Having lived in The Netherlands let's just say they're not even in the same bloody universe as Brits when it comes to thinking they're better than everybody else (in fact as far as I can tell the Dutch in general have almost no Nationalistic delusions of grandeur) and as for their Far-Right, the Dutch Far-Right took off led by a guy who was from the start very openly gay (something that would never happen in Britain) and it never exceeded 25% of the votes, whilst in the UK it took over the Tory Party during the Leave Referendum and went on to rule for 3 consecutive governments.

The kind of anti-immigration talk being pushed from the sidelines by the Far-Right in all those other countries is what the Tories (on of the two main British parties) has been pushing for over a decade in government.

Britain is pretty much 10 - 20 years ahead of the rest of Europe when it comes to the Far-Right dominating politics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Having also lived and worked in the Netherlands they are some of the most casually racist people I've ever met. If you're not white life is very different to if you are. This is not everyone, of course. I have life long friends that are Dutch and ok the whole they are warm and friendly. But you might have a different point of view of racism depending on how you look.

Far right populism is alive and well in Europe. The UK doesn't have a monopoly on that. We should all be worried.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

In Britain those casual racists were in power for the last 12 years (and have been replaced by a supposedly left-of-center mainstream party that's so much to the Right they're repeating the same anti-immigration bullshit as the other party).

Whilst living there I've had multiple non-white friends (from quite the range of origins and ancestries) being victims of racism and I myself was a victim of racism (whilst I'm supposedly "white", I'm from Southern Europe, so a lot of Brits have massive prejudices against the likes of me).

In The Netherlands I had non-white friends and I never once heard any of them complain of "casual racism". That said, it was more than a decade ago before the Theo van Gogh murder and I hear anti-Islamist really took off after that.

Bringing Britain back into the EU now would be like bringing Hungary in now if they were out.

And this is just one reason why Britain for now is not a good match for the EU we want to have (which has its own increasing racism problems, especially against people from the middle-east, and doesn't really need to bring in even more Far-Right nutters), not going into other things such as how when in the EU they would often act in the service of American interests and were prone to blackmailing the rest with the veto to extract concessions for themselves alone (hence all the exceptions Britain had).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Bringing Britain back into the EU now would be like bringing Hungary in now if they were out.

No because, as I've explained to you, Britain doesn't have a monopoly on racism or far right extremists. Actual current EU members have the very same issues you claim you don't want to import into the EU. And quite frankly "not having racist incidents" is a daft entry requirement for no other reason than all member states would fail instantly. Which is why the EU doesn't have this as a requirement.

not going into other things such as how when in the EU they would often act in the service of American interests and were prone to blackmailing the rest with the veto to extract concessions for themselves alone (hence all the exceptions Britain had).

You would be extremely naive to believe that the French don't vote in their national interests when it comes to Common Agriculture Policy, or the Germans don't act in thei interest when they negotiated cheap Russian gas to fuel their economy, or the Irish in their interests when they veto and drag their heels on mass corporate tax evasion, or the Poles when they protest and block Ukraine selling grain into the EU to raise funds so that they can stop Russian aggression. Every country in the EU is working in its own interest and insofar as the EU facilitates that they will continue doing so. It's politically and historically naive to think otherwise. And I'm not knocking it, they should be working for their own interests as getting as much out of EU membership as they can. That's why leaving was such a mistake because the UK could have gotten so much more out of the EU whilst being in than out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

First your arguments are either Strawmen (the Racism thing, which is not in my original post and is but an element of a far broader Far Right point I was making) or Appeal To Absurd fallacies (they don't have a "monopoly on Racism" hence it's ok, an argument so absurd that Russia would qualify for EU membership by that logic, and "others too act in their own self interest" hence Britain is ok, again an absurd point which means any country no matter how bad their behavior in the EU is fine because other countries also act in their own self interest, so for example Hungary is just fine in the EU).

By artificially flattening the universe to only to states, totally black or totally white, in that "argumentative" structure of yours, you've reduced it all to "nobody is perfect hence Britain is fine in the EU", which as I said is such a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum that your "argument" would justify bloody North Korea or Nazi Germany in the EU since, "everybody is a bit Racist and every nation acts in their own self interest".

The problem with Britain is not one of "not being perfect" (no nation is, hence why that "argument" of yours is seriously ridiculous), it's one of "given the imperfections that everybody has, how bad are they by comparison?"

