Brexit was Johnson and Johnson was Brexit. Now that he has gone, Britain must think again

[RayC]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

An impossible question to answer as the details were never made pubic. It is also impossible for you to say that "the deal she got was as good as it could have been". However, in order to get a better deal then a tougher stance should have been taken from the off; May pretended to be doing this but that was all mush.   

Then applying the same rationale, it is impossible for you to say that a tougher stance during the negotiations would have lead to a more favourable outcome for the UK.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, candide said:

It is far from obvious that a "tougher stance" would have led to a better deal. 

It was chaotic from the beginning and no one seemed to know what to do .

   UKIP were not involved with the aftermath of the Brexit vote , David Cameroon resigned as P.M and bumbling Boris was clowning around and no one seemed to know what to do , what with some U.K politicians  rejecting all offers, Nigel pleading with the E.U in Brussels to allow us to leave , calls for  another referendum and General elections , add Teresa May into the mix and it was a chaotic few years 

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Nations aspiring to become EU members do not have to adopt the Euro from Day 1, merely commit to adopting it at some point. Therefore, the fact that we would be rejoining makes no difference; the same criteria for adopting the Euro apply to both existing and aspiring EU member states, namely: 1) Price stability 2) Sound and sustainable public finances 3) Exchange rate stability 4) Long-term interest rates.

 

I don't know which criterion(ia) Sweden fails to meet, but there appears plenty of scope for the a rejoining UK to 'fail' as well.

Sweden has avoided adopting the euro by not joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II).

Sweden fulfills all of the criteria for adopting the euro but has argued that membership of the ERM II system is optional and has refused to join. As such, they have avoided joining the euro in spite of what was originally expected.

https://www.bound.co/blog/why-don-t-sweden-use-the-euro

 

there is a huge debate going on in Sweden at the moment majority of links are in Swedish due to the current weak value of the Swedish krona against the euro and dollar

https://english.news.cn/20230531/7a8426b7c25945c3939e4c9c6ce015fe/c.html

Swedish krona weakest against euro since 2009

https://english.news.cn/20230531/7a8426b7c25945c3939e4c9c6ce015fe/c.html

 

New poll: Swedish business leaders in favour of joining the Euro

https://www.thelocal.se/20230302/new-poll-swedish-business-leaders-in-favour-of-joining-the-euro

As the Uk was original in the ERM until it withdraw in 1992 not sure if they could use the same excuse that Sweden is using

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

An impossible question to answer as the details were never made pubic. It is also impossible for you to say that "the deal she got was as good as it could have been". However, in order to get a better deal then a tougher stance should have been taken from the off; May pretended to be doing this but that was all mush.   

Because the UK had the upper hand?

[wordchild]

Donkeys leading Donkeys.

Brexit has been economically and politically disastrous for the UK, exactly as predicted by almost everyone  (who knew anything about economics, or politics) 

Johnson, Leadsom, Farage ,Gove et al really did not have a clue what they were talking about during the pre-vote debates; just watch and listen (as i have done recently) to some of the complete garbage they game out with at the time, makes one want to weep.

eg 1)The UK holds all the cards! we buy more from them than they do from us. remember that one? HaHa, and how did that game play out?

    2) Control of  our own borders, and?

    3) Irish Border, never going to be an issue, according to one of the above mentioned protagonists, in a debate i watched again recently . What total ignorance (and arrogance!) re  the complexity of Irish Politics.  Brexit pretty much was unzipped on that one issue alone, even without all the rest of the lies and half-truths.

 

A complete tragedy for a once great and much respected nation. 

   

Edited June 18, 2023 by wordchild

[candide]

50 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was chaotic from the beginning and no one seemed to know what to do .

   UKIP were not involved with the aftermath of the Brexit vote , David Cameroon resigned as P.M and bumbling Boris was clowning around and no one seemed to know what to do , what with some U.K politicians  rejecting all offers, Nigel pleading with the E.U in Brussels to allow us to leave , calls for  another referendum and General elections , add Teresa May into the mix and it was a chaotic few years 

It was surely chaotic. One reason being that there was no particular project apart from leaving. There was a wide range of options and it seems that May tried something 'in the middle', but even in the middle there were different possible variants.

