Brits negotiating draft deal to rejoin EU's $100B blockbuster science programme

UK government is negotiating a draft deal to rejoin the EU's €95.5 billion (c $103 billion) Horizon research funding program, following years of uncertainty resulting from the Brexit vote. According to reports, officials from the UK and the world's richest trading bloc have roughed out an agreement which is set to be presented …

[Michael Strorm]

> UK scientists have long complained that Horizon membership was an unintended, but devastating, effect of Brexit

Gosh, it's almost as if rushing into Brexit with no agreed plan and no consideration of the consequences, riding roughshod over existing agreements for no reason other than nationalistic puffery and wrongly taking for granted that the UK would be able to have its cake and eat it might have had "unintended" effects.

Who could have foreseen that?

> "If we cannot associate, we are more than ready to go it alone with our own global-facing alternative, working with science powerhouses such as the US, Switzerland and Japan to deliver international science collaborations," she wrote in the Telegraph.

Translation; if we don't get back into the club we left because of our own decisions, we'll set up our own with blackjack and hookers.

[Catkin]

In the past, Horizon hasn't been used as a political hammer. There are plenty of third countries who participate and quite a few within that number who exchange funding (e.g. Israel). It was understood that the urgency of this research, especially the life-saving medical work done was more important than using it to force the hand of third countries.

This changed quite abruptly during the transition from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe when both Switzerland and the United Kingdom were denied participation based upon unrelated policy disagreements. Therefore, while the EC gaining the power to temporarily disrupt research wasn't unexpected, I would say it was reasonably unexpected that they would choose to use that power, given the impact it has on the wellbeing of the global population (assuming you're not too dour about how the EC views humanity as a whole). The Stick to Science campaign collected thousands of signatures from top scientists inside and outside the EU expressing dismay over the decision.

[Lars]

@catkin

"Swiss entities CAN participate in most Horizon Europe calls. Funding is provided by the Swiss government as long as Switzerland is not associated to the programme."

https://www.euresearch.ch/en/horizon-europe/more-horizon-europe/status-of-switzerland-in-horizon-europe-367.html

I suggest you get a mirror and remember the - "break international law if only in a british way".

[Catkin]

That's quite restrictive and forces researchers to limit their interactions, rather than generating better and/or faster results and breakthroughs. This is in contrast to the unrestricted situation under Horizon 2020.

[Roland6]

>”In the past, Horizon hasn't been used as a political hammer.”

The EU are only able to use Horizon as a political hammer with the UK, because the UK team under Boris, didn’t do detail.

The situation could be a lot worse if the UK had done as the hard”no deal” Brexiteers wanted…

[Catkin]

That ignores the wider picture that such action with Horizon was without precedent, irregardless of how the EC was empowered to make that decision. Admittedly, the scope of Horizon is rather large and there are certainly projects that relate purely to strategic technological developments (such as semiconductor manufacture) but not, at the very least, ring fencing research on wide ranging medical scientific research rather speaks to how an influential number within The Commission view the programme (or, to give the benefit of the doubt, their possible ignorance).

Perhaps, while the suggestion of a programme "with blackjack and hookers" was glib, there might be a kernel of wisdom in the idea of setting up a programme with other concerned countries (like Switzerland) that puts politics aside for the good of humanity. Holding up research in areas like Alzheimer's and chronic pain is, in my view, indefensible and every bit as vile as the US aid programmes that prioritise abstinence-only education over workable solutions to the HIV epidemic.

[adam 40]

The EU has shown its true colours

Using Horizon as a bargaining chip to get its own way over largely unrelated post-Brexit negotiations - well well well.

You can bet your bottom Euro that this type of shenanigans was (is still?) going on behind the scenes to strongarm member states into acquiescing to this or that Euro policy.

Now, it's all out in the open.

[Steve Button]

Some balance?

It seems to me that this is one of the worst outcomes from Brexit, and it would be a real benefit all round if we could collaborate on things like this.

It also seems that as bureaucracies grow (as they always want to) they tend to become bloated and demand more and more power. It always happens. They also tend to become more corrupt, and inward focused.

It also seems that the vast majority of people either think the EU is the very best thing that's ever happened, or the very worst. Why not somewhere in between, where on balance it can deliver a lot of benefits, but also has a lot of really big problems.

After seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave, it has cooled my opinion of them somewhat.

What would be lovely is if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade, and stop trying to set the laws for the whole bloc. A kind of reform. And perhaps people would vote to rejoin that. But they are never going to do that, as they want more power not less.

It also seems like the bureaucrats seem to love flying around in private jets, but tell the rest of us we shouldn't fly so much (just one example, and no in any way limited to just the EU).

So, yeah I would like to eat my cake and have it with cherries on top. I'm still on the fence about the whole thing.

[Pascal Monett]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

Citation please ?

The EU enacted the rules that were in place. You might want to remember that the UK specifically made some of those rules you are considering as "punishment".

Then again, you might prefer to ignore that. Much more comfortable that way.

So, carry on !

[Michael Strorm]

Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

> You might want to remember that the UK specifically made some of those rules you are considering as "punishment".

"I never thought leopards would eat my face".

[Wellyboot]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

Politico's can really do the feigned surprise or shock very well, more of them should be actors*. An impact assessment should have been created ahead of the vote to enable the reasonable debate we never saw (before or after).

*please

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

Given that the vote was labelled advisory and in absence of a previous impact assessment it would have been an appropriate reaction to carry one out as a first response to the vote. Instead Cameron panicked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

Panic. Well know side effect of various Porcine related diseases.

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

"Given that the vote was labelled advisory"

To quote Pascal from a few posts above, "Citation Please".

Where was it stated before the referendum that it was advisory?

After the vote, there were plenty of people on the losing side that claimed (possibly correctly, in strict legal terms) that it was advisory. However, you choose to say 'labelled advisory' implying that this was done before the vote and was thus the basis on which people voted. Being blunt - prove it. Remain supporters seem to like accusing the leave campaign of being less than truthful, so it's reasonable to expect you to live up to your own standards.

Can you point to any instance of it being stated that the vote was only advisory before it took place?

Alternatively, can you point to a national referendum that has occurred in the UK (which was not explicitly identified as advisory) where the authorities have chosen to ignore the result? Because I can't think of any, and I reckon that any reasonable person would reasonably assume that if the (democratic) government says that they are going to put an issue to the general populace, and the government has always previously be bound by the peoples' decision, then the government would be bound by that decision, unless they explicitly said otherwise.

Because I can't be bothered to trawl through the internet looking for quotes from various politicians made before the referendum, I'll just take a couple from Cameron's resignation speech on the day after the vote:

"The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected."

"The British people have made a choice. That not only needs to be respected – but those on the losing side of the argument, myself included, should help to make it work."

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

In the UK parliament is sovereign and referenda are always advisory by definition. But, hey, that's only the law, so feel free to make up your own rules…

[EvilDrSmith]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

I'll take that as proof that you cannot point out anywhere where that was stated prior to the vote, or give any incidence of a referendum vote not being accepted.

Perhaps you were fully familiar with the law as it related to referendums prior to the vote. I doubt many in the country were.

All of which is, of course, irrelevant - I asked were it was 'labelled advisory'.

I did acknowledge this point ("possibly correctly, in strict legal terms"), so I am not 'making up my own rules', but you did fail to answer the question.

The country voted with the expectation that the vote was binding, because that was what the government and parliament led them to believe. There is no precedent for anything else.

My question was quite specifically where was it labelled that it was advisory.

If Doctor Syntax had simply stated that the referendum was 'advisory in strict legal terms', I would not have challenged him.

If the referendum was 'labelled advisory', you should have no problem with producing the (pre-vote) label that specifically stated that.

[anothercynic]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

The exact bit of parliamentary documentation that specifies that the referendum was to be consultative (i.e. *not* legally binding) is here:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP14-55/RP14-55.pdf

I draw your attention to section 5.1 on page 16, and I quote:

This Private Member’s Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions.

Does that satisfy your "what does it say it was advisory" question?

[adam 40]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

I suppose the 1975 referendum - to remain (67% in favour) was also advisory, and by dint of this, we should have left the EU at that point.

[Roland6]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

>” In the UK parliament is sovereign”

Nice sound bite, evidence, since the referendum, shows the Executive can and does bypass Parliament…

[Lars]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

@EvilDrSmith

Dosn't matter now at all but we find this text here (https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/).

"Start with the law

The referendum was not legally binding. There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one.

In other countries, referendums are often legally binding—for example, because the vote is on whether to amend the constitution. The UK, famously, doesn’t have a codified constitution.

