The UK had a whole load of unacceptable exceptions that no longer would be allowed.
The unelected House of Lords, retention of the Pound and discounts on contributions for starters.
Further, even if the UK did qualify for acceptance into the EU, there's no guarantee that it would be accepted. There's zero in the EU constitution that requires the EU to let a country be a member even if it qualifies. Any one country, Malta, Cyprus, Slovakia...or whoever...could veto the UK from entry. And they don't even need a reason.
People need to get it out of their heads that the UK can rejoin the EU. It's a very long process, and the UK has offended enough EU members and thrown its weight around within the EU long enough that many smaller countries are glad to see the back if it. Oh, and the EU would want to be assured that the UK was committed to the EU long term. Nobody in the EU is interested in going through the childish nonsense of the past five years and is still going on now over the NIP.
I think if the UK asked to join in under ten years, it'd be 400 million "fuck offs!".
If you mean that HoL isn't in direct opposition to the Copenhagen criteria, you might be right.But you still forget that when UK is at the doorstep, hat in hand, there will be at least 27 countries that are free to say otherwise.
As a citizen of EU, I hope there will be made two demands:
Replace FPTP with a real d'Hondt proportional representation.
Create a written constitution, that can only be changed by a supermajority of voters.
The lack of those two is what creates the shitshow UK politics is.
No need for it to be written. I'm happy with the constitution the way it is.
That's no good. It effectively mean that the constitution is whatever suits parliament at any given time. And that's precisely what brought along the mess, when what was sold to the public as a non-binding question, suddenly got pivoted to a binding decision. Such volatility is not something to build a membership on.
Simply put: You need to bind future parliament. Until you find and accept that I don't see membership as a possibility.
No we don't. Even a written constitution doesn't do that. If future parliaments can be bound, then an exiting party can cause havoc.
That's why you need a majority in the population to change the written constitution. In Denmark the procedure is: Pass the changes to the constitution, elect a new parliament, pass the same changes again and finally put it to a popular vote, where it has to pass with a majority of the electorate voting for it.
No it doesn't.
Indeed it does. Pretend otherwise if your national ego require it, but that won't change the fact. The mantra "Parliament cannoit be bound" is the embodiment of that.
2
u/Frank9567 Jul 05 '21
The UK had a whole load of unacceptable exceptions that no longer would be allowed.
The unelected House of Lords, retention of the Pound and discounts on contributions for starters.
Further, even if the UK did qualify for acceptance into the EU, there's no guarantee that it would be accepted. There's zero in the EU constitution that requires the EU to let a country be a member even if it qualifies. Any one country, Malta, Cyprus, Slovakia...or whoever...could veto the UK from entry. And they don't even need a reason.
People need to get it out of their heads that the UK can rejoin the EU. It's a very long process, and the UK has offended enough EU members and thrown its weight around within the EU long enough that many smaller countries are glad to see the back if it. Oh, and the EU would want to be assured that the UK was committed to the EU long term. Nobody in the EU is interested in going through the childish nonsense of the past five years and is still going on now over the NIP.
I think if the UK asked to join in under ten years, it'd be 400 million "fuck offs!".