Edited June 18, 2023 by candide

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was chaotic from the beginning and no one seemed to know what to do .

   UKIP were not involved with the aftermath of the Brexit vote , David Cameroon resigned as P.M and bumbling Boris was clowning around and no one seemed to know what to do , what with some U.K politicians  rejecting all offers, Nigel pleading with the E.U in Brussels to allow us to leave , calls for  another referendum and General elections , add Teresa May into the mix and it was a chaotic few years 

I agree with all of that apart from the implication that the EU was somehow forcing us to remain ("Nigel pleading with the EU in Brussels to allow us to leave"). Having served Article 50, the UK would have ceased to be a member of the EU after two years if no agreement and/or request for an extension had been made. How the 'Irish question' and the UK's ongoing commitments to the EU (financial and otherwise) would have been sorted out if that had occurred is anyone's guess, but I'd have bet my bottom dollar it would have been even more chaotic and messy.

 

I think that Candide has hit the nail on the head: One reason why successive UK governments made such a pig's ear of Brexit is that there was no particular project apart from leaving. Whether there is/ was a better way to do Brexit is highly debatable. Those shouting loudest such as the Flat Earthers (ERG) and Farage don't seem to offer much in the way of concrete proposals.

[placeholder]

51 minutes ago, candide said:

It was surely chaotic. One reason being that there was no particular project apart from leaving. There was a wide range of options and it seems that May tried something 'in the middle', but even in the middle there were different possible variants.

Actually, if you consider the conduct of negotiators such as David Davis, it could be that some of these folks actually believed that they had the upper hand, or at least were meeting on the basis of equal strengths,  and were expecting the EU to back down.

Edited June 18, 2023 by placeholder

[RayC]

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

Sweden has avoided adopting the euro by not joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II).

Sweden fulfills all of the criteria for adopting the euro but has argued that membership of the ERM II system is optional and has refused to join. As such, they have avoided joining the euro in spite of what was originally expected.

https://www.bound.co/blog/why-don-t-sweden-use-the-euro

 

there is a huge debate going on in Sweden at the moment majority of links are in Swedish due to the current weak value of the Swedish krona against the euro and dollar

https://english.news.cn/20230531/7a8426b7c25945c3939e4c9c6ce015fe/c.html

Swedish krona weakest against euro since 2009

https://english.news.cn/20230531/7a8426b7c25945c3939e4c9c6ce015fe/c.html

 

New poll: Swedish business leaders in favour of joining the Euro

https://www.thelocal.se/20230302/new-poll-swedish-business-leaders-in-favour-of-joining-the-euro

As the Uk was original in the ERM until it withdraw in 1992 not sure if they could use the same excuse that Sweden is using

Some interesting points. 

 

I'll throw something else into the mix: Would France and Germany want a rejoining UK to adopt the Euro? Between them they effectively run the ECB and set monetary policy in the Eurozone. If the UK adopted the Euro, the UK government would obviously want us to have a strong say in matters  Would the French and Germans want to see their influence diluted?

 

(I know that this is all hypothetical)

[RayC]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, if you consider the conduct of negotiators such as David Davis, it could be that some of these folks actually believed that they had the upper hand, or at least were meeting on the basis of equal strengths,  and were expecting the EU to back down.

I'm not sure David Davis knew what country he was in or what day of the week it was let alone anything else!

https://qz.com/1032136/how-brexit-negotiations-are-going-in-one-photo

 

[vinny41]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

Some interesting points. 

 

I'll throw something else into the mix: Would France and Germany want a rejoining UK to adopt the Euro? Between them they effectively run the ECB and set monetary policy in the Eurozone. If the UK adopted the Euro, the UK government would obviously want us to have a strong say in matters  Would the French and Germans want to see their influence diluted?

 

(I know that this is all hypothetical)

I think you will find what a Uk government wants and what it likely to get are not likely to be the same if they go for Membership 2.0: of the EU

all the posts I have seen so far just discuss trade and nothing else

for France to give its approval to any new application from the UK for EU membership France will want to see a greater commitment to full  EU integration

into the EU project I think Germany holds a similar viewpoint as France on 

full  EU integration into the EU project.