A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. In practical terms this would mean someone would be able to go to court to make the government implement the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011, for example, was legally binding in this way.".

So according to my understanding it was not legally binding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

The referendum WAS Advisory which was lucky for Leave.EU et al because the electoral commission said that they would have fined them a LOT more for breaches in electoral law if it had been legally binding

citations below

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

An impact assessment should have been created ahead of the vote to enable the reasonable debate we never saw (before or after).

They should have done that in 1992, before enacting Maastricht, where most of us didn't even get a vote.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

Maastricht was about providing balancing features to ensure a Europe-wide single market could be managed properly. For example, cross-border police services were essential to combat possible fraud, eg through VAT scams. The Single Market it created has generated enormous extra economic activity. Think of the automotive market, and how many components are made from other components sourced from across the EU.

Maastricht was a no brainer -- unless of course you were a gammon.

[Falmari]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

@RegGuy1 "Maastricht was a no brainer -- unless of course you were a gammon." or from Denmark, France or Ireland who all held referendums. The first Danish referendum rejected the treaty. In France the referendum was 50.8% in favour.

Seems 3 of the 12 members did not see it as a no brainer.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

Denmark and Ireland are required to do so by their constitutions…

[imanidiot]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

While there's certainly a lot of good things in the Maastricht treaties, there's also a lot of bad things in there. On the whole imho it should never have been pushed through without an agreement of the people that would be subject to it. Most people at the time in NL for instance barely even knew about it or knew what their country had just signed up for. If it had gone for a vote its very likely it would have been a no (which is why they didn't ask. The few times we had a referendum, before they threw the laws back out for being inconvenient to the establishment, the people voted No to both (to the "Lisbon treaty" of the EU, which was literally just the EU giving itself more power and removing the requirement for unanimous voting so smaller countries could no longer block the will of larger countries, and once to a treaty with Ukraïne because it just wasn't the time for it yet. Both were "solved" by putting in a bit of paper with some toothless lies about some sort of "compromise" that changed nothing of substance and pushing things through anyway)

The basis of the Maastricht treaty is (from Wikipedia because I can't be bother to find the actual treaty): "Having "resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", the Treaty proposes "further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration"".

The EEC was already doing fine with improving internal trading. There is and was no need to "create an ever closer union or "advance European integration" to the extend the pro-EU politicians want for trade or economic reasons. We don't need the enormous money incinerator bureaucracy in Brussels and Strasbourg full of useless "has been" politicians deciding to give themselves ever more (legally unopposable) power and ever more salary. Their end goal seems to be a "united states of Europe" with governments of the original countries having basically no power left. Much of what a countries citizens now can or cannot do is already strongly regulated by the EU with no way to say "No, screw you and your stupid nonsensical rules".

And the biggest problem is that even with all this advanced power grabbing that the EU is doing, they're still completely useless when it comes to things where it actually matters (like forcing Germany to stop polluting themselves and especially their neighbouring countries by forcing them to stop burning lignite or pay for the costs it creates for their neighbours). Or actually tackling human trafficking from the Balkans and Afrika.

[Andy 73]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

You'll note how little engagement an analysis like this will get.

It's much easier to complain loudly that Brexit was because of thick Brexiteers than to actually have a grown up discussions about what a united Europe really looks like and the inherent challenges such a construct faces. Anyone dealing with tax accounting across the continent will know that these are really non-trivial problems and - regardless of your political leanings - the current state of Europe is not (and cannot be) a fixed constant.

[imanidiot]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

I'm certainly not saying it should be a constant, but I also think there should be a very thorough discussion on what direction it should be headed and my firm opinion is that the EU is currently heading in the wrong direction.

[Justthefacts]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

Tax accounting in the EU, and the “avoidance of VAT” which was all supposed to be fixed…..Yes, let’s talk about that, and the cesspit which is the Rotterdam VAT avoidance industry based on “Article 23”.

https://vat-frh.com/ “Achieve a 0% VAT solution in most cases”

https://www.bgscustoms.eu/fiscal-representation “ By appointing a fiscal representative, instead of 21% Dutch VAT, a 0% Dutch VAT rate may be applied on the purchase and sale of those goods when certain conditions are met.”

Ever wondered why Rotterdam is such a massive port? Special dispensation VAT avoidance is the answer. The reality is that only the minority of imports to the EU actually pay VAT. Basically only the naive pay VAT on EU imports. Most Chinese importers just route via Rotterdam, “defer” VAT, and then accidentally fail to track it and pay VAT at the destination country. Honestly, who is going to track a $100 package individually within Schengen, once it’s got through to customs.

[Justthefacts]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

“Think of the automotive market”

This is the point. Automotive, aerospace, banking markets are the *only* economic voice being heard by the EU. It’s the large corporates, who have the size and money to do the lobbying. The small companies get utterly screwed, by rules that have been subtly skewed to favour bids by their SuperMax competitors.

I know this well, because I spent the majority of my career in large corporates, and over a decade tightly integrated into the Lobby/Bid infrastructure. I was rather good at my job, my well-known aerospace corporate made multi-billions out of the EU rules *that I literally drafted and handed to the Commissioner*, to exclude our competition. I sat in an office with corporate Council, thrashing out many of the rules that you now support as “EU regulation”. I still have the early drafts on my laptop. We used our rule-making clout to drive dozens of SMEs out of business, with the loss of thousands jobs, to save a couple of hundred in my own company. As I say, I was good at my job. Now I’m on the other side, I own and manage an SME in a different sector.

The large corporates make up the vast majority of the voice, column-inches, and commentators on this forum. But SMEs form three-quarters of the economy. Listening to the cost/benefit for

Volkswagen, Airbus, and SocGen, is *not* a good measure of the true impact of EU rule-making.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

"I know this well, because I spent the majority of my career in large corporates, and over a decade tightly integrated into the Lobby/Bid infrastructure. I was rather good at my job, my well-known aerospace corporate made multi-billions out of the EU rules *that I literally drafted and handed to the Commissioner*, to exclude our competition"

How can you sleep at night?.....

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

The UK doesn't govern by referendum so no vote was required or even desired. Feel free to move to Switzerland if you disagree.

[Roland6]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

>"An impact assessment should have been created ahead of the vote to enable the reasonable debate we never saw (before or after)."

Disagree, remember the question was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

The mistake was jumping straight from the (advisory) result to action and making it up as you go along, without reasonable consideration and consultation...

[Justthefacts]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

And *you* should remember that we on the Brexit side wanted a second *clarifying* referendum. And a Remainer went to court to successfully prevent it.

The clarifying referendum we wanted would have been “what is your preferred Brexit solution”, we could have had Norway-style, Hard Brexit, etc, could have been four or five options on there, Single Transferable Vote. There’s absolutely no constitutional reason why not, none at all. We could have had Remain on that ballot. So long as it was STV, Brexit would have won even more comfortably, but likely softer than we ended up with.

But Gina Miller went to High Court to injunct with a bunch of gerrymandering that any referendum could have only two options on it (why?) and that one of those options must be Remain. So, a re-run of the previous referendum….after which, what, best of three? She thought she was being clever, instead of which it turned out she wasn’t as clever as she thought she was because then there wasn’t a second referendum. And then Remainers had the gall to complain about not getting the thing they themselves had destroyed by gerrymandering.

[anothercynic]

Re: Never forget that the original had the emphasis on "my"

No, the Remainer didn't 'go to court to prevent it'. That's where you're wrong. Gina Miller went to court to ensure that *Parliament* retained the final say on whether the country left the EU, *not* just a bit of secondary legislation that Parliament never would get to see or vote on.

Ultimately, she was correct. Parliament is not a consultative body. It is the legislative one, and constitutional questions such as exiting the EU, which *Parliament* legislated the country into, should be left to Parliament to legislate on. Thus, effectively, through her court case, she made sure that since Parliament joined the UK into the EU, *Parliament* would be the one taking the UK *out of the EU*. That is only right and proper. It would not have precluded a second, legally binding referendum. It merely would have ensured that Parliament would have the final say.

The haste in and 5 years of making a spectacular mess of leaving the EU cannot be left on her doorstep. It is something to be squarely left on the doorstep of the party in government, because you ought to be careful to note that a) MPs of several opposition parties and b) more moderate (i.e. less "we must Brexit at all costs and right now") Conservatives were very much in favour of a second, legally binding, final say "yes, we bloody well want to leave" referendum once all the implications of leaving the EU were clear in terms of what it would actually mean. But, instead, much noise and heat was created about the bad EU and how we would finally be free of the oppressive tyranny of the EU, and how 'Remainers have the gall to complain about the thing they themselves had destroyed by gerrymandering'.

