there is where you'll end up if you're hell bent on delivering some sort of Brexit but can't accept a backstop or a no-deal. If May is to get Labour votes she needs to abandon at least some of her red lines, FoM being a prime candidate, and yeah it would mean a Brexit-in-name-only and is a shit option for the UK. The problem is that there are no good options left between no-deal and second referendum/revoking a50. May's deal was the closest thing they would get in order to a) deliver on the referendum and b) not fucking the country up royally. If that's dead then a or b has to go.
|
All these statements that a Norway deal is categorically worse do raise the question: why does Norway itself have a Norway deal? Presumably there is some advantage vs membership, if they've kept the arrangement for 40 years?
I do wonder if that's what will fall out in the end. A Norway deal has the advantage of paying lip service to "the will of the people" while avoiding the consequences of actually carrying out the will of the people. The argument that it's worse than remain in every way could be too complicated to matter.
|
On January 19 2019 02:45 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 21:06 iamthedave wrote:On January 18 2019 20:59 Velr wrote:
Whats there to gain by an extension? Why would the EU be interested in it? The UK has proven that its totally incapable of comming up with a deal that isn't putting the UK above actual EU members.
This isn't cherry picking, this is taking the whole cake - for free.
The headlines in the last few days by a leftish paper (die Zeit):
"May isn't ruling out hard brexit" - "France is preparing for hard/chaotic brexit" - "Tell us what you (the UK) actually wants after brexit" - "The responsibility lies in London" - "Industry should prepare for hard/chaotic brexit".... + some blogs/stories/portraits about the british soul and the main brexiteers and various articles about how bad this will be and allready is for the economies of the UK and EU.
In the comment section of german newspapers the sentiment is pretty much:
Populist/Trumpist/Morons: Hard Brexit becaues fuck the EU/Brown people, go britain! Freedom!
Others: Goodbye and thanks for all the fish. PS: You can/should still stay, if you behave like everyone else and a "sorry" certainly wouldn't hurt.
You barely ever see anyone hoping that the EU would give even an Inch more to the UK.
That's what I figured. What are the actual projections for the damage our leaving is going to do to the EU? It'll hurt. But it'll hurt the UK more. That pretty much sums it up. There's the same kind of experts speaking to german media, we have people saying that the damage to the EU is underprojected, overprojected, and so on - but usually, on that specific point, they're mostly unified. That's mostly in regards to no deal. There's no fuzz about "the vacuum" left by the UK. Show nested quote +Well I doubt the German press has quite the connection to the Irish problem as we do.
Yeah, certainly germany of all countries wouldn't be able to sympathise in that regard. Yes, not specifically Ireland, but assuming that a country that only was unified 30 years ago, with many people alive and remembering (me included) isn't able to "fathom" the irish problem is a bold statement, that i personally would very much doubt.
Did I use the word 'fathom'? No? Then why did you put quote marks around it?
I used the word connection deliberately. Try again.
|
On January 19 2019 21:48 Belisarius wrote:
All these statements that a Norway deal is categorically worse do raise the question: why does Norway itself have a Norway deal? Presumably there is some advantage vs membership, if they've kept the arrangement for 40 years?
I do wonder if that's what will fall out in the end. A Norway deal has the advantage of paying lip service to "the will of the people" while avoiding the consequences of actually carrying out the will of the people. The argument that it's worse than remain in every way could be too complicated to matter.
I would think the Norway-style deal benefits Norway in a way it wouldn't the UK because the two nations are situated quite differently with regards to the rest of Europe, the UK's centrality as a financial center being one of the big reasons why.
|
On January 19 2019 21:48 Belisarius wrote:
All these statements that a Norway deal is categorically worse do raise the question: why does Norway itself have a Norway deal? Presumably there is some advantage vs membership, if they've kept the arrangement for 40 years?
I do wonder if that's what will fall out in the end. A Norway deal has the advantage of paying lip service to "the will of the people" while avoiding the consequences of actually carrying out the will of the people. The argument that it's worse than remain in every way could be too complicated to matter.
Per my dad (who is Norwegian and has always kept up with politics in the homeland AND worked in the fishing industry most of his life) the EU's fishing regulations are too disruptive, given that fishing is one of Norway's biggest industries. I can't remember clearly, but I think Norway also punches a bit higher than its size suggests in a certain way and that means it would have to pay a somewhat disproportionately large amount into the EU coffer. Those are the wedge issues that have kept them out.
Interestingly, the Norwegian Conservatives are the ones who want them in (same as ours did until now) and lament that the Norwegian people can't help but engage with the issue emotionally instead of economically.
|
United States43991 Posts
Norway doesn’t want to give EU citizens rights because they have a trillion dollars in their sovereign wealth fund.
|
Actually Norway is part of the single market and part of Schengen. It fully accepts free movement of people and pays into the EU budget without having a vote on EU affairs.
Being in the single market means that Norway does not have trade deals of its own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway–European_Union_relations#European_Economic_Area
What is the point for the UK to give up their voice on future EU trade deals and EU policies if they can't have trade deals on their own and still continue to pay into the budget and also allow freedom of movement of people?
|
On January 19 2019 23:35 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 21:48 Belisarius wrote:
All these statements that a Norway deal is categorically worse do raise the question: why does Norway itself have a Norway deal? Presumably there is some advantage vs membership, if they've kept the arrangement for 40 years?
I do wonder if that's what will fall out in the end. A Norway deal has the advantage of paying lip service to "the will of the people" while avoiding the consequences of actually carrying out the will of the people. The argument that it's worse than remain in every way could be too complicated to matter. Per my dad (who is Norwegian and has always kept up with politics in the homeland AND worked in the fishing industry most of his life) the EU's fishing regulations are too disruptive, given that fishing is one of Norway's biggest industries. I can't remember clearly, but I think Norway also punches a bit higher than its size suggests in a certain way and that means it would have to pay a somewhat disproportionately large amount into the EU coffer. Those are the wedge issues that have kept them out. Interestingly, the Norwegian Conservatives are the ones who want them in (same as ours did until now) and lament that the Norwegian people can't help but engage with the issue emotionally instead of economically.
Our politics are..ehm..complicated. A lot of our right wing politicians wants to join EU, but absolutely none of our conservative voters wants that (Who tend to vote for the "workers party" who are leaning slightly left..because fuck logic). Farmers and fishers especially does absolutely not want anything to do with EU as they believe it would hurt their industry. Meanwhile they fail to understand that we're already part of it, and absolutely nothing is going to change by joining except for suddenly getting a representative to voice our opinions. We're already accepting every requirement the EU has towards its members, and everything else we're against (Like the Euro) is optional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