Would Spain veto a new membership application  - depends which party is in government at the time of approvals and will they see it has a final opportunity to reclaim Gibraltar

I know some Europeans that hold a view that if the Uk had adopted the euro then Brexit would never have happened

so I expect the EU will want the UK to adopt the euro as part of any commitment to full  EU integration

This article was written in January 2020

Membership 2.0: what the UK rejoining the EU would involve

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/01/23/membership-2-0-what-the-uk-rejoining-the-eu-would-involve/

This one is more recent 19 February 2023

Can the UK rejoin the EU?

The EU has changed since Brexit. For those in the UK who wanted to rejoin, this poses big problems

https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/can-the-uk-rejoin-the-eu

 

LONDON — After two years frozen out of European science projects, Britain wants back in — at a bargain price. Brussels is unimpressed.

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-weighs-value-for-money-of-returning-to-eu-science-after-brexit-hiatus/

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

Then applying the same rationale, it is impossible for you to say that a tougher stance during the negotiations would have lead to a more favourable outcome for the UK.

True. But worth a shot.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Some interesting points. 

 

I'll throw something else into the mix: Would France and Germany want a rejoining UK to adopt the Euro? Between them they effectively run the ECB and set monetary policy in the Eurozone. If the UK adopted the Euro, the UK government would obviously want us to have a strong say in matters  Would the French and Germans want to see their influence diluted?

 

(I know that this is all hypothetical)

France and Germany effectively run the whole show and that has always been a big part of the problem.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

I'm not sure David Davis knew what country he was in or what day of the week it was let alone anything else!

https://qz.com/1032136/how-brexit-negotiations-are-going-in-one-photo

 

Davis is only guilty of trusting May. His job was undermined from the start.

Edited June 18, 2023 by nauseus

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It was chaotic from the beginning and no one seemed to know what to do .

   UKIP were not involved with the aftermath of the Brexit vote , David Cameroon resigned as P.M and bumbling Boris was clowning around and no one seemed to know what to do , what with some U.K politicians  rejecting all offers, Nigel pleading with the E.U in Brussels to allow us to leave , calls for  another referendum and General elections , add Teresa May into the mix and it was a chaotic few years 

The UK did not need the EU’s permission to leave.

 

More Brexit nonsense, is there any end to it?

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Davis is only guilty of trusting May. His job was undermined from the start.

So let’s forget him turning up drunk and with zero preparation.

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

France and Germany effectively run the whole show and that has always been a big part of the problem.

Nonsense, the UK had a veto and was a significant contributor to EU regulations laws and standards.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

I'm not sure David Davis knew what country he was in or what day of the week it was let alone anything else!

https://qz.com/1032136/how-brexit-negotiations-are-going-in-one-photo

 

I remember when Davis claimed that within 2 years  the UK would have concluded so many trade agreements with other countries that they would actually amount to more in value than what the current level of trade with the EU was.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

I think you will find what a Uk government wants and what it likely to get are not likely to be the same if they go for Membership 2.0: of the EU

I agree but the important thing is to find conditions which are acceptable

 

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

all the posts I have seen so far just discuss trade and nothing else

for France to give its approval to any new application from the UK for EU membership France will want to see a greater commitment to full  EU integration

into the EU project I think Germany holds a similar viewpoint as France on 

full  EU integration into the EU project.

I think that views on the continent are a lot more nuanced than that. Ironically, there appears to be as much confusion about what "increasing integration" entails in practice as what "Brexit" looks like.

 

Macron certainly appears to be in favour of greater integration, but he will not be in office if and when the UK applies to rejoin. If a Le Pen type figure is elected then the situation will change.

 

I'm not sure what is Schultz's view on greater EU Integration but there is a sizeable minority against it.

 

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Would Spain veto a new membership application  - depends which party is in government at the time of approvals and will they see it has a final opportunity to reclaim Gibraltar

Imo that would be unlikely. UK tourism is important to Spain and I doubt that they would want to jeopardize it. I also doubt that the rest of the EU are keen to become embroiled in a major diplomatic row.

 

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

I know some Europeans that hold a view that if the Uk had adopted the euro then Brexit would never have happened

Agreed. Imo it would certainly have made leaving even more difficult

 

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

so I expect the EU will want the UK to adopt the euro as part of any commitment to full  EU integration

... however, I'm not sure that necessarily follows.