How's that working out so far? Not very well. We see it whenever people go to the press to complain about how 'we weren't told *this* would happen if we voted for Brexit' (no longer being able to use e-Passport gates, no longer being able to export seafood with a minimum of paperwork, food rotting in the fields, pigs and turkeys not getting slaughtered and having to be destroyed, the mess about Northern Ireland, etc etc). The hardliner Brexiteers are the ones to be blamed for this. They were the ones who got us into this mess. There was plenty of support for a customs union or maybe EFTA/EEA-style relationships with the EU, but the hardliners wanted no part of freedom of movement (which Switzerland and Norway also had to agree to in order to make *their* deals with the EU), and thus went for the just-stopping-short-of-nuclear option.

[werdsmith]

Citation please ?

Bloke down ‘spoons told me innit.

[Tom Chiverton 1]

Re: Citation please ?

Most people didn't vote in the referendum ergo most people were happy to stay in Europe

[codejunky]

Re: Citation please ?

@Tom Chiverton 1

"Most people didn't vote in the referendum ergo most people were happy to stay in Europe"

Most people didnt care about the EU and didnt feel it worth voting to support.

To correct the largest mistake however, the EU is not Europe. The UK didnt leave Europe it left the EU. One is geography the other is a political union.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Citation please ?

Er, 5 million people were excluded from voting because it was thought they would vote to stay in. And some Asian people voted to leave because they wanted to make it easier for non-Europeans to get into the UK.

The white working class voted for brexit because they hated foreigners. Many had left school at 14 or 15, and only gone to the University of Life. And it's well know that that university doesn't offer a Critical Thinking course.

[codejunky]

Re: Citation please ?

@RegGuy1

Whacharambling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

codejunky>> Whacharambling?

That's your most cogent post ever, that is.

[codejunky]

Re: Citation please ?

@AC

"That's your most cogent post ever, that is."

I am happy to have written a post at your comprehension level???

[Justthefacts]

Re: Citation please ?

This is why Brexiteers fear and loathe the Remainers so passionately: “some Asian people voted to leave”

You mean some *British citizens*. You vile racist. 80% of non-white British citizens voted to Leave. And you want our views to be over-ridden by immigrants who weren’t born in the U.K. (hmmmm) and have *explicitly chosen not to become British citizens*. Nobody stopped those EU immigrants becoming British citIzens. They could have applied and gained it like everyone else. And then they’d have a vote. And the *only* reason you have for prioritising their interests over immigrants from India, Bangladesh, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, who *did* apply for British citizenship is that they are *white*.

You are a vile, loathsome racist.

“The white working class voted for brexit because they hated foreigners.”

No they didn’t. The working class voted Brexit because they hate everything the EU Commission stands for and see it for it is: the same fascists that many of our parents and grandparents escaped from, around the world. The patronising whine of the administrator who doles out the banality of evil, for a consideration. And turns a blind eye to the beatings and lynchings. The French citizens of the Paris Banlieu know it. Whether our parents escaped from Khomeini or Hitler, Idi Amin or Bokassa, Petain or the true Rivers of Blood of Partition. Here we are. And we see you. We know what you are.

It’s interesting how you shout two contradictory views and see no tension. You admit Brexit is a working class vote. The class of the *Left*. Of *Labour*. Indeed, Brexit vote was much stronger on the *Left* than the Right. And yet you continue with the outright lie that Brexit is from the *Right*, that it’s Boris Johnson and Rees Mogg. It’s not, and never has been. The only sense in which Remain is “Left Wing” is that it’s Lib Dems. Upper Middle Class twats who *nobody votes for*. That’s what Remain is.

“Many had left school at 14 or 15”

Hmmm….back when it meant something, I got 6 A* at A-level, 4 S-level grade 1, starred First (top ten in my year), and a PhD from Cambridge. I have fourteen patents to my name. What are your qualifications like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

Brexit voters were mostly right of centre voters. Most of what people I spoke to 'thought' was regurgitated spin from right wing media.

Certainly that's what numerous analysis seems to indicate. e.g.

https://www.whatukthinks.org/eu/2023/02/03/brexit-and-party-support-looking-through-a-different-lens/

What I could find on ethnicity and brexit voting seems to indicate you're wrong again on another point.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/519308/eu-referendum-voting-intention-in-uk-by-ethnicity/

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

Brexit voters were mostly right of centre voters

Hmm, does "red wall" mean anything to you?

[Justthefacts]

Re: Citation please ?

“Brexit voters were mostly right of centre voters”.

How could this even be true, at a basic sanity check? Brexit vote was 52%. The Tories have just 37% of the vote-share, they win in the U.K. because the Left vote is fragmented. Tories are split only 60/40 for Brexit, providing 23% towards that 52%…..where does the remaining *29%* (ie the majority) come from? Not the Lib Dems or SNP, that’s for sure. Labour plus SDLP plus Plaid Cymru is the answer.

Yes, *those* Plaid Cymru supporters, whose party claims virulently Remain….and yet Wales polled 52% Leave, with the Brexit vote being massively dominant outside “the Cardiff bubble”. Go to Blaenau-Gwent, former mining town (62% Leave) and tell them that they’re right-of-center Tories. Good luck. If you’re lucky, they’ll burn your car, if you’re not, they’ll burn *you*.

Ethnic origin vote-share: similar story, the details are all there if you understand the territory. The statista data is a Poll, not referendum, and looks really dodgy, a total of 12,369 respondents. Eg, 0.7% of U.K. population is of Chinese descent. If the poll was representative, that would be asking 86 people of whom 60 voted Remain….that’s a “brave” extrapolation. If you want to know the *actual* numbers, know the demography of some constituencies in London, Birmingham and Manchester, compare referendum result against neighbouring.

[Wellyboot]

Re: Citation please ?

Equally the remain leadership were lulled into thinking they were on fairly safe ground by the North London bubble (something like 80% remain, where they mostly lived)

There were no party based lines in the affair, Had he not died two years earlier we'd have been able to watch the almost unique event of Tony Benn* agreeing with BoJo & Moggy!

Was Tony Benn a gammon?

* he stuck to his principles regardless of the political consequences.

[Jimmy2Cows]

Re: Most of what people I spoke to 'thought' was regurgitated spin from right wing media.

Brexit voters were mostly right of centre voters. Most of what people I spoke to 'thought' was regurgitated spin from right wing media.

So your "evidence" of righ-of-centre is based on the people you spoke to. Nice. How many people did you speak to? Across how many different demographics, regions, politcal leanings etc?

[gandalfcn]

Re: Citation please ?

"I got 6 A* at A-level, 4 S-level grade 1, starred First (top ten in my year), and a PhD from Cambridge. I have fourteen patents to my name. What are your qualifications like?"

And I'm the Virgin Mary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

And I'm the Virgin Mary.

I'm sure there's a F**k joke in there somewhere...

[Justthefacts]

Re: Citation please ?

I’m a classic second-generation immigrant. Where I come from, my parents valued the education they never had, above all other things. They espoused hard work, studying until midnight six days a week from the age of 5. The bare minimum you are expected to achieve is doctor or lawyer. If you aren’t aiming for the top of those professions, with articles in the newspaper, you’re a disappointment.

It’s mostly parental background. My patents are really the first thing I achieved that was truly my own. Is it healthy? Probably not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

You're likely responding to someone whose parents expected them to stay up until midnight six days a week playing computer games because "I never did all that studying and look at me, I did alright"

[notyetanotherid]

Re: Citation please ?

> Hmmm….back when it meant something, I got 6 A* at A-level, 4 S-level grade 1, starred First (top ten in my year), and a PhD from Cambridge. I have fourteen patents to my name. What are your qualifications like?

Citation please?

I'll grab the popcorn while I'm waiting, especially seeing as the last S-levels were in 2001 and A* at A-level came in in 2010...

[Justthefacts]

Re: Citation please ?

A* at A-level did *not* come out in 2010. You had to be in the top ten of the country to get them. There was a little ceremony.

[notyetanotherid]

Re: Citation please ?

> A* at A-level did *not* come out in 2010. You had to be in the top ten of the country to get them.

Pray tell when they did, since you are the expert?

Try https://analytics.ofqual.gov.uk/apps/Alevel/Outcomes/ ... Is it just a conspiracy that Ofqual's analytics don't show any A* before 2010? Or is it, as they say: "You will see that there are no data points for the A* grade in 2008 and 2009 and this is because the A* grade for A level was first awarded in 2010. This explains the drop in the percentage of students achieving grade A in 2010."