Having seen the Leave campaign up close and personal and the arguments of Brexiters before and after the vote, they have a very large fraction of their population (over 1/3, more that the far right vote in all the countries you mentioned earlier) who positively relished the idea of damaging the EU. I don't just mean, they wanted to merely leave, they actually wanted the rest to suffer. That's a reflection of a broader malaise of that country, namely extreme nationalism with huge delusions of grandeur to the point of hate for the other (and this was back a decade ago already), which has been fed over the years by maybe the most disfunctional Press in Europe and by a Political class which is very much to the Right of most of Europe, none of which has changed since the Referendum.

Leave Referendum Britain, with the massive numbers of people who detest the rest of the EU, with such an extremely selfish take on the EU that when they left they had much more exceptions than everybody else and who look to America rather than to their European partners as inspiration, is still there alive and kicking, it's just that in the meanwhile a proportion of the Leavers have pragmatically concluded it's more beneficial for them personally that Britain is an EU member - not a change of heart but a revaluation of the "business argument" for Britain in the EU.

Absolutely, the EU itself isn't perfect and the countries in it are all imperfect in many ways (nothing is perfect), yet when one of the most selfish, ultra-neoliberal (very much US-style) and borderline Fascist countries chooses to leave, that's a win for the rest of the EU (as for Britain then, so it would be for Hungary now) because the leaving of one of the least cooperative and more far right members makes the group as a whole better, and for them return should only happen when they would make the group better, not worse - for Britain that's when they've sufficiently evolved socially and politically beyond the stage they're in now that them as an EU member is a net positive for the EU as a whole, not just good for Britain themselves.

Until then, it's fine if we all cooperate, what we can't have is present day Britain on the inside having votes and vetos on things that impact the lives of the other 470 million people in the EU and blackmailing the rest with threats of having a tantrum all over again, to obtain special conditions for themselves which nobody else has just like they were doing before and which ultimately ended in the Referendum and them leaving.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

😉 I'm not sure you've understood, at all, my point. But that's ok. You seem extremely hurt for some reason by the UK, that's ok I'm sorry this happened to you. All I'm trying to explain is that the qualities you dislike in the UK are present all over the EU, and thus your zeal to keep the UK out makes little to no sense.

You have to understand why the EU (and EEC before) was created and formed to understand why, hopefully in the future, the UK will rejoin - despite your objections and hesitation.

Anyways, I wish you a pleasant week. I have work to return to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Nice attempt at changing your argumentative approach to make it about me and "interesting" that you didn't examine your own motivations in the same way.

The point which you for the 3rd or 4th time now have avoided is that amongst all others members and candidates, uniquelly, the UK has already done it: they went ahead and broke up with the group (a group which they had a history of taking advantage of to begin with, hence all the exceptions) causing damage all around, part of it purposefully.

It's actually the wisest and most rational action for the rest of the group to require trust to be rebuilt that the UK won't simply act in the same way again in before accepting it back - why bring a still disfunctional actor back into a position were they can do the same kind of damage all over again!? - which this being a country rather than a person, means that the social and political culture that caused the population and the power elites there to desire that the country acted as it did, must change.

The EU wasn't formed to understand anything - it's not some kind of Science Collective - the EU was formed for the good of the group, because together we are stronger and better than we are apart, so acting in ways that damage and weaken the whole group is the greatest breach of trust for the rest there is (hence all the talk about how to stop Hungary, whose actions, by the way, make the rest more weary of bringing back an old disruptive member who left acrimoniously).

Whilst I too believe the UK will eventually rejoin the EU because Historically, Culturally and Geographically Britain is European, I think that after what they did it will take decades and the country will have to go through a crisis or two before it has changed enough to be possible to trust it with the powers and responsibilities that come with membership. The stakes here are a lot higher than a book reading club or amateur football, so merely "forgive and forget" isn't really a reasonable option.

Now, since here is now Monday morning, I have got to go work too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The amount of assumptions you're making without addressing or understanding what I'm saying is hilarious 😂.

"interesting" that you didn't examine your own motivations in the same way.

I'm more than happy to say the UK acted in its own interest whilst in the EU (agreeing with your point), that there are hard elements of disruptive right leaning racists in the UK (agreeing with your point), that the UK is unlikely to be accepted back into the EU in the short term (agreeing with your point). However you've asserted that these aspects don't exist (or exist in minor insignificant ways) within EU member states. Hungary aside, the EU has all the above problems that are very real and already disruptive. Far right minority parties winning significant ground in elections, harsh anti immigration rhetoric from all over the continent, significant othering and second class views towards non white Europeans (just look at how Turkish immigrants in the 1950s are treated still to this day), self interested countries vying for their own benefit rather than that of the whole, members being sanctioned by the EU for not following their own rules. None of these things are exclusive to the UK. This is what you don't understand, or are unwilling to understand.