 

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

This article was written in January 2020

Membership 2.0: what the UK rejoining the EU would involve

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2020/01/23/membership-2-0-what-the-uk-rejoining-the-eu-would-involve/

This one is more recent 19 February 2023

Can the UK rejoin the EU?

The EU has changed since Brexit. For those in the UK who wanted to rejoin, this poses big problems

https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/can-the-uk-rejoin-the-eu

No doubt there will be areas of contention but are these problems insurmountable? Unless the RoI joins Schengen, then that's a non-issue: I've mentioned in previous posts how imo membership of the Euro could fudged (at least in the short term). Imo a common stance re immigration would be a positive step. 

 

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

LONDON — After two years frozen out of European science projects, Britain wants back in — at a bargain price. Brussels is unimpressed.

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-weighs-value-for-money-of-returning-to-eu-science-after-brexit-hiatus/

Well the last two years don't seem to have benefitted either side.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

I accept that a decision was made to leave and that has happened. However, in a democracy, I am perfectly at liberty to voice my opinion that I believe the decision to have damaged the country, and that the sooner we try to undo that damage (by rejoining) the better.

You are most certainly at liberty to voice your opinion and to continue to do so; after all it is only 7 years thus far. I know many people that, prior to Brexit, were still apoplectic about how Ted Heath sold out the UK’s fishing industry with his application to join the EEC in 1970.

 

Their anger was further amplified in 2001, when files were finally released under the 30 year suppression rule. They showed that chief negotiator Geoffrey Rippon, had told Heath that if he agreed to the Regulation 2141/70 (common fisheries policy) that he will have to sacrifice the UK’s fishing industry. The UK, an island nation surrounded by sea with a bountiful supply of  fish, had one of the largest fishing fleets in the world at the time; but thanks to the treacherous Heath, thriving fishing towns like Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood, etc, were soon reduced to massive hubs of poverty and unemployment, from which they have never recovered. History doesn't forget.

 

It was also revealed that when Heath was made aware of the “Werner” report, his only reaction was to say that the public must not under any circumstances be made aware of it. The Werner Report was a document that ministers had commissioned Pierre Werner, the then Prime Minister of Luxembourg to draw up. It set out a plan to move the Common Market forward to full economic and monetary union, with the view to creating a federal state with the authority to make laws for sovereign states that joined. We have since witnessed the continuing implementation of this, which was my reason for voting to leave the EU.

 

So, keep voicing your discontent, the history of political decisions such as this, can span many decades, and unfortunately, as history can witness, decisions of paramount importance, can be made to massage one mans ego; as we saw with Heath, who wanted to be remembered as a European elitist, rather than the narcissistic fat poof that he really was.    

[Gaccha]

On 6/17/2023 at 6:33 PM, nauseus said:

rebates and vetoes had disappeared before we left. 

Wrong on the issue of rebates.

 

"Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher successfully negotiated the UK Rebate which was adopted in the May 1985 European Council decision. It was in place until the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union." - Wikipedia

[Eloquent pilgrim]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

France and Germany effectively run the whole show and that has always been a big part of the problem.

Indeed, it was ever thus. Only recently, in March this year, Germany held climate change legislation hostage to ensure guarantees for its car industry, even though the legislation had been agreed collectively by the EU. More recently, France has blocked agreed legislation on renewable energy, to secure promises that its nuclear industry will not suffer.

 

Poland has just threatened a referendum on EU migrant quotas, after being outvoted on plans that would force it to pay €20,000 for each refugee / migrant it refuses to host. With a population of only 37 million, Poland has already taken in 1.5 Million genuine refugees from Ukraine, and the EU wants to punish them like this. The other 3 members of the Visegrad group will surely follow. Greece and Italy left to deal unaided with the invasion from Africa across the Mediterranean; and with more than a billion in Sub Saharan Africa wanting access to Europe, they haven't any hope of stopping them alone.  

 

So here we have it, a Federal State cocooned in a tangled bureaucracy that does not work. Countries acting in their own national interests (why-ever not ?)  and fractured attempts to pass unwanted laws.

 

Thanks to the foresight of the 52%

[RayC]

6 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You are most certainly at liberty to voice your opinion and to continue to do so; after all it is only 7 years thus far.