[Justthefacts]

Re: Citation please ?

No idea, really. I was class of ‘74.

For starters, Ofqual was only established in 2010. And there wasn’t even a National Curriculum until trendy-boy Baker got his interfering snout in ‘88, followed by Ofsted in ‘92. Before then, individual exam boards did whatever the hell they liked. And so did independent schools; government had no oversight at all of independents, only state schools. For all I know, only O&C board did A*, or maybe they all did, or maybe they stopped and re-started. I apologise for their inability to predict the internet 25 years later, to be recorded into Wikipedia for your convenience…..but at least they did print me a nice certificate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

"I got 6 A* at A-level, 4 S-level grade 1, starred First (top ten in my year), and a PhD from Cambridge. I have fourteen patents to my name."

Impressive. Still doesn't stop you from talking shite though.

I have 15 patents. My dad's bigger than your dad. My mum's prettier than yours too. So there!

[Justthefacts]

Re: Citation please ?

I can be either right or wrong.

But the argument “Brexit is for un-educated people” really just doesn’t work, does it?

The argument “Brexit is for stupid people” only works if you are arguing that reaching the top grades and PhD is entirely possible even with below average intelligence. Which comes rather close to using the phrases “Main Stream Media” and “Experts, what do they know”.

[anothercynic]

Re: Citation please ?

[...] back when it meant something, I got 6 A* at A-level, 4 S-level grade 1, starred First (top ten in my year), and a PhD from Cambridge. I have fourteen patents to my name. What are your qualifications like?

That makes me more 'working class' and less educated (on paper) than you, and since I come from a country (as one of those filthy immigrants from the colonies that Mogg and his ilk so detest) that is totally inconsequential when it comes to any economic or political power in the world, I can tell you that my life experiences were valuable in voting to remain. Yet you would probably paint me with the brush of being 'upper middle class twat' or 'metropolitan elite' (the favourite slag-off term of the Tories).

Why the hell *anyone* would vote themselves out of a nation bloc of 27 countries with incredible economic power and freedom of movement, a bloc where that nation even managed to negotiate themselves special arrangements (like getting a discount on their membership), and actively vote to disadvantage their economic sector, is beyond me (and many others like me) or those who appreciate that nation bloc in the broad sense. African countries would *kill* to be part of such a bloc (probably why countries like Kenya and others negotiated very good trade deals for themselves).

Since you yammer on about how you (a Brit) got 6 A*, 4 S grade 1s, starred Firsts and whatever else, you clearly failed to understand what kind of glorious butter dish your arse sat in. It's the same as those whining about how shit the NHS is when unless you've not had something like the NHS (like most of us "in the colonies" never did), you don't know what an incredible asset you have. Take it away, and you'll start to understand how much you lost when it went away.

Those of us who had to 'enjoy' the hoops and high costs of work permits (and the subsequent wringing out more and more money from us filthy immigrants who decided to make the UK their home in later years) and then the high costs of getting indefinite leave to remain (do *you* even know what that is) and eventually citizenship, most certainly appreciate what a pain in the arse the machinery that is the Home Office and the British state that is more and more hostile to 'working class' immigrants is compared to those who have millions and who swan in and out in their private jets and ruin it for those who just want a better life for themselves.

And we most certainly will hold the British government to account over its failures to appreciate the bigger picture, looking after its vast majority of citizens and residents instead of the chosen elite few (and boy does the current government like favouring those). Wankers like Nigel Farage, Boorish Johnson (yes, that was intentional), and Jacob 'I can't be arsed' Rees-Mogg get my goat because they claim to represent people like me (who don't have posh degrees from one of the top 10 universities on the planet), yet are so far removed from them (and would prefer to not have to mingle with them) to even vaguely qualify as one of those they claim to represent.

So, take your PhD, and your 14 patents, be happy and stop trying to represent (or speak for) me, or my kind... when you clearly have not enjoyed the nasty side of the country you're a citizen of.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

As a the grandchild to immigrants, but as you put it “a Brit”, I have had the “pleasure” of witnessing the difference between 1st and 2nd generation immigrants and contrasting them to myself and my children…

I hope you have learnt from your encounters with UK authorities and ensured your children (born in the UK?) are without question bona fida single citizenship UK nationals and have encouraged them to grab with both hands the opportunities this gives them.

[codejunky]

Re: Citation please ?

@anothercynic

"I come from a country (as one of those filthy immigrants from the colonies that Mogg and his ilk so detest) that is totally inconsequential when it comes to any economic or political power in the world, I can tell you that my life experiences were valuable in voting to remain."

Without any intention of insult, only to comment on your potential perspective- you mention African countries would want to be part of the EU and you are from a country of little consequence economically or politically which influenced your vote to remain (as makes sense). However I am from the UK, a country that isnt inconsequential economically, politically or militarily. I mention the last part because Western Europe relies on the UK and France militarily and France is only so important now because the UK left the EU (they quickly jumped to try and fill the void we left in the EU).

This country holds the 2nd largest financial centre in the world, 1st in Europe. For all the efforts made by the EU and its members the UK has held on and is the place in Europe for financial services. So much so that for all the puffed chest bravado of the EU stopping its people from using London they backed down when realising it would put the EU in recession.

All that is to say that we are not inconsequential or irrelevant and have considerable potential in this world. A politically and economically inconsequential country might be happy to give itself over to be run by another layer of bureaucratic and political nonsense because that might improve their situation potentially. The equation is different when its one of the richest countries in the world, who has duff politicians and can see more of them trying to run our country with even less care for it.

You might note that there seems to be considerable support for being part of a trade bloc with Europe but not to be subservient to their bureaucratic and political nonsense. We have enough of that here

[Lars]

Re: Citation please ?

@codejunky

"one of the richest countries in the world,"

Yes no doubt but then again what about the people.

GDP (PPP) 2023 estimate per capita $56,471 (28th in the world)

Behind for instance Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, France, European Union.

GDP (nominal) 2023 estimate per capita $46,371 (22nd in the world)

Behind for instance Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Germany.

(both smaller and bigger countries in Europe)-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

I have no need to downplay the importance of Britain, but I wonder if there is in the world a people more prone to over estimate themselves like the English.

Words by Nick Clegg a long time ago about some of his countrymen come to my mind - "..a misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur".

I don't think it's a good attitude for improving the reality.

[codejunky]

Re: Citation please ?

@Lars

"Yes no doubt but then again what about the people."

Living in one of the richest countries in the world.

"GDP (PPP) 2023 estimate per capita $56,471 (28th in the world)"

195 countries in the world. So yes. Also in your list of countries you added European Union, it isnt a country its just an organisation. But the UK is 6th in the world and yet look at the size of the UK.

"I have no need to downplay the importance of Britain, but I wonder if there is in the world a people more prone to over estimate themselves like the English."

What am I overestimating? So far I am right and please read the comment I am replying to for context. You seem to not understand at all the point of my comment so maybe you didnt read the one I replied to?

[Lars]

Re: Citation please ?

@codejunky

The EU is in that list referred to by Wikipedia. The British GDP (PPP) is apparently below the EU average.

Surprising, not so sure.

You find the list here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

I suggest you start to listen better to how your countrymen speak about Britain, there is a lot to be amused about at times.

[codejunky]

Re: Citation please ?

@Lars

"The EU is in that list referred to by Wikipedia. The British GDP (PPP) is apparently below the EU average."

Thats ok, wikipedia does have its inaccuracies so worth pointing out the fact that the EU isnt a country.

"I suggest you start to listen better to how your countrymen speak about Britain, there is a lot to be amused about at times"

Often enough it is putting the country down (in my experience). We like to moan about everything from the weather to the politicians and assume we have a terrible existence. Yet my stint living in Europe they were wanting to leave their country and saw the UK as a vast improvement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

Yet my stint living in Europe they were wanting to leave their country and saw the UK as a vast improvement.

That never really happened, though. Did it?

If it did: Which country/ies? How long for? What year(s)?

[gandalfcn]

Re: Citation please ?

RegGuy1, Oh dear, you really have upset 'spoons and Gammon.

[Roland6]

Re: Citation please ?

>The white working class voted for brexit because they hated foreigners.

A number of surveys taken at the time, showed that a significant proportion of the white working class voted for Leave because they felt "left out" and "forgotten" and hence saw voting Leave as bloodying the nose of an uncaring establishment who wanted them to vote Remain. Not saying a hatred of foreigners wasn't a factor, just that it was one of many that fed a mindset that caused certain demographics to vote Leave.

