BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

It wasn't the EU that invited the eurosceptics into the tories. It wasn't the EU who flirted with Farage and his supporters. It wasn't the EU who promised a referendum just to entice a handful of votes to win an election. It wasn't the EU who ran that atrocious remain campaign.

What hand was forced? Yes, many exemptions were granted and it's a source of constant headache in Brussels, and for other member states too. Why should Germany or France or the Dutch accept any compromises if the UK won't? Your country has real cultural issues with consensus decision making and it was a problem every step of the way.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-19 13:54:53)

After the financial crash and the drama involving greece, looking at the potential issues in Italy and Spain, the EU arrived at a crossroads. To continue on granting exemptions while all countries for years tried to preach solidarity and unity felt as a bit of a slap in the face to many member states. Also, it was Cameron who insisted he'll get a deal to appease his domestic political issues. The rest of the member states simply said 'no, we want no part of this' and who can blame them??

As for Merkel - she hasn't been much of a visionary on EU development or progress really. Stable, yes, but not exactly a helmut kohl.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-19 14:08:08)

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Brexit should have went like Yugoslavia. It would have been better to watch on American T.V.

Mmmmmm, christians wiping out Muslims and jews... too bad you were too young to appreciate it.

uziq wrote:

there were very few jews involved in yugoslavia. it was an ethnic conflict more than religious. the muslims involved were basically culturally european. the serbs and croats were catholic and orthodox, and hated one another just as bad, if not worse, than the christian vs muslim conflict.

I know, but the part I mentioned would've made must watch TV for our resident crusader.

uziq wrote:

you mean it made the EU's 'solidarity' look doubly bad for forcing a shit deal on greece and italy/spain. yes, we know.

that's your reading, i guess. our reading is that the EU was unnecessarily unaccommodating to cameron and kicked the UK's concerns into the long grass, thus making our government totally ineffectual on EU questions. as i said before, funny how you have this God act of being terribly involved in domestic politics through insinuation and obliquities, isn't it? then total silence and absolution when anyone points the finger. how could it be us? we don't deign to get involved in national politics!!!

We simply put blame where it should be - Cameron and the UK's historical handling of its membership. In a sense trouble had been brewing for longer though because the UK was notoriously obstructionist in anything resembling closer integration. Many in the UK bureaucracy even had already come to the conclusion that they doubted their country could continue being a full member of the EU with the direction things were heading into if compared to the UK's (historical) political preference in EU cooperation.

In fairness it could've worked out differently if you didn't have BoJo and other dumbshit tories putting freedom of movement and border control front and centre in the leave debate. But honestly those were and are UK domestic political issues to resolve. I have little faith you will, but in any case it wasn't the EU who had to move here to only again temporarily smooth over the UK's structural issue with its membership.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-19 14:20:03)

I'm only mentioning farage as the poster boy for the leave camp and he always was, for decades. The same voters that made him and UKIP so 'succesful' in the EU were enticed by cameron to vote tory if he promised a referendum, if my memory serves me right.

But I'm also speaking of way before the referendum because as I'm saying the issue was structural. It wasn't just 'this once' that the EU was asked to accomodate the UK - there was a long history of deep frustration behind closed doors when often it was only the UK (and the Dutch) who halted, stopped or watered down many attempts by the rest of the members to move towards closer integration in several areas. It was a certainty Cameron's appeals wouldn't be the last of it and frankly I'm sure many member states considered Cameron's handling of the situation an affront to talks that had already been had and concluded in Brussels long ago. I know for a fact France especially was very set on maintaining a 'no' here.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-19 14:33:06)

You're not aware of the internal dynamics which is fair enough because intergovernmental diplomacy is a rather secretive affair and much of it conducted or informed on a need-to-know basis the higher up it goes. But the UK's position was different, and it played its hand beyond the political capital it had within the EU. The public at large will probably never be made aware of the talks that failed and what compromises had to be reached where and for what reasons, as all these factors are left unaccounted for in the final agreements that roll out of the council meetings and the details lost in email-chains of the bureaucratic elite. Even I don't know many of the details, these were often fought over in COREPER II and select council agenda points - certainly above my head, pay grade and access. But the relationship between the UK and everyone else, especially with France, was not very good, and it had been declining long before the referendum was announced.

