[normalnorm]

> The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so

This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.

More objectively: if you study the history of the EU, you will see that this "baggage" is quite old. For quite some time in the 70s vetoed UK's accession (to the then EEC), precisely because it feared that the UK was only interested in economic benefits and would sabotage any other aspect of the European project. That is more or less what happened when the UK eventually joined, and the EU had to build around the UK (Schengen, Euro, etc.). It is true that the EU likes rich countries, but it is also true that things are far from being as simple as you describe.

Interesting detail: you mention Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. They are members of EFTA. EFTA was created by the UK during the time that they were not able to join the EEC. After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. So being rich is not enough once you become sufficiently toxic.

Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, and it was given extraordinary rebates for its contributions to the EU budget. Should the UK wish to rejoin, it would have to accept Schengen, the Euro, no more rebates and the "ever closer union" political commitment spelled out in the treaties. I find it very hard to believe that the UK would accept such things in our lifetimes, and I find it very hard to believe that the EU would be willing to put up with the current circus that is UK politics and media in the forseable future.

The UK government is now talking about not honoring the Withdrawal Agreement if there is no Free Trade Deal. Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This means the return of violence to that region. Even if the UK honors the WA, it is quite likely that the situation will degrade to a point that this border comes back. That was the crux of the negotiations for the last 4 years between the EU and the UK, that everyone is now forgetting about. There are also other issues, like Gibraltar. I am afraid that heavier baggage will necessarily accumulate before it can even start to dissipate.

[blibble]

> In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.

pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity

realpolitik always wins

> After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused.

this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either

the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires

> Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things,

it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined

when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed

[normalnorm]

> realpolitik always wins

The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing.

> this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either

It was widely reported at the time. Here you go:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...

> the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires

Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article.

> when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed

They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project".

And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".

[blibble]

> It was widely reported at the time. Here you go:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...

have you actually read the article?

> Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus

so not the Norwegian government

> The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles

so not the UK government

> They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK.

the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis

if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty

[oblio]

> This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.

I'm European and I've been following the news quite closely. Keep in mind that if you're the kind of person active on HN, you're probably in a media bubble.

Regular people, except for the French (maybe, even that is debatable), still like the UK.

[regularfry]

"Regular people" don't make policy. Still, give it a cycle or two to let the current crop of politicians rotate out of influence and it might work.

[Dormeno]

> Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Hi, I live in that region. I thought I might be able to give a little more insight in the situation here.

> This means the return of violence to that region.

It's kind of funny you guys assumed it stopped... It's reduced, but it's not stopped. When the Good Friday agreement came in, it gave Northern Ireland the option to leave the UK when it wants. It turns out that the general public that live here do not want to leave the UK, which diminished the influence unionists and separatists had over people... Turns out having a democratic option made it hard to convince people to join a fight on either side.

Further, most people are more practical, self interested than ideological currently. For many, the Republic looks like a worse future for NI, with less money to go around than if it stays in the UK. The Republic government of course also views NI to be a horrible drain on their resources, so have repeatedly stated over the years that "now is not the right time".

While this has been happening, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have lost significant populations of natives. The Republic has had a massive increase in immigration, so much to the point that the nationalism and that sort of ideology has declined, reducing that want for conflicts even further.

None of the politicians in Northern Ireland have a desire and cannot be compelled to create a physical border between the Republic of Ireland. This of course does not sit well with the EU. The UK parliament does not actually give much of a shit about Northern Ireland outside of how much we spend and leaves NI to its' own autonomy out of fear of violence in the mainland UK.

At this point, I am convinced that if a border is going to be imposed, it will be from the Republic's side. The Republic government doing this of course would put the Republic and EU into a very negative light. So of course, the Republic is very unhappy about this and has voiced this in confidence a few times.

Taking the temperature here, there is a lot of uncertainty, but, I think regardless of what happens, Northern Ireland is probably likely going to benefit more through this. It will be the only UKish territory (ignoring Gibraltar) that shares a border with an EU country that retains easy access to Great Britain, which will make it either a special trading partner, or a special back door. Whether the UK and EU like it or not. I do not think the violence in Northern Ireland will be increasing much more than it is now; they do not seem to have the people or the resources.

The UK parliament of course has made some new acts so that the people of Northern Ireland can control our own fate in face of brexit after a deal is made, democraticing what is happening here.

The UK and EU in my opinion are both trying to use Northern Ireland to get a better trade agreement.

[throwaway122kk]

Eh being from Ireland if anyone puts up a border it be Irish farmers. Last thing they want is northern Ireland being used as a backdoor into Europe with UK dumping questionable gm or chlorinated food destroying their livelihoods.

[Dormeno]

Considering a bunch of the farms cross the border, that would be hilarious.

[tonyedgecombe]

After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA

That's not true.

[peteretep]

> but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states

The Germans consider the Brits a v useful hedge against French socialism, the French against German hegemony, North Europe against French and German expensive grand designs, South Europe against French and German snootiness, Eastern Europe against French and German Russophilia and so on and so forth. The UK has 800 years of helping keep the balance of power in Europe, and being largely a reasonable neighbour (and certainly compared to the French or Germans).

[effie]

Isn't this a bit too much historical/wishful thinking perspective? I don't think people in Europe see UK as some kind of helper agent in maintaining balance of power/order in continental and northern Europe. UK is simply not relevant now. Those threats from close neighbors are largely gone. The questions that concern people today are different - too much power of EU bodies and bureaucrats, which UK can't help with, some external threats (migrants, terrorists) which UK can't help with, economic recession in whole West which UK can't help with, China influence which UK can't help with. For the eastern countries, Russia is a concern which UK can't help with. Also, nobody in their right mind would rely on UK in this respect (remember Chamberlain and Munich 1938). If any invasion happens in Europe, the relevant factors will be local forces and Americans, UK may choose to help but probably not a substantial factor.