Maybe they could ask us if we want them back, especially seen their stance on climate change.
UK per capita emissions are below EU level and are down 30% compared to a decade ago. The UKs climate policy so far was actually pretty good, but part of that was obviously economic performance being bad.
Which stance is that, if you don’t mind my asking?
Prolong shit till 2035, basically push the can down the road and do nothing
I don’t disagree that it’s rather silly, still we are making good headway with wind being as much as 70% of our power generation some days.
I just find it frustrating that we as a country who are likely about to kick out the Tories (who have been in power for the last 12 years) are going to still be holding their legacy of anti environmentalism (I think the Tories were actually pushing back net zero til 2050)
The reality being that Labour will likely do more to meet (and hopefully improve) our goals in the coming years. Labour also being the ones who are discussing closer ties with the EU again, though they are having to tread carefully as outright saying we’re going to rejoin the EU would be considered political suicide.
Basically everyone is sick of the Tories, but still much of our population has had it ingrained into them that “it’d be worse of Corbin had gotten in”.
It’s a complicated issue, but the reality is the UK being able to be held to account by the EU will do more for our environmental policies then being left on the outside, having to source our goods from much further away, and at a lower cost (which often has a higher environmental cost).
As someone with little clue about UK politics, what’s so bad about Corbin?
Either they apply to rejoin and go through the exact same process as every other country that wants to join has to (with no special treatment based on being a member previously), then meet the requirements and follow the rules already in place OR they remain non-EU members.
Why have any rules if you’re going to make exceptions for a country that just wants all the benefits of being member but not contribute towards the benefits. Makes a farse of the entire purpose of the EU if anything like this goes ahead.
The idea is to have a less commitments, but less benefits kind of relationship with the EU. That would be very usefull for other countries like the non EU Balkan countries, Ukraine and maybe Georgia or so. Basicly they have to take a lot of the EUs standards and get a good trade deal, without being a proper member of the common market like Norway and Switzerland or having to properly join the EU. For that they get a voice on the negotiating table of EU laws, but no vote.
In other words a relationship a bit bigger then a pure trade agreement, but significantly below being a proper member. Imho a good idea.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The proposal comes as the UK’s opposition leader, Keir Starmer, told France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, that he wanted to build an “even stronger” relationship between the two countries if he wins power at a national election pencilled in for next year.
With the Ukraine war accelerating the appetite for enlargement, the EU leadership has acknowledged the urgent need to start thinking about the shape of the bloc, which could increase from 27 members to as many as 36 countries.
A report presented by France and Germany on Tuesday called on EU institutions to pass a raft of reforms to be ready by 2030 to accept new members such as Ukraine.
Experts from the two European heavyweights drew up the proposals aimed at streamlining the way the bloc works, as Brussels considers its biggest wave of expansion in decades.
The report does not represent the official German or French positions, but will feed into debates at an upcoming summits of 46 European countries and an informal gathering of the 27 EU leaders on successive days in October in Granada in Spain.
The report also envisions trimming Brussels’ notorious bureaucracy by cutting the number of commissioners put forward by member states in the EU’s executive.
The original article contains 617 words, the summary contains 203 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This sounds almost like a second Council of Europe.