[Wellyboot]

Re: Citation please ?

Several million Irish* citizens & their family members were allowed to vote, are you implying this was because they were considered leavers?

*or dual nationality.

[Bebu]

Re: Citation please ?

《the University of Life. And it's well know that that university doesn't offer a Critical Thinking course.》

Unfortunately a good many (slightly) more prestigious institutions are also notable for this omission.

At least the UoL's alumni are usually proficient in the dialectic application of the boot.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Citation please ?

Total bollocks from CJ, as usual.

[Andy 73]

Re: Citation please ?

Most people don't complain about Apple's terrible attitude to right to repair, so they are clearly happy not to repair their iPhones.

Is that how it works?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Citation please ?

Most people didn't vote in the referendum

A total of 46,500,001 people were registered to vote in the referendum and 33,577,342 votes were cast, representing a turnout of 72.2%. That qualifies as "most people" by any reasonable definition.

[Steve Button]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

I wasn't referring to Horizon when talking about the UE trying to punish Britain for leaving. I was talking about all the other stuff, which I don't think we need to regurgitate. It was all over the news. Made them seem petty and somewhat nasty. I'm trying to make the point that they aren't all good. Once we acknowledge their problems we stand a chance of fixing them. Although probably not, as no one wants to accept they are anything but perfect (at least not the remainer fanbois).

If they fixed their problems, perhaps it would make a convincing argument for enough people to want to rejoin? But they would have to slim themselves down considerably.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

"I wasn't referring to Horizon when talking about the UE trying to punish Britain for leaving."

So you were OT? I know el Reg threads are apt to drift OT. Drift, not take a speedboat.

"I was talking about all the other stuff, which I don't think we need to regurgitate."

In the circumstances it's a bit difficult to work out just what you were talking about.

All the red tape now involved in exports to and imports from the EU? That was there previously. We were inside the red tape envelope previously. We* moved outside. We're now treated exactly the same as non-EU countries always were. Lots of us said it would happen. If its a punishment it's a self-inflicted one.

The ongoing problem with NI? Again, very predictable. The Good Friday agreement required a soft border between NI and the Republic. This was accomplished by NI, as part of the UK, and RI both being in a customs union as part of the EU. The Union (it's signified by the U in UK) required no trade barriers between GB & NI. Those requirements were mutually compatible. So along comes Brexit proposing to remove the UK from the customs union. That created a situation which could not be compatible with both the other two so we have an unstable fudge.

Or were you talking about some other equally foreseeable, self-inflicted consequence of no longer being in the EU for which you which to blame the EU because it's embarrassingly inconvenient to blame the lack of exercise of foresight by leavers. If you were a leaver and now don't like the consequences you have no cause to complain; those of us who weren't have every reason to - about the leavers.

* Some of us unwillingly, of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

The Good Friday agreement required a soft border between NI and the Republic.

False. There is no reference to the border in the GFA.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And although the agreement does not specifically refer to the border, it does mention removing all security installations."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-61968177

[gandalfcn]

From a Tory grandee "After Brexit, the Irish border will be the only EU-UK land border.”

However, the UK ~ Irish border is the only UK land border, regardless of the EU. The UK has never had another land border. One could consider the tunnel to France as a sort of land border, but that will still be there after Brexit.

All of which proves to me the man’s an idiot

[Phil O'Sophical]

The UK has never had another land border.

Prior to Brexit the UK never had a land border with the EU, there was an internal land border with another EU member state.

Post-Brexit it is entirely correct to say that the Irish border will be the only EU-UK land border. There was no EU-UK land border before.

All of which proves to me the man’s an idiot

Pot, meet kettle.

[Lars]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

@AC

"False. There is no reference to the border in the GFA.".

Not false just your stupidity not to grasp it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

Having a bad day, Lars? You don't normally stoop to ad hominem attacks when pushing the EU line.

I grew up in N. Ireland, I've crossed that border too many times to count. I remember all the recent set of "troubles" and I remember when the GFA was signed. I've read it. I daresay I know more about it than you do. There is no reference to the border in the GFA. It expresses various whole-island aspirations, but never refers to a border.

[Lars]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

@AC

If you cannot spot the "border" in this sentence, try again, or perhaps you think it disappeared just like that, and fully unrelated to the agreement.

"he multi-party agreement committed the parties to "use any influence they may have" to bring about the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years of the referendums approving the agreement. The process of normalisation committed the British government to the reduction in the number and role of its armed forces in Northern Ireland "to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society". This included the removal of security installations and the removal of special emergency powers in Northern Ireland. The Irish government committed to a "wide-ranging review" of its Offences against the State legislation. ".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

[TDog]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

I'n not quite sure what you are stating.

Once we had left the EU the lack of borders between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was an internal issue for the UK, The concerns over the "soft border" with Eire and by extension with the EU could have been met by the UK simply stating that as far as the UK was concerned the border between Eire and the UK would be considered as open. It already was for citizens of Eire who have the rights to live in the UK and vote in the UK since the 1920's. This may have caused issues for the protectivist policies of the EU but that was not an issue for the UK. It would have met it's obligations under the Easter / Good Friday agreements.

Should Eire and by implication, the EU have chosen not to honor their agreement that would have been a peculiarly EU issue, not the UK's.

[Wellyboot]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

Basically what was historical precedent following the creation of Eire caused no issues several decades later with the EEC¹ free trade area but was a major problem for the EU² following the UK leaving.

¹Eire joined the EEC because the UK joining would see their mainly agricultural economy hit a serious set of previously non existent import tariffs, while joining at the same time gave the prospect of all the EEC farming subsidies - not a difficult choice - the EEC was all about trade.

²UK/Eire have no issue keeping to the open border arrangement but EU Expansion becomes more difficult if there's a precedent allowing just free trade - the EU is about political control.

[adam 40]

The NI Border problem is entirely of the EU's making

When we originally joined the EU at midnight on 1st January 1973, the EU arranged for Ireland to join at the exact same date and time.

So the EU skirted around the need to implement a customs border between NI and Eire.

It had no framework in place for such a thing, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

[Anonymous Coward]

The enemy is both too strong and too weak

> all the other stuff [..] Made them seem petty and somewhat nasty

As I said elsewhere, we were originally told that the UK held all the cards and that the EU would come begging for a deal on any terms the UK demanded.

When they didn't get that, the Brexiteers switched their line to that of supposed victimhood- that the EU is supposedly being petty, vindictive and unfair in "punishing" the UK. (*) This implies that *they* are the one that can both afford that luxury *and* have the power to do so.

Of course, this utterly contradicts their original position, which was pretty much the entire basis of Brexit.

(*) Such "punishments" including not getting the full benefits of being a member of the club it had chosen to leave.

[R Soul]

Re: The enemy is both too strong and too weak

"Such "punishments" including not getting the full benefits of being a member of the club it had chosen to leave."

It;s all the fault of those evil EU officials who expected the UK to uphold the agrreements it willingly and voluntarily signed - like being out of the Horizon programme and ESA to pick just two.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: The enemy is both too strong and too weak

It;s all the fault of those evil EU officials who expected the UK to uphold the agrreements it willingly and voluntarily signed - like being out of the Horizon programme and ESA to pick just two

You really do have a selective memory.

The withdrawal agreement explicitly refers to the UK continuing its participation in many EU programs, and calls out Horizon as one of them, subject to the UK paying the agreed money. The EU has consistently refused to finalise those payment details because of the disagreement over the NI protocol, but that has now finally been resolved and the UK can participate as provided for in the TCA.

As for the ESA, it is a European agency, not an EU one. The UK membership of the ESA has not changed as a consequence of Brexit. The ESA website is quite explicit "not all member countries of the European Union are members of ESA and not all ESA Member States are members of the EU. ESA is an entirely independent organisation although it maintains close ties with the EU through an ESA/EC Framework Agreement." and the UK is clearly listed as a member.

[Roland6]

Re: The enemy is both too strong and too weak

>” The withdrawal agreement explicitly refers to the UK continuing its participation in many EU programs, and calls out Horizon as one of them, subject to the UK paying the agreed money.”

Selective reading?

What the UK failed to ensure was in the Withdrawal Agreement was that the UK would continue, without a break in membership, being a member of the Horizon program. Without this the UK effectively left the Horizon program and now needs the EU to sponsor its application for readmission. It seems from the fuss at Westminster, Westminster forgot to fill out the application form…

[nobody who matters]

Re: The enemy is both too strong and too weak

".......we were originally told that the UK held all the cards and that the EU would come begging for a deal on any terms the UK demanded......."

That was when we were working under the premise of "no deal is better than a bad deal".