Please, sir, that not everything is a win lose situation and that other people have valid opinions too. If you want to end this with several paragraphs of prognostication not addressing the point then fair enough.

I think, or at least I hope, that we both agree the UK will someday rejoin. But this won't be because it has suddenly become a more European Utopian country acting in the benefit of others (because such a thing doesn't exist). We'll rejoin for political and economic reasons which is how every other country has joined and no other reason. And I think you know that deep down.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I've said, reiterated and am now reiterating again, that the problem with the UK is not one of mere presence of certain traits and behaviours, it's one of intensity of such traits and behaviours. In fact, the whole discussion around the mere presence of those things is a view that you yourself brough into the discussion and which is such a hyper-reductive take on reality that per that "logic" no country in the World no matter how bad their behaviour would be a bad fit for the EU since all bad things countries do are just extreme versions of behaviours and motivations done by or present in existing EU members.

I'm afraid you're applying the Scociopath's Excuse - "Everybody is selfish, so why shouldn't I be able to do whatever the fuck I want when I can get away with it" - to nations and like for sociopaths, for nations too the problem is not the the mere presence of greedy and negative behaviors, it's how much they do it and how far they take it.

You repeating that "they're all imperfect hence the UK is a good fit" mantra is not a counter argument because it does nothing to address my point that the UK's problem is NOT the presence of certain characteristics, it's the intensity of them and how far they take them.

Your seeming obcession with Racism towards non Europeans, whilst a very valid critique of what's going on in European nations in general, is irrelevant as a criteria to whether the UK would be a good fit in the EU, unless the point you're trying to make is that the EU are all white Racists hence another country with lots of white Racists would be a good fit (which would be the very opposite of the direction I believe the EU should evolve towards and part of the reason why in my very first post I talked about the problem of how much the Far Right is dominant in Britain - we don't need more Far Right shit in the EU, we need less of it).

I think in this discussion we're failing to meet in the middle exactly for the same underlying difference in viewpoints that exists between most EU members and Britain and which was leveraged to convince so many Britons to chose to Leave: maybe because I'm from a small EU nation that on its own in the World stage would be absolutelly crushed by the big boys (especially in this era of Far-Right dominance in places like the US) and for which the EU provides the "safety of the pack", I look at the EU as safety in numbers and hence at doing what's good for the group as a whole as being something that justifies some self-sacrifice, whilst you look it as some kind of business arrangement, which was exactly as most Britons, especially Brexiters, looked at EU membership and IMHO, ultimatelly why Leave won since one of the main arguments was that "the UK pays more to the EU than it gets from it" (which was true in a strict fees sense but false in the bigger sense).

(Maybe you looking at it in a business-like way explains why you interpreted my take in business terms - as me seeing it all as a "win lose" - when my take is anchored on what's good or bad for the "strength of the team" and a Games Theory view of what is the appropriate kind of way to deal with a member turning against and damaging the group, in order to maximize group stability)

I suspect our little discussion unwittingly reflects the very same difference in philosophies for being part of a group of nations between Britons and most of the rest of people in the EU: most of the people in the EU (who are mostly in small countries or countries less obcessed with their past as heads of "Empires") see as part of the value of being in the group that the group itself exist and is strong as a whole, whilst the dominant view in Britain was and still is the transactional view of membership of the EU - as a business arrangement were each party tries to maximize their own upsides.

In our discussion I clearly went the long way around in my argument and wasted both your times in fluff and irrelevant side issues to get to the core point (so thank you for this discussion, since thinking about it all helped me mentally clean it down to the essential) which is that: Britain needs to want be in the EU for the sake of the EU as much as for its own sake, and as I saw first hand living in Britain before, during and after the Leave Referendum that was certainly and I believe is still not the case (inside Britain Remainers keep making the case in "what's in it for us" terms), hence whatever needs to change in it for it the become so must change before it should be allowed back in.

If you disagree that for most of its citizens to wanting to be part of the EU also for the good of the EU and not just for their own good, should be a required criteria for Britain to be allowed back in, then we have irreconciable differences and we've reached the end of this discussion :/