I assume that your reference to ".. only 7 years ..." is sarcastic? If so, it is ironic that you then go on to rail against events that took place over 50 years ago!

 

If your '7 year' comment is simply a statement of fact, then I withdraw my previous paragraph and apologise. However, whilst I accept that the changes (and any benefits) of Brexit might take time to materialize, the absence of any policies, strategy and projects to realise these benefits leads me to think that they may not exist.

 

6 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

I know many people that, prior to Brexit, were still apoplectic about how Ted Heath sold out the UK’s fishing industry with his application to join the EEC in 1970.

 

Their anger was further amplified in 2001, when files were finally released under the 30 year suppression rule. They showed that chief negotiator Geoffrey Rippon, had told Heath that if he agreed to the Regulation 2141/70 (common fisheries policy) that he will have to sacrifice the UK’s fishing industry. The UK, an island nation surrounded by sea with a bountiful supply of  fish, had one of the largest fishing fleets in the world at the time; but thanks to the treacherous Heath, thriving fishing towns like Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood, etc, were soon reduced to massive hubs of poverty and unemployment, from which they have never recovered. History doesn't forget.

The UK fishing industry was in decline long before we joined the EEC. The treachery was that Heath's government - and Thatcher's in the '80s re the mining and steel industries - did nothing to replace the lost jobs in the areas affected.

 

https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/sectors/agribusiness/who-killed-the-british-fishing-industry/#:~:text=Overfishing%2C geopolitics and the way,London's Centre for Food Policy.

 

6 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

It was also revealed that when Heath was made aware of the “Werner” report, his only reaction was to say that the public must not under any circumstances be made aware of it. The Werner Report was a document that ministers had commissioned Pierre Werner, the then Prime Minister of Luxembourg to draw up. It set out a plan to move the Common Market forward to full economic and monetary union, with the view to creating a federal state with the authority to make laws for sovereign states that joined. We have since witnessed the continuing implementation of this, which was my reason for voting to leave the EU.

There is no mention of the creation of a federal state in the Werner Report; it is solely concerned with monetary union and what it views as the necessary fiscal policies e.g. alignment of VAT rates to enable this monetary union to take place. There is no mention of wider social, defence, foreign policy, etc. being centralised.

 

6 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

So, keep voicing your discontent, the history of political decisions such as this, can span many decades, and unfortunately, as history can witness, decisions of paramount importance, can be made to massage one mans ego; as we saw with Heath, who wanted to be remembered as a European elitist, rather than the narcissistic fat poof that he really was.    

I don't need your permission to keep voicing my discontent about Brexit.

 

I can't see what points you are trying to make here, other than you have contempt for Heath and, apparently, homosexuals.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You are most certainly at liberty to voice your opinion and to continue to do so; after all it is only 7 years thus far. I know many people that, prior to Brexit, were still apoplectic about how Ted Heath sold out the UK’s fishing industry with his application to join the EEC in 1970.

 

Their anger was further amplified in 2001, when files were finally released under the 30 year suppression rule. They showed that chief negotiator Geoffrey Rippon, had told Heath that if he agreed to the Regulation 2141/70 (common fisheries policy) that he will have to sacrifice the UK’s fishing industry. The UK, an island nation surrounded by sea with a bountiful supply of  fish, had one of the largest fishing fleets in the world at the time; but thanks to the treacherous Heath, thriving fishing towns like Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood, etc, were soon reduced to massive hubs of poverty and unemployment, from which they have never recovered. History doesn't forget.

 

It was also revealed that when Heath was made aware of the “Werner” report, his only reaction was to say that the public must not under any circumstances be made aware of it. The Werner Report was a document that ministers had commissioned Pierre Werner, the then Prime Minister of Luxembourg to draw up. It set out a plan to move the Common Market forward to full economic and monetary union, with the view to creating a federal state with the authority to make laws for sovereign states that joined. We have since witnessed the continuing implementation of this, which was my reason for voting to leave the EU.

 

So, keep voicing your discontent, the history of political decisions such as this, can span many decades, and unfortunately, as history can witness, decisions of paramount importance, can be made to massage one mans ego; as we saw with Heath, who wanted to be remembered as a European elitist, rather than the narcissistic fat poof that he really was.    