It no longer applied (nor indeed was possible) after all the screaming for "we must not leave without a deal", which effectively translated to a deal at any price. At a stroke that removed any likelihood of achieving anything beneficial from the UK point of view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The enemy is both too strong and too weak

> That was when we were working under the premise of "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Bullshit. The (risibly self-deluded) idea was that the UK would get the deal it wanted handed to it on a plate by a desperate EU.

All that "no deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense is an attempt to shift the goalposts and retroactively repaint your failure and lies, twisting it into some big, brave, principled stand.

No fucking way would Leave have won had it built its case around that at the time.

> It no longer applied (nor indeed was possible) after all the screaming for "we must not leave without a deal"

I can't claim to be some sort of visionary genius for foreseeing the bleeding obvious.

But I did predict this exact sort of blame-shifting at the time of the vote- that when Brexit didn't deliver the promised unicorns and rainbows we'd see Brexiteers attempt to blame that on Remainers, the EU and others for diluting or sabotaging the Glorious Vision of Brexit that would surely have been delivered if only they'd believed a little harder.

[gandalfcn]

Re: The enemy is both too strong and too weak

Seems comprehension is not your strong suit.

[gandalfcn]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

"It was all over the news." You mean the Daily Brexpress, the Daily Fail and the joke that the Telegraph now is.

The Daily Express deleted 70 archived pro-Brexit news stories from between 2017 and 2020 in a failed bid to deny its lying.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave

You seem to want to rehash the cherry-picking that many proposed would be possible, but the EU always stated would not be. The UK could have elected to remain in the customs union or join EFTA but it chose to do neither. As for hoping the EU would reform itself to suit you after you've left it, on what planet would that ever work? The main argument against leaving was always: the only way to change the EU is to be a member.

[Wellyboot]

Re: Some balance?

>>>the vast majority of people either think the EU is the very best thing that's ever happened, or the very worst.<<<

That's just the media stirring things up & opinionated loud mouthed gob offs*,

You've been downvoted (have a+1 from me) for merely not being 'on message', I'd go with most people not being too far off your middle of the road (realistic?) appraisal.

Still it's nice to see that after only seven mostly wasted years the bureaucracies of two major economies are finally getting on with actually trying to improve working together instead of throwing bricks from ivory towers.

*politicians and others with an axe to grind

No votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Some balance?

"You've been downvoted (have a+1 from me) for merely not being 'on message'"

You forgot to tell us about "the narrative"

[Andy 73]

Re: Some balance?

He's got a point though. These forums definitely take a view about anything that might be percieved to be pro Brexit.

[Dacarlo]

Re: Some balance?

Also known as pro-sanity...

[Steve Button]

Re: Some balance?

What so scary about "the narrative"?

It's just short for The Stories That The Press and Politicians Make Up to Sell Us Their Latest Thing.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Some balance?

It's just short for The Stories That The Conspiracists Cherry Pick From The Press and Politicians To Prove They Are Right

FTFY

Today, it is "the narrative", tomorrow "you are all sheeple"

[abend0c4]

Re: Some balance?

"if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade"

What now exists was painstakingly negotiated amongst various numbers of countries depending on the phase of the EU's evolution. At present, there are 27 countries that would have to agree to something different and apart from the difficulty in getting agreement, they'd need an incentive to change those agreements that intricately balance a whole range of different interests. What would be their incentive?

If you look at the trade agreements the EU has with other third countries, the British deal is very much shaped by Britain's own red lines: no veterinary agreements, no CE standards participation, no flexibility for touring musicians, school children or language students, etc. All of those things were on offer but they were declined because there would have to be reciprocity or an acceptance of EU standards which, de facto, we need to adhere to anyway. That's not punishment, it's masochism.

[Jason Bloomberg]

Re: Some balance?

After seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave, it has cooled my opinion of them somewhat.

That they haven't punished us is what most surprises me.

Not really; that's just a turn of phrase. The EU behaved exactly as I expected it to, calmly putting our tantrum and throwing our toys out the pram behind them and carrying on as normal.

That must have been the real kicker for those who lied that the EU needed us more than we needed them, believed the fantasy that the EU would quickly collapse without us.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Some balance?

When the UK entered what became the EU it was the poor man of Europe. Being part of the EU enabled it to become the 5th largest world economy and the 2nd largest in Europe. Now Brexiteers gloat about the UK being better than half the EU and 9th in the world. This latest move is basically an admission that Brexit was a disaster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Some balance?

Thatcher's reforms in the 1980's transformed the UK into being the 5th largest (in GDP terms) economy in the world, now 6th, due to the rise of India.

If you want to assign some element of EEC/EC/EU to that, it was opening the UK's markets to competition from other EEC countries that finished off the (already dying) UK car industry, motorbike industry, clothing and footwear industries, consumer goods industries, etc. etc and thus made Thatcherism possible.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Some balance?

Thatcher's reforms drove UK government debt…

[Wellyboot]

Re: Some balance?

At the end of WW2 UK govt. debt was over 200% GDP, by the end of the 80s it was below 50%.

It was down in the low 40s when the banking crash started in 2007. (Ironically the year we finally paid of the WW2 debt)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Some balance?

Well afterwards there was this little thing called the single market as well, that oddly enough Thatcher had something to do with...

[Roland6]

Re: Some balance?

Uk industry, in the hands of traditional upper class conservative twits, always was going to wither and die; Thatcher merely provided the coffee and the wake up kick…

Trouble is much of the UKs current problems are down to misplaced romanticism to a failed class system and traditional Conservative economic mumbo jumbo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Some balance?

What would be lovely is if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade, and stop trying to set the laws for the whole bloc

Indeed, they could maybe call it the "European Community".

[that one in the corner]

Re: Some balance?

Or even European Economic Community

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Some balance?

Why not fhe European Community for Coal and Steel?

Closer integration was the goal since the 1956 beginning, the EU was always planned for. That it was a surprise for some Brits is not even a lack of foresight, but of reading the foundational documents.

[Wellyboot]

Re: Some balance?

TBF in '56 we brits still had the 'Fog in channel - Continent cut off'* mindset.

* Yes I know it wasn't a real headline ...no one cared enough about the continent, we still had an Empire.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Some balance?

After seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave, it has cooled my opinion of them somewhat.

Do you actually know anything about the EU? I know of many who just get their information from the Daily Mail.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Some balance?

'I know of many who just get their information from the Daily Mail.'

And Excess and Torygraph, not forgetting Gammon Broadcasting™ News (“Bacon’s News Channel”),

[R Soul]

Re: Some balance?

"What would be lovely is if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade,"

That's the bit that a competent government would have negotiated in between the referendum result and invoking article 49. However we had the double whammy of Theresa May followed by the Johnson clown parade.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Some balance?

The EU made it abundantly clear that was never going to be on the table. Not surprising of course, since the UK is not the only country that would be very happy to see the EU unwound back to that.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Some balance?

The EU did not make that abundantly clear, quite the opposite. But then the Daily Excess, who you are citing, is not known for its honesty in such matters

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Some balance?

No, the EU didn't mind, as long as the UK was prepared to follow the rules for free trade. But the members of EFTA made it clear they didn't want Britain to join.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Some balance?

Correction.

It also seems that the vast majority of people do not think the EU is the very best thing that's ever happened or the very worst but somewhere in between, where on balance it can deliver a lot of benefits, but also has very few really big problems.

[gandalfcn]

Re: Some balance?

'After seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave, it has cooled my opinion of them somewhat."

You mean the UK being treated as a non-member with no rights until it negotiates some deals, just like all other non-members?

How dare these bloody foreigners treat us the same as our ex colonies!

[gandalfcn]

Re: Some balance?

"So, yeah I would like to eat my cake and have it with cherries on top. I'm still on the fence about the whole thing." ROFL.

[Lars]

Re: Some balance?

@Steve Button

That was a lot of rubbish.

[Roland6]

Re: Some balance?

>” What would be lovely is if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade”

That would be The Single Market, championed by Thatcher. However, the rules for the (new) market were set by the (new) EU, so to be at the table that set the rules for the Single Market, you also needed to be a member of the EU… Thatcher understood this and joined the UK to both…

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Some balance?

Thatcher understood this and joined the UK to both…

Ted Heath was PM when we joined the Common Market, and John Major was PM when Maastricht was signed to convert the European Community into the EU. Thatcher's main contribution was handbagging the EEC to limit the powers of the CAP and get a rebate on our dues in compensation.

[Roland6]

Re: Some balance?