In my experience the Germans have always been far more succesful in shaping the EU than anyone or the French, the latter only strong in guarding its red lines. The EU as it exists today is more the result of German pragmatism, which is also quite devoid of any real ideological convictions. The French on the other hand are very strongly ideologically motivated and get done maybe 10% of what they set out to do.

The UK meanwhile never really seemed sure if they even wanted to be in the room.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-19 15:09:57)

There is no out of that arrangement as it's the way the world works, sadly. Be it NATO, EU, UN, OSCE, bilateral relationships etc. I don't know much of it for certain either, only gleaning bits and pieces in the morning updates with the ambassador at our representation and through talks with colleagues from the UK.

Personally I'm sad to see them leave and have to say that your FCO personnel are fantastic and 10,000% more competent in international politicking than your political elite. They fucked up and let themselves be outmaneouvered. I'm quite certain everyone in the UK bureaucracy would've advised them contrary of everything that's happened.

No, the germans do not have everyone's best interest at heart, in the EU they simply gravitate towards the path of least resistance and the position that can guarantee support from the most number of other member states, whatever that may be. They're literally pragmatic. The ideology is that agreement itself is good and the goal, you'll rarely see them object to anything because of their principles. Happens every once in a while but they can foster a lot of goodwill by just pushing for easy agreements everywhere else.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-19 15:23:44)

uziq wrote:

that doesn't say much when the issue seems to be that bureaucratic apparatuses are not serving the people. i am sure that the mandarins of the foreign office had great sympathies with the mandarins of brussels. might i recommend joining a tennis or golf club? it's an easier way to socialise with people who share your own niche interests.

Time to get a little specific here: what part exactly wasn't serving the people?

No  I hate tennis and golf.

Golf is a terrible sport. I condone tennis.

wtf is a neo-socialist in this context? please use the correct terms for things. i can feel my eyes glazing over like when we're treated to another roulade of junk-speak from jay.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-20 01:21:47)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

We simply put blame where it should be - Cameron and the UK's historical handling of its membership. In a sense trouble had been brewing for longer though because the UK was notoriously obstructionist in anything resembling closer integration. Many in the UK bureaucracy even had already come to the conclusion that they doubted their country could continue being a full member of the EU with the direction things were heading into if compared to the UK's (historical) political preference in EU cooperation.

Why was 'closer integration' on the agenda at all? Thats what irritated the British the most, endless creeping power grabs by Brussels and endless demands on Britain to give away more and more.
'Integration' should probably have been left at '90s levels.

In fairness it could've worked out differently if you didn't have BoJo and other dumbshit tories putting freedom of movement and border control front and centre in the leave debate. But honestly those were and are UK domestic political issues to resolve. I have little faith you will, but in any case it wasn't the EU who had to move here to only again temporarily smooth over the UK's structural issue with its membership.

It could have worked out differently if the EU had given Cameron some token and trivial concessions to appease not the Faragists but the eurosceptic rump of the Tory party.
If they had then its likely there would have been no referendum.

I blame the EU neo-socialists really, for having an agenda of creeping integration ie more power for themselves and at the same time treating Britain as a punching bag and ATM.

To manage, and all they are are really low level managers, they require homogeneity. You can't build effective models or write policy papers when you have to deal with each country as individuals. Easier to create a single set of rules for everyone to follow.

Public voting? Out of the question. Nothing so important as minor policy could ever be left up to the fickle opinion of the unwashed. What if they vote the measures down? Hell hath no fury like a petty tyrant scorned.