Switzerland, Norway, Iceland would be welcome with open arms, they just don't want to join.
The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so and at the end of the day, the UK is comparatively rich by EU standards.
This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
More objectively: if you study the history of the EU, you will see that this "baggage" is quite old. For quite some time in the 70s vetoed UK's accession (to the then EEC), precisely because it feared that the UK was only interested in economic benefits and would sabotage any other aspect of the European project. That is more or less what happened when the UK eventually joined, and the EU had to build around the UK (Schengen, Euro, etc.). It is true that the EU likes rich countries, but it is also true that things are far from being as simple as you describe.
Interesting detail: you mention Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. They are members of EFTA. EFTA was created by the UK during the time that they were not able to join the EEC. After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. So being rich is not enough once you become sufficiently toxic.
Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, and it was given extraordinary rebates for its contributions to the EU budget. Should the UK wish to rejoin, it would have to accept Schengen, the Euro, no more rebates and the "ever closer union" political commitment spelled out in the treaties. I find it very hard to believe that the UK would accept such things in our lifetimes, and I find it very hard to believe that the EU would be willing to put up with the current circus that is UK politics and media in the forseable future.
The UK government is now talking about not honoring the Withdrawal Agreement if there is no Free Trade Deal. Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This means the return of violence to that region. Even if the UK honors the WA, it is quite likely that the situation will degrade to a point that this border comes back. That was the crux of the negotiations for the last 4 years between the EU and the UK, that everyone is now forgetting about. There are also other issues, like Gibraltar. I am afraid that heavier baggage will necessarily accumulate before it can even start to dissipate.
pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity
realpolitik always wins
> After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused.
this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either
the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
> Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things,
it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined
when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing.
> this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either
It was widely reported at the time. Here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...
> the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article.
> when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project".
And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...
have you actually read the article?
> Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus
so not the Norwegian government
> The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles
so not the UK government
> They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK.
the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis
if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty
I'm European and I've been following the news quite closely. Keep in mind that if you're the kind of person active on HN, you're probably in a media bubble.
Regular people, except for the French (maybe, even that is debatable), still like the UK.
Hi, I live in that region. I thought I might be able to give a little more insight in the situation here.
> This means the return of violence to that region.
It's kind of funny you guys assumed it stopped... It's reduced, but it's not stopped. When the Good Friday agreement came in, it gave Northern Ireland the option to leave the UK when it wants. It turns out that the general public that live here do not want to leave the UK, which diminished the influence unionists and separatists had over people... Turns out having a democratic option made it hard to convince people to join a fight on either side.
Further, most people are more practical, self interested than ideological currently. For many, the Republic looks like a worse future for NI, with less money to go around than if it stays in the UK. The Republic government of course also views NI to be a horrible drain on their resources, so have repeatedly stated over the years that "now is not the right time".
While this has been happening, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have lost significant populations of natives. The Republic has had a massive increase in immigration, so much to the point that the nationalism and that sort of ideology has declined, reducing that want for conflicts even further.
None of the politicians in Northern Ireland have a desire and cannot be compelled to create a physical border between the Republic of Ireland. This of course does not sit well with the EU. The UK parliament does not actually give much of a shit about Northern Ireland outside of how much we spend and leaves NI to its' own autonomy out of fear of violence in the mainland UK.
At this point, I am convinced that if a border is going to be imposed, it will be from the Republic's side. The Republic government doing this of course would put the Republic and EU into a very negative light. So of course, the Republic is very unhappy about this and has voiced this in confidence a few times.
Taking the temperature here, there is a lot of uncertainty, but, I think regardless of what happens, Northern Ireland is probably likely going to benefit more through this. It will be the only UKish territory (ignoring Gibraltar) that shares a border with an EU country that retains easy access to Great Britain, which will make it either a special trading partner, or a special back door. Whether the UK and EU like it or not. I do not think the violence in Northern Ireland will be increasing much more than it is now; they do not seem to have the people or the resources.
The UK parliament of course has made some new acts so that the people of Northern Ireland can control our own fate in face of brexit after a deal is made, democraticing what is happening here.
The UK and EU in my opinion are both trying to use Northern Ireland to get a better trade agreement.
That's not true.
The Germans consider the Brits a v useful hedge against French socialism, the French against German hegemony, North Europe against French and German expensive grand designs, South Europe against French and German snootiness, Eastern Europe against French and German Russophilia and so on and so forth. The UK has 800 years of helping keep the balance of power in Europe, and being largely a reasonable neighbour (and certainly compared to the French or Germans).
Also: "The German car industry will demand it", "The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU", etc. All of this has been falsified in the last four years. The integrity of the single market and of the European project is turning out to be much more valuable to EU member states than the highly rebated UK contributions.
The shit about BMW's and Prosecco was just nationalist bollocks, but that doesn't mean that the loss of the UK budget contribution isn't real. Likely end outcome is EU budget struggles a bit for a few years, then UK rejoins as an associate or whatever new category they come up with.
I have also been an anglophile since I can remember, so I am quite disappointed with the UK. I think I'm not alone in this.
Regarding the budget round: my impression is that the struggle comes from the situation caused by covid more than anything else. Brexit became a niche interest in the EU, most people are not paying attention or really care about it anymore.
Notice that the contribution of the UK after rebates amounted to 9 billion euros, in comparison to a yearly EU budget of about 165 billion euros, which is in itself 1% of the EU's GDP. While I am sure that the EU misses that contribution, I find it hard to believe that it is a huge problem.
A state can only join the EU by virtue of a democratic decision according to the constitution of the Member State itself, and there are strong requirements on prospective Member States to be themselves proper democracies with separation of powers in order to be allowed to join.
Granted, these requirements have been slightly overlooked when it came to the UK: the House of Lords is undemocratic, one could say outdated, and would almost certainly not be tolerated in any other candidate state.
So, the EU might be complex, but in what sense exactly is it undemocratic?
As is the case with the chief executive in most parliamentary systems, by voting for an MP (in the case, MEP) of the party which backs their preferred (or opposes their opposed) candidate for leader.
But since you asked look at how little power a British MP has to get a private member's bill through to a vote. In actual fact the only private member's bills that get a vote let alone pass are those with government support.
Also the House of Common's isn't really democratic in any meaningful sense of the word. It took 886,400 votes to get 1 Green MP but only 25,900 votes per SNP MP. Similarly 38,300 per Conservative MP to 336,000 per LibDem MP. That's an order of magnitude difference between votes to power.