And Thatcher initiated the creation of the Single Market and the EU - effectively separating the economic union from the political union, Major as you say basically signed Maastricht, completing the work started by his predecessor, of which he was a part of, being a member of her cabinet.

[werdsmith]

I think this is how it will happen, by a trickle of deals bringing the common sense back to the relationship, slowly edging closer, deal by deal to a fuller cooperation.

Next, sort out the border. There is no benefit to making transport and goods movement to our closest neighbours more difficult for ordinary travellers and traders, but a whole lot of downside.

[Jason Bloomberg]

The EU hasn't slammed the door on us since we stormed out but there's zero chance of us getting what brexiteers want, membership benefits without being a member, having our cake and eating it, which they always promised we would get.

We are indeed world leaders in duplicity, mendacity and sophistry but the EU can see right through that.

Even now brexiteers see it as some sort of god-given right to be given what they want and it's "punishing us" to deny them that.

We will only secure meaningful deals and make brexit work - if we don't abandon it, once the grown-ups take back control.

[Andy 73]

Wasn't that the whole point? Membership is a carrot and stick deal (or less emotively, a cost vs benefit), and some people didn't like the stick.

For those people, being able to make our own decisions about which benefits and which costs we wanted to commit to was the whole point, rather than agreeing to the whole package.

Of course, no-one is actually claiming that you could have only the benefits (even Brexiteers aren't that stupid), but it's not unreasonable to suggest that the alternative view (that you could only possibly get the benefits by accepting the full costs) is just as ridiculous.

[werdsmith]

You can be in the EU and out of the Euro and decouple from the ERM. You can be in the EU and out of Schengen.

[Anonymous Coward]

But if we want all those benefits that we once had back, we'll have to commit to join the Euro (but see Sweden) and definitely, definitely join Schengen. We just have to wait for a sufficient number of the pig-ignorant leave voters to die off first. Many can already see the damage that we've done to ourselves, but watching Question Time makes it clear the country is full of thick people.

But at least we put security railings on our roofs.

[R Soul]

we'll have to commit to join the Euro

Nope. A commitment to sign up to the Euro is a requirement for wannabe EU member states. It's only a commitment.

Joining the Eurozone is another matter entirely. A nation has to be in the ERM for at least two years before it's eligible to adopt the Euro. This is to ensure the prospective member has a stable economy that has been aligned with the Eurozone for a while on things like inflation, national debt and defiict, exchange rates and so on. Entry to the ERM is voluntary. The EU can't make a country do that. And after the shit-show with Greece - who should never have been in the ERM or Eurozone - EU members that have a basket case economy will not be welcome in the ERM even if they want to join it.

And FWIW, the Eurozone and its macroeconomic policies are doing rather better than those coming out of Downing Street. Inasmuchas the UK has had any sense of a coherent economic policy in the last 20-25 years. That's because they're managed by experts rather than fuckwit politicians.

[Andy 73]

Re: we'll have to commit to join the Euro

To be picky, I'd suggest they are also fuckwit politicians, but have the benefit of enormous momentum in the Eurozone so the problems with their policies take longer to emerge.

Europe's energy policy is a complete disaster, and economically it's stuck between a rock and a hard place with the US and China. Investment in innovation is sclerotic and the Horizon program is not actually a substitute for economic development from technology. Then Greece, Italy and Poland demonstrate that Europe has severe embedded problems with economic migration.

The trouble is, most Brits' experience of Europe tends to be nice holidays and well funded conferences, so they don't see that the whole continent faces similar problems.

[ScottishYorkshireMan]

Re: we'll have to commit to join the Euro

I wonder who votes for the 'fuckwit politicians'.

The UK always gets exactly the government it deserves.

Upvote, downvote, don't give a fuck.

[gandalfcn]

' the country is full of thick people.' And the poor things downvoted you!

[jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid]

Waiting for leave voters to die and remain voters to be old enough to vote.

"wait for a sufficient number of the ... leave voters to die off first"

That may have happened quite soon after the vote. There was an academic who looked at the general trend of brexit vote preference with age (younger people more likely to vote remain, older to vote leave) and worked out that after only 12 months the natural churn meant that if the referendum had been rerun and everyone voted the same as before (or how they would have voted if they were old enough), the vote would have shifted to 50/50. Within another 12 months it would have reversed to 52% remain 48% leave. This wasn't due to people changing their minds, just due to demographics. I don't know if they took into account the likelihood of individuals changing their minds as they got older, or even if that would happen.

This is the first reference I could find to it with a quick Google. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45098550.amp

I think this is the biggest thing that annoys me about brexit. Leaving the EU was such a huge decision to make with lots of serious and long term consequences. Yet we made that decision on the flimsiest of margins - a margin that depended on the timing of a referendum, rather than any serious decision making.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Waiting for leave voters to die and remain voters to be old enough to vote.

The problem with this theory it assumes today's youth don't turn into tomorrow's Daily Heil reading xenophobic morons.

[jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid]

Re: Waiting for leave voters to die and remain voters to be old enough to vote.

"The problem with this theory it assumes today's youth don't turn into tomorrow's Daily Heil reading xenophobic morons."

Exactly. As I said I don't know if that was taken into account. Shouldn't be too hard to do though, if you've got a decent model of voting preference Vs age. It's probably not that simple though.

The voting age was a big deal though. Before the referendum, there was a discussion on allowing 16yr olds to vote or not. The grossly simplified version was that remainers wanted younger people to have a vote, leavers didn't. Leavers claimed that excluding younger people was a violation of human rights by denying them a part in the democratic process, brexiteers said there was no precedent and it would mean changing the age limit for all elections. Like a lot of brexit campaigning and retrospection after, the same inputs, steered by one's own ideology lead to opposite conclusions.

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can be in the EU and out of the Euro

No, you cannot. A commitment to adopt the euro is a fundamental tenet of EU membership. The UK and Denmark negotiated opt-outs, but no country joining now will be granted one.

It may be possible to play the Swedish game, and fiddle the figures to avoid it for a while, but in the end it's mandatory.

[R Soul]

Bollocks!

A commitment to adopt the Euro is not the same thing as actually adopting the Euro. It's not mandatory to adopt the Euro either. Stop lying.

Quite a few EU member states don't use the Euro: Poland and the Czech Republic for example. They didn't get an opt-out either - as Sweden, Denmark and the UK did. Some of those countries joined the EU after the Eurozone had been created and the commitment to adopt the Euro was in place.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not mandatory to adopt the Euro either. Stop lying

Are you poorly informed, or simply delusiononal? Either way, I suggest that you educate yourself before you throw false accusations of lying around.

The requirement to join the eurozone is enshrined in Article 109 of the Maastricht treaty, and has been mandatory since 1999. The UK negotiated an opt-out, and Denmark was granted one pending a referendum. That Danish vote, in 2000, rejected the Euro by around 53%, so their opt-out still holds. No other country has an opt-out:

From the EU's own website All EU Member States, except Denmark, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area.

All EU members must join the eurozone provided that they meet the four convergence criteria. Sweden very carefully ensures that it never quite meets all of them, the other countries that you list don't yet meet them, how hard they're trying is debatable. When they do meet those criteria, they are legally required to join. It remains to be seen how hard the EU will push an admittedly contentious issue.

[Charlie Clark]

Poland would meet the criteria, it just doesn't bother to apply. That's a typical EU fudge.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the EU is too scared of the consequences to force it in court.

[Doctor Syntax]

"even Brexiteers aren't that stupid"

Citation needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brexiteers are visionaries, not the sort of people who bother about pettifogging rules and spend their time reading actual bank statements.

Are they, Mr Farage?!

[Anonymous Coward]

even Brexiteers aren't that stupid

Oh yes they are. By definition they are that stupid because they swallowed wholesale the lies and bullshit from a rag-bag of charlatans and shameless hypocrites.

Some Brexiteers are so stupid, they still refuse to realise they've been duped and lied to. Or accept that Brexit has turned out to be somewhat less of a success than the lying spivs claimed.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Sorting out the border issues would clearly be advantageous to both groups, but would benefit the UK more than it would benefit the EU. It is therefore totally unacceptable to people like Emmanuel Macron, who have always insisted that the UK must suffer consequences for daring to leave the club.

[Doctor Syntax]

The borders were always there. We (usual disclaimer) deliberately moved from one side to the other. The obvious consequences were pointed out and at best ignored, but usually the pointing out was deprecated. What's to sort out?

[Anonymous Coward]

The case for Brexit was built upon the claim that the UK held all the cards and that the EU would be so desperate for a deal that they'd agree to one on any terms the UK asked for.

