That’s not what the opinion piece is advocating. Honestly, I’m not sure how you reached this conclusion from the article. The article is trying to say that:
Given we are where we are how can we get to a mutually beneficial position for both the EU and the UK.
Starmer is opening olive branches.
The EU should seize this opportunity for it’s own political benefits given the ongoing war on its borders and the prospect of a Trump White House.
This reads like a brexiteer wrote it.
You can check this yourself but the author is Mujtaba Rahman who is a political risk analyst and is managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group. Oh and he also writes for Politico.eu.. If that isn’t enough for you he also:
worked at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs
Ooo that bastard Brexitier coming here stealing our jobs! shakes fist Grrrr
I am not talking about the possible reasons the EU could benefit from it. I am asking why would the EU want to even reengage with us if we historically have always demanded special treatment?
There are many reasons set out in the article describing possible positives for the EU and the UK. But why would the EU want to be closer with the UK when the UK has literally decided to go its own way, and then waddles back with its tail between its legs
here are many reasons set out in the article describing possible positives for the EU and the UK. But why would the EU want to be closer with the UK when the UK has literally decided to go its own way, and then waddles back with its tail between its legs
So your entire position is that the EU is bitter over a bad relationship and is willing to hurt themselves to spite the UK? Are you sure you’re not the Brexiteer?
Because not engaging in anyway serves nobodies benefit. This is explained in the article if you had read and understood it.
The whole point of the article is to realise that we are now in a different position than we were before Brexit. That applies to both the EU and the UK. You can either make the best of it or watch it get worse. The article is suggesting it’s better for both parties that they make the best of it.
Some quotes that stood out to me:
Yet ultimately, the two sides will only be safe if their economies are growing as robustly as possible and generating the resources that will enable them to remain secure.
Starmer and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen should prepare an ambitious political declaration for their first summit in the coming weeks. It should prioritise foreign and security policy. But Brussels should not fear an upgrade to the core trade and economic relationship. As on security, this would be to mutual benefit. The zero-sum game of UK-EU relations since the 2016 referendum is finally over; the EU needs to recognise that closer co-operation is a win for both sides.
Do you not think the EU would want to improve the situation? I thought everyone’s argument in 2016 was that the EU was stronger as a bloc when the UK was inside.
The logic of the opinion piece is that it the UK isn’t going to be inside the EU for many years if not decades. So what can be done to make the situation better in the interim?
You can’t be suggesting that hard-line full Brexit means Brexit or You Brexited suck it style arguments in 2024 is the correct approach? Surely?
Yes. It is RULES based organisation. It doesn’t do “favours”.
And nobody wants to have another Switzerland solution on their hands. So the UK can either apply for EEA membership, EU membership or enjoy what it already has. Or, in the words of EU officials, it first needs to fulfil its existing obligations before asking for anything else.
I would love to see the UK applying to join the EU. But for that it needs to be full understanding what the EU is - ever closer Union, where the rules apply to all the members and are not renegotiated every five years when some Tory moron wishes so to appease his even more stupid membership base.
It is RULES based organisation. It doesn’t do “favours”.
I hear you, but it sorta does 😂. From the article.
The geopolitical context also points to the need for more European ambition. A return to the White House for Donald Trump could fundamentally weaken US commitment to Nato and European security. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has seen the return of large-scale war to the continent. This has spurred a willingness to revive enlargement as a foreign policy tool — and implement it more innovatively. Ukraine is now being progressively integrated into parts of the single market rather than being forced to swallow the acquis communautaire — the body of common law — wholesale, showing that the EU can prioritise politics, and think creatively, when it wants to.
And, again, the thrust of the opinion piece is to say that the EU would be in a better position if it incorporated more political strategic thinking rather than technocratic as it has previously. But, look, it’s an opinion piece. Let’s not take it too seriously.
That’s not what the opinion piece is advocating. Honestly, I’m not sure how you reached this conclusion from the article. The article is trying to say that:
You can check this yourself but the author is Mujtaba Rahman who is a political risk analyst and is managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group. Oh and he also writes for Politico.eu.. If that isn’t enough for you he also:
Ooo that bastard Brexitier coming here stealing our jobs! shakes fist Grrrr
Why would the EU want to do this?
Not sure why you also suddenly made some race reference?
“The EU should work with us”
Yeah, that would be good. But why would the EU want that at all?
The ongoing war is irrelevant - unless the UK has also left NATO?
Have you read the article? It sounds like you haven’t.
? Sorry what is this supposed to mean. Copy and paste my comment where you think I have done this. I’m genuinely baffled by what you mean.
Please read the article 🙏.
jfc. I did read the article.
I am not talking about the possible reasons the EU could benefit from it. I am asking why would the EU want to even reengage with us if we historically have always demanded special treatment?
There are many reasons set out in the article describing possible positives for the EU and the UK. But why would the EU want to be closer with the UK when the UK has literally decided to go its own way, and then waddles back with its tail between its legs
So your entire position is that the EU is bitter over a bad relationship and is willing to hurt themselves to spite the UK? Are you sure you’re not the Brexiteer?
You are wildly off base. Never mind. Im just going to give up on this thread as clearly I am communicating in a language none of you understand
Because not engaging in anyway serves nobodies benefit. This is explained in the article if you had read and understood it.
The whole point of the article is to realise that we are now in a different position than we were before Brexit. That applies to both the EU and the UK. You can either make the best of it or watch it get worse. The article is suggesting it’s better for both parties that they make the best of it.
Some quotes that stood out to me:
Round and round we go. I give up.
You still don’t understand how the EU works?
Do you not think the EU would want to improve the situation? I thought everyone’s argument in 2016 was that the EU was stronger as a bloc when the UK was inside.
The logic of the opinion piece is that it the UK isn’t going to be inside the EU for many years if not decades. So what can be done to make the situation better in the interim?
You can’t be suggesting that hard-line full Brexit means Brexit or You Brexited suck it style arguments in 2024 is the correct approach? Surely?
You still don’t understand how the EU works?
Apparently not 😅.
Are you able to explain?
Yes. It is RULES based organisation. It doesn’t do “favours”.
And nobody wants to have another Switzerland solution on their hands. So the UK can either apply for EEA membership, EU membership or enjoy what it already has. Or, in the words of EU officials, it first needs to fulfil its existing obligations before asking for anything else.
I would love to see the UK applying to join the EU. But for that it needs to be full understanding what the EU is - ever closer Union, where the rules apply to all the members and are not renegotiated every five years when some Tory moron wishes so to appease his even more stupid membership base.
I hear you, but it sorta does 😂. From the article.
And, again, the thrust of the opinion piece is to say that the EU would be in a better position if it incorporated more political strategic thinking rather than technocratic as it has previously. But, look, it’s an opinion piece. Let’s not take it too seriously.