Can you not see that "leading Europe" is an oxymoronic pipe dream which has led us to the present pass? We have instead destroyed our own polity by kow-towing to an unelected caucus of corrupt placeman appointees and the overweening protectionist ourobouros that is the EU superstructure. Better to lead and show the way from outside, by overhauling our own rotten bureaucracy. If we cannot do that, we are unworthy of leadership anyway
I had to almost give up reading this schlock when I got to the section about how 'the EU isn't a member of the ECHR', when every single member state of the EU is a Convention State for the purposes of the ECHR, and ECtHR case law demands national governments directly enforce judgments domestically.
While I agree with the sentiment of working with the EU on crushing the migrant threat, the fawning view of the sclerotic union here is utterly baffling to me. The Council is not the real power house of the EU institutions when it comes to reform; it is the Commission and its technocratic, anti-rightist bureaucracy.
The author's desperate appeals to supposed perception and culture changes on the continent as a justification for Britain rejoining is just Alistair Campbell tier fantasy. The EU as it currently exists has to be destroyed for anything approaching this vision to come about, with something akin to a European Confederation replacing it. There is no future where the Commission and its leadership tolerate serious British influence on the Union.
As this article states, France has managed to prohrct power independently with a very similar sized and shape economy, our lack of ability to do so is a consequence of political decisions, won't rather than can't.
The arguments for larger actors having larger sway are perfectly valid, but that seems to suggest forming 'coalitions of the willing' with like minded states with regard to deportations, remittance blocking and various other negotiations with origin countries.
Just GB and Italy negotiating together would have a lot more leverage than either alone.
Britain’s stock is good with the likes of Poland and Hungary, and our re-entry based on a realignment with the Eastern states bordering Russia could put us in a leading position, especially with the dominance of the English language and our links to the US.
Can you not see that "leading Europe" is an oxymoronic pipe dream which has led us to the present pass? We have instead destroyed our own polity by kow-towing to an unelected caucus of corrupt placeman appointees and the overweening protectionist ourobouros that is the EU superstructure. Better to lead and show the way from outside, by overhauling our own rotten bureaucracy. If we cannot do that, we are unworthy of leadership anyway
What would the UK's financial contributions be if it rejoined? How many billions more in tax and borrowing to fund them?
I had to almost give up reading this schlock when I got to the section about how 'the EU isn't a member of the ECHR', when every single member state of the EU is a Convention State for the purposes of the ECHR, and ECtHR case law demands national governments directly enforce judgments domestically.
While I agree with the sentiment of working with the EU on crushing the migrant threat, the fawning view of the sclerotic union here is utterly baffling to me. The Council is not the real power house of the EU institutions when it comes to reform; it is the Commission and its technocratic, anti-rightist bureaucracy.
The author's desperate appeals to supposed perception and culture changes on the continent as a justification for Britain rejoining is just Alistair Campbell tier fantasy. The EU as it currently exists has to be destroyed for anything approaching this vision to come about, with something akin to a European Confederation replacing it. There is no future where the Commission and its leadership tolerate serious British influence on the Union.
As this article states, France has managed to prohrct power independently with a very similar sized and shape economy, our lack of ability to do so is a consequence of political decisions, won't rather than can't.
The arguments for larger actors having larger sway are perfectly valid, but that seems to suggest forming 'coalitions of the willing' with like minded states with regard to deportations, remittance blocking and various other negotiations with origin countries.
Just GB and Italy negotiating together would have a lot more leverage than either alone.
Britain’s stock is good with the likes of Poland and Hungary, and our re-entry based on a realignment with the Eastern states bordering Russia could put us in a leading position, especially with the dominance of the English language and our links to the US.