Ever since that turned out not to be the case, the line from Brexiteers has like yourself been that the EU is being variously petty and vindictive towards the UK (*).

If this claim of victimhood is true, it flies in the face of what we were told above- that the EU can both afford the luxury of such alleged pettiness *and* has the power to inflict it. When the whole basis of Brexit was- in effect- that it was the *UK* that would be pushing the EU around.

It's almost as if that was always delusional shite and that Boris Johnson and chums spewing out endless John Bull-style puffery couldn't magically make it real after all.

(*) For treating it as the third-party outsider and rival it wanted to be in the first place and now is, and for having to make clear that, no, you can't have your cake and eat it.

[Phil O'Sophical]

The case for Brexit was built upon the claim that the UK held all the cards and that the EU would be so desperate for a deal that they'd agree to one on any terms the UK asked for.

I've only ever heard that nonsense peddled by remainers as propaganda to ridicule the process. It was clear from the outset that the EU held most of the cards, and the UK would have to fight for every inch.

the line from Brexiteers has like yourself been that the EU is being variously petty and vindictive towards the UK (*).

I, and others, have been saying that since the successful referendum result. The UK leaving the EU was a smack in the face for Brussels, and they cannot afford for it to be seen as successful, since that would undermine the reason for the EU to exist. It's not a question of being vindictive, but of simple pragmatism on their part. They must do whatever they can to make Brexit fail, for their own eventual survival.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've only ever heard that nonsense peddled by remainers as propaganda to ridicule the process. It was clear from the outset that the EU held most of the cards, and the UK would have to fight for every inch."

Gas, gas, gas!!!

“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want”

Michael Gove, speech at Vote Leave HQ, 6/4/2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudos to those brave heroes of Remain- Michael Gove and James Cleverly

(AC who posted the original "all the cards" comment above here.)

Ah, you got there first with the Gove quote. But let's remember that several years later the likes of James Cleverly were still parrotting that "holds all the cards" nonsense.

All I can say is that if Gove and Cleverly were secret, undercover "remainers" peddling this as "propaganda to ridicule the process", they were unbelievably convincing as ardent Brexiteers. I don't think that even their fellow Brexiteers have sussed them out yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Kudos to those brave heroes of Remain- Michael Gove and James Cleverly

You're conflating two separate concepts. The EU certainly held all the cards as far as our relationship with it is concerned.

Not at all the same as holding the cards for our own future trade with non-EU countries, which is what Cleverly was referring to.

Just a pity the government's card playing skills don't seem to extend much beyond Snap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Kudos to those brave heroes of Remain- Michael Gove and James Cleverly

James Cleverly were still parrotting that "holds all the cards" nonsense

Don't be too hard on that lying fuckwit. Nominative determinism passed him by.

[Citizen of Nowhere]

I've only ever heard that nonsense peddled by remainers as propaganda to ridicule the process

Two words; no, sorry, three words: Michael f***ing Gove Why tell easily falsifiable lies? Because if you repeat the crap often enough people will stop calling it out for the crap it is?

They must do whatever they can to make Brexit fail, for their own eventual survival.

Honestly, nobody cares that much what the UK ends up doing. The needy, puerile narcissism which seems to underlie the UK's political culture always places the UK front and centre in every setting. Actually, you are a secondary issue at best. If the UK wants to joins Horizon, why would that be a problem. If not, it can piss off and shut up, as it chooses.

[David Nash]

the "border issues"

The only real issue is NI and that I fear will be intractable.

The other borders are just borders where non-EU citizens and EU citizens are separated to more or lesser extent. These were not created by Brexit.

[Charlie Clark]

I think you're right. Even the current government has decided to turn the corner and pick up the phone. The next government is likely to be even keener and it will be harder to stir up the populist pot again for one technical agreement after the next. In addition, the generations growing up now are more and more receptive to Europe, though I think the period being bookended by the Syrian migrant crisis and the Ukraine war show two extremes of how events can drive sentiment.

[Anonymous Coward]

So confirming the UKs commitment to the ECJ, and ECHR then ?

#justsayin'

[RegGuy1]

Re: So confirming the UKs commitment to the ECJ, and ECHR then ?

You do know one belongs to the Council of Europe and the other to the EU? And do you know which? And do you know the difference?

#justsayin'

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: So confirming the UKs commitment to the ECJ, and ECHR then ?

I do know that any deal between the UK and EU requires both to be in play.

[Boris the Cockroach]

The problem

has always been the tory party with its "anything with an EU in it is to be voted down and destroyed" section. especially with its loonier '1950's wankfest' types.(you know who I'm talking about)

plus the fact bozo johnston was trying to do the deal.... lets face it , the only reason to vote labour last time was to try and keep that lying tosspot out of power (sadly it didnt succede mostly thanks to a lot of the media being up his arse)

And the failure was compounded by trying to tie everything up in one neat little deal by people who had no idea what they were doing,or where they were going. not helped by the eu going "you want everything in one deal?.. fine until everything is included.. no deal"

In fact the best thing the tory party could do for the UK is to fuck off and die(and judging by the polling , thats exactly what they'll be doing at the next election)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The problem

These days, Sunak and Hunt are more like Social Democrats than Tories. Kier Starmer is more of a Tory than Rishi Sunak is.

[nobody who matters]

Re: The problem

The problem has been that the Conservative Party has always peddled the myth that we could remain within the EU without signing up to and adopting the policies and rules that the rest of the EU members have agreed to abide by - this started towards the end of Margaret Thatcher's period as PM, and continued via John Major, right through to David Cameron's time. It does seem that there are still a lot of people who continue to believe this fallacy.

I have always believed there were only two workable options - either the UK needed to fully accept the direction that the EU was taking, and go along with that and fully integrate, or the alternative was to remove ourselves fully from the EU. We were given the choice, and appear to have chosen the latter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The problem

> especially with its loonier '1950's wankfest'

While I get where you're coming from back in the 1950 it was a Tory bloke (Churchill) who was working to get Europe together and it was the Labour government under Clement Attlee that decided that they didn't want to join. The UK tried to join the pre-cursor in early 60s, another Tory bloke, Macmillan, this time. The French, de Gaulle, said Non! In 1967 we had another go, Labour bloke, Wilson this time, again the answer was Non! Once de Gaulle was out of the way Ted Heath's government was finally able to do a deal and join. In 1975 Labour held a referendum to see whether we wanted to leave and the answer was a clear no.

The right royal wankfest as you so accurately put it is more modern. Thatcher didn't want to leave Europe she just wanted it to go in a different direction. The "leavers" have been trying to rewrite history and paint their past leaders as believing things they didn't. Yes it was the Tories who held the referendum but Labour were just as divided and if they'd been in power they'd have probably done it too as being the only way to head off Farage. I can't remember ever seeing Corbyn being pro remain.

Yes there's a wankfest going on but the 1950 Tory leadership weren't the ones opposing closer European ties. The right (wrong) wing of the loonies might be trying to rewrite history but if you look at the EU's own history website you'll find a different story.

> In fact the best thing the tory party could do for the UK is to fuck off and die(and judging by the polling , thats exactly what they'll be doing at the next election)

Since they pissed off a lot of their traditional supporters they probably will. Let's just hope the other parties don't screw it up again this time.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Cricket

Prime minister set to look over promises for potential pact at the weekend

My money is on him watching the cricket over going through that document

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cricket

Since they clearly never read any of the previous stuff they got from Europe it would be asking a lot to expect them to read any of this document.

Fingers crossed he just signs the damn thing and we can all get back to work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brexit

Shooting one’s self in one’s nads then complaining that it hurts.

Rather a lot.

Nanny!

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

I just hope

I can collaborate with many good friends and colleagues in the UK as easily as I could before.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rishi has got your back

Rishi and the Tories have got this sussed

They will renegotiate the deal for horizon we will pay for it while not being involved AND it will be the best deal ever

Meanwhile TCS moves in to 2 nd place in the income from UK, gosh almost like they have a fast track to government

[Long John Silver]

Has anyone else noticed ...?

More often than not, 'scientists' depicted gazing down a microscope in film/TV drama and in 'stock' still images used by news media, could not conceivably be focussed on anything, that's even should 'long-distance' (LD) objective lenses be in use.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Has anyone else noticed ...?

In the case of this publication, it's a photo of a scientist in a white lab coat, clutching a (tobacco) pipe

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear God, are we still going on about Brexit, 7 years on??? Let it go.

[adam 40]

Not just that, but El Reg comments page contributors just won't let it lie!

Another 4 pages of bile, with only 3 posts worth reading.