Forum Topic

Sorry. I thought you were claiming that we (London) had been treated unfairly by the EU. The reality is that regional funding is a relatively small part of the overall budget but that which has been lost through Brexit has not been adequately replaced by the government depite all the 'Levelling Up' pledges. Anyone in the north who voted to leave the EU because they felt they were getting a raw funding deal will now have a better understanding.It is probably not a good idead to look at this in purely regional terms. 'The north' is an unhelpful generalisation as it is a complex area. Where you lived in the country wasn't the primary determinant of how you voted in the referendum - most of the major northern cities - Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds were pro-Remain. The assumption that the north was pro-Leave is based on the way former Labour constituencies voted - the so-called Red Wall but if you look at the demographics of these seats the common factor is an ageing population. In these economically depressed secondary towns, young people left and therefore the vote was determined by older people who had a strong tendency to vote for leave. There may be residual anti-EU sentiment among this type of voter and Labour's reluctance to put moving back towards EU membership certainly suggests that they fear there is but the polls are pointing to the Tories being wiped out in the General Election in the Red Wall seats so, whatever perceived unfairness these people believed they were victims of, the present government and leaving the EU hasn't rectified it.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 47d

Switzerland and Norway made being outside the EU work for them because they had a clear idea of why they didn't want to join and a strategy for their relationship with the bloc which involved cherry picking the best aspects. For the Swiss it was the needs of their agriculture sector and banking industries that drove things and for the Norwegians it was oil. But neither has the sort of ingrained hostility to the EU that characterised the British government in the wake of Brexit. Ideology plays little part so the Swiss are happy to be in the Schengen Zone while the Norwegians are in the Single Market.  Perhaps Brexit could have worked in some way if a single strategy had been adopted. Our oil industry isn't big enough for any competitive advantage to accrue from being outside the EU and our farmers, who of all people should have been familiar with the turkeys voting for Christmas analogy, appear to lack the capacity for cohesive action of their continental counterparts. The one industry that could have benefited from a tailored Brexit to the extent that it might have resulted in some measurable economic benefit was financial services but the UK is as committed to heavy touch regulation since the banking crash so that was never considered. The only bright spot here is that the City, although undoubtedly impaired, has proven to be very resilient to the plethora of challenges being outside the EU has brought. In place of a proper national strategy for being outside of the EU, its supporters had a range of aspirations that have, without exception failed to materialise. Whether it be reduced immigration, cheaper food, more money for the NHS, a national food policy, increased sovereignty, reduced bureaucracy or becoming an international trading power, it is not just that they have not been delivered but rather we have gone backwards on every count.



Andrew OSullivan ● 48d

In retrospect it has become clear that the only implementation that would have worked was leaving the EU but remaining in the Single Market. This was something that leading Brexiteers such as Farage, Johnson and Daniel Hannan suggested at one point or another. The alternative of significant divergence from Single Market rules quickly died on the hill of the border with the EU in the north of Ireland. Once it became clear that there were no meaningful trade deals to be had, including with the US, India and China, the potential benefits of divergence became tiny particularly when set against the massive costs of lost membership of the Single Market and the political risk to peace in Ireland.Therefore, I can't see how it was anything other than inevitable that we ended up in the situation that we now find ourselves - limited divergence that delivers no perceptible economic benefit and no prospect of any future boost to trade with the productive sectors of our economy at a major competitive disadvantage due to not being within the Single Market.As for the cost of rejoining, while nobody can pretend it won't be a long and complicated process, surely now we are all aware that the net contribution we made to the EU budget was miniscule compared to the benefits received? We will lose the set aside negotiated by Thatcher but this isn't that material in the broad scheme of things. The UK rejoining the EU would hugely welcomed by the vast majority of members particularly in the east where it is recognised we were a counterbalance to Franco-German hegemony so the politics of our return would be relatively easy. The main obstacles will be the complexity of unpicking the changes made after we left.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 49d

Well according to the DBT's overview of Britain's Brexit successes over the last 4 years with foreword by the Rt Hon Kemi Babadook MP, it's all sunlit uplands.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/brexit-4th-anniversary-updateI don't think the UK can just rejoin the EU, but probably need to reapply.This is how it works:Any European country can join the EU if it fulfills the membership criteria, also known as the Copenhagen criteria. For example, countries wishing to join must have- stable institutions that can guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. - a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with the competitive pressure of the EU market.- the ability to take on the obligations of EU membership, including the capacity to implement all EU law and adhere to the aims of the Union.Each country that applies to join the EU must fulfil the same strict requirements and follow the same rigorous process to become a Member State. There are three main steps to this process, also known as the accession process. These are:  Step 1: CandidacyA country wishing to join the EU must submit a membership application to the Council of the EU. The Council then asks the European Commission to check the applicant country’s ability to fulfill the membership criteria.Based on the Commission's recommendations, the Council decides whether to grant the country candidate status and to begin formal negotiations for its accession to the Union. All EU Member States must agree on this decision.Step 2: Membership negotiations During membership negotiations, the candidate country prepares to implement EU laws and standards, also known as the acquis.Throughout the negotiations, the Commission monitors the candidate's progress on these reforms and keeps the Council and European Parliament informed of this through regular reports and communications.Step 3: AccessionOnce the negotiations are complete, the Commission gives its opinion on whether the candidate is ready to become a Member State. If the Commission recommends that the candidate is ready, an accession treaty is prepared. This document details the terms and conditions of the country's EU membership.The accession treaty must then be approved by the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament before being signed and ratified by all EU Member States and the candidate country. The candidate country officially joins the EU on the date outlined in its accession treaty.https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/eu-enlargement_en

Hans Lund-Sorensen ● 51d