[sofixa]

> The EU wants the UK to be subservient to the Commission for ideological, political and economic reasons. The UK doesn't want to be back in that situation.

What a load of Brexiteer crap. The UK was never subservient, they were among the top decision makers and powers in the EU. Brexit UK wants to have its cake and eat it too and is simply impossible. You can't be independent from the EU on trade and power simply because of the proximity and history. Blindly cutting off your nose to spite the EU is as dumb as it was when all of this started. As soon as the UK recognises it needs the EU as much as the EU needs it, all will be better.

Few egregious examples of the UK being intentionally obtuse to spite the EU while also harming itself - refusals to accept existing treaties on a bunch of stuff, refusal to accept treaties they signed a few months ago. The whole NI question for which they still haven't accepted a solution. The fish debacle ( the UK refusing to license EU-based ships).

[tinco]

Stop being so adverserial. Parent hasn't stated any pro-brexit sentiment so just assume they're arguing in good faith.

The whole idea of the EU is that all nations in it are subservient to the commission. We like it that way because that makes the collaboration more rational and it makes the rising tide lift all the boats. Wether you agree with it or not, the idea of the Brexit is that the UK can be strong without the EU, possibly even stronger. Wether that will happen remains to be seen.

But how can you say they can't be independent of the EU in power while commenting on an article that's literally about them establishing power bypassing the EU?

I'd love for the UK to come back to us in the EU. But their "intentional obtuse"-ness is exactly what they should be doing to make good on their promises to the citizens of the UK.

[arlort]

> The whole idea of the EU is that all nations in it are subservient to the commission

It really really isn't though

[tinco]

It really is though

[dankboys]

Then it's even more useless than being an auditor at the commission

[tremon]

The whole idea of the EU is that all nations in it are subservient to the commission.

How is that statement different from stating that the whole idea of the UK is that all countries in the UK are subservient to the Cabinet?

[tinco]

It's not, that's why the UK felt their sovereignty was compromised and they took it back. The EU allows for that to happen without violence.

[detritus]

This is an absolutely valueless comment, so I apologise: but I just wanted to thank you for writing one of most sincerely level-headed responses I've seen in relation to Brexit, and from someone 'over the fence' at that.

I aspire to be as considerate and reasonable in my dialogue on the subject, as much as I'd like it to go away (much like most Europeans, I guess!) :)

[sofixa]

But they aren't arguing in good faith, because this bit:

> The EU wants the UK to be subservient to the Commission for ideological, political and economic reasons

Is categorically and empirically false. The Commission doesn't have an ideology, and doesn't want subservience from anyone. Their job is cooperation and improvement.

[tinco]

> The Commission doesn't have an ideology, and doesn't want subservience from anyone. Their job is cooperation and improvement.

No, the commission does have an ideology, it's encoded in the Treaty of European Union. For example "founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities".

Also subservience is encoded in the treaties, for example when you sign the treaty you agree that the court of the European Union becomes your highest court, and that European law overrides your national law. Effectively any court decision can be overruled by the European Court of Justice if it conflicts with European law.

Besides the law there's all sorts of other restrictions where a nations interest are subservient to those of the union as a whole. Usually to prevent a nation from giving their local industries an edge over those in other European countries.

[mike_hearn]

The UK had to implement EU decisions and laws, including those the government and voters directly disagreed with. That is what subservient means, in this context.

The fish debacle ( the UK refusing to license EU-based ships).

There are lots of licensed EU fishing vessels. Note that Jersey isn't actually a part of the UK, technically it's a Crown Dependency. Anyway. The full story of the dispute is much more complicated than that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Jersey_dispute

Summary:

- After Brexit an amnesty period was agreed before the new fishing permissions were enforced on UK/Jersey territorial waters.

- French fishermen reacted by adopting unsustainable fishing techniques like aggressive trawling. Basically trying to extract as much marine wealth as possible before they were restricted. "Young accused French trawlers of "breaking the spirit of the amnesty" and that due to recent dredging by French trawlers that Jersey's marine ecology "won’t take this for much longer and, if it goes on, we will have to close the area off for years". This hadn't been anticipated in the agreement and appears to have poisoned relations from the get-go.

- The agreement involved granting licenses to fishermen who had been fishing there previously and could evidence that. The French authorities weren't submitting valid evidence to the Jersey authorities (blaming bureaucratic screwups like lost documents).

- Because the evidence wasn't meeting the requirements, licenses weren't always being issued quickly.

So far, ordinary bureaucracy. It should have never really reached public attention at all, as it could have been sorted out between the local authorities. Unfortunately what followed was this:

1. Blockades of Jersey harbor by the French fishermen, with the French government doing nothing.

2. French boats were repeatedly caught illegally fishing, claiming they'd been told by the French government they could fish wherever they wanted. See the trawling problems above.

3. Shortly after, the French government banned Jersey fishermen from landing fish in France. No justification was given. This was in violation of the agreement and Jersey thus said it'd appeal to the EU Commission. That was not only ignored but the French simply escalated the ban to include all freight movements, again, in plain violation of the agreements.

4. The French government then escalated again and threatened multiple times to cut off Jersey's electricity supply in retaliation.

From the UK's perspective this was all well out of proportion to the scale of the problem. Also it involved unilateral violations of the agreement by France, no workable suggestions for how to do things better and after that an MEP argued that it should be escalated to full blown trade sanctions. Without passing judgement on which side was "right" in this dispute it's obvious why the UK would want to diversity energy supplies away from the EU.

[gghhzzgghhzz]

If you were one of the big 3 then you pretty much get to decide what laws / fines apply and what don't. This was often used to the advantage of the British governments to claim that they were being forced into doing something that they actually wanted to do, but would have an issue passing domestically.

Fishing 'debacle' was because the UK governments have no interest in fishing nor in the far wider issue of the sustainability and viability of costal communities. They were happy to give away fishing rights because that's what the needs of the markets demand. They only become interested in fishermen/women when they think there are some votes in it. Same for Macron.

It's all extremely cynical. And I say this as someone who voted for Brexit, and would do so again.

[mike_hearn]

In this case the dispute was with the independent Jersey government and part of their justification for the number of licenses provided was sustainability. You could argue that this justification was a lie I suppose, but it'd be good to have some evidence to support that.

OTOH, the UK government recently (2020) passed laws that overrode Jersey's independence in this regard and there were rumours that the UK was getting ready to basically give the EU what they wanted here in return for concessions in other areas, much to the outrage of people on Jersey itself. However, that hasn't materialized. So I guess we'll see to what extent you're proven right.

[mrlonglong]

Boring codswallop.