this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
11 points (82.4% liked)

UK Politics

3099 readers
142 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive link for those of us outside the single market.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] mannycalavera 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Round and round we go. I give up.

[–] flamingos 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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