Since you mention the British Fishing Industry.

 

How’s that going post Brexit?

[wordchild]

I believe Brexit itself , has been , pretty much, an economic and political disaster for the Uk. As I posted above. 

 

Nevertheless i think it would be completely inappropriate for the UK to seek to rejoin an unreformed EU. The UK should seek to make the best of where it now finds itself.
As tempers cool (on both sides) it should be possible for the UK to maneuver itself, over time,  into a better position relative to its largest trading partner. 

One of the biggest problems with Brexit was that it weakened the hand of the reformist agenda, within the EU itself, and strengthened those with a “no turning back” integrationist agenda. I am optimistic that, over time, the voices of “reason” will come to hold increased sway. I think it is possible , even likely, that we will see fundamental reform of the EU itself, over the next decade or two.

 

It has always been illogical to impose a “one size only” model on the diverse group of nations that make up the EU, as it is currently , and aspires to be in the future.

 

I think it would be right for the UK to rejoin some kind of “reformed”  EU somewhere down the line, once these issues have resolved themselves.

And until then make the best of the hand you now have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, Gaccha said:

Wrong on the issue of rebates.

 

"Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher successfully negotiated the UK Rebate which was adopted in the May 1985 European Council decision. It was in place until the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union." - Wikipedia

No. You are wrong. It was in place but reduced. Blair gave back a big chunk in 2005.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6516753/Tony-Blairs-decision-to-cut-the-EU-rebate-cost-9.3billion-report-shows.html

[RayC]

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Indeed, it was ever thus.

Really? Any examples of the UK - when it was a member - being dictated to by France and Germany?

 

Post-Brexit, France and Germany account for over 40% of the EU's GDP and nearly 50% of the Eurozone. Therefore, it seems reasonable and obvious that they would want - and have - between them a major voice in shaping the Eurozone and EU policy.

 

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Only recently, in March this year, Germany held climate change legislation hostage to ensure guarantees for its car industry, even though the legislation had been agreed collectively by the EU. More recently, France has blocked agreed legislation on renewable energy, to secure promises that its nuclear industry will not suffer.

Most of the time, the member states of the EU share a common goal and vision which promotes the common good  However, it is a collection of sovereign nations who will also seek to promote and protect their own interests. If conflict arises, horse-trading and compromise is necessary.

 

The UK when it was a member was, perhaps, the prime example of a member state protecting its' own interests.

 

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Poland has just threatened a referendum on EU migrant quotas, after being outvoted on plans that would force it to pay €20,000 for each refugee / migrant it refuses to host. With a population of only 37 million, Poland has already taken in 1.5 Million genuine refugees from Ukraine, and the EU wants to punish them like this. The other 3 members of the Visegrad group will surely follow.

This issue pre-dates the Ukraine war. The initial EU agreement among member states - which Poland and the Visegrad group refuse to implement - dates back to 2015. The EU has launched infringement proceedings against Poland for this reason.

 

Poland should be applauded for housing Ukrainian refugees, however, the EU has not punished Poland for doing so as you suggest. In fact, as of October '22, Poland has received €144m in EU contributions for housing Ukrainian refugees. No doubt the figure is significantly higher now.

 

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Greece and Italy left to deal unaided with the invasion from Africa across the Mediterranean; and with more than a billion in Sub Saharan Africa wanting access to Europe, they haven't any hope of stopping them alone.  

On the one hand, you criticise the EU for fining Poland for not implementing agreed EU refugee policy but, on the other, you criticise the EU for what you perceive as not doing enough to assist Greece and Italy. Doesn't seem very consistent.

 

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

So here we have it, a Federal State cocooned in a tangled bureaucracy that does not work. Countries acting in their own national interests (why-ever not ?)  and fractured attempts to pass unwanted laws.

So there we have it. More unfounded EU bashing.

 

"A federal state"? Clearly not.

"A tangled bureaucracy"? A bureaucracy certainly; tangled? Perhaps. There is always room for improvement.

 

I've addressed the national interest argument in a previous paragraph.

 

If the laws were unwanted then they would not become laws: It really is as simple as that.

 

4 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Thanks to the foresight of the 52%

Indeed. Many thanks to the 52% for the past 7 years of chaos. The question is, how many more do we have to endure?