> UK scientists have long complained that Horizon membership was an unintended, but devastating, effect of Brexit

Gosh, it's almost as if rushing into Brexit with no agreed plan and no consideration of the consequences, riding roughshod over existing agreements for no reason other than nationalistic puffery and wrongly taking for granted that the UK would be able to have its cake and eat it might have had "unintended" effects.

Who could have foreseen that?

> "If we cannot associate, we are more than ready to go it alone with our own global-facing alternative, working with science powerhouses such as the US, Switzerland and Japan to deliver international science collaborations," she wrote in the Telegraph.

Translation; if we don't get back into the club we left because of our own decisions, we'll set up our own with blackjack and hookers.

It seems to me that this is one of the worst outcomes from Brexit, and it would be a real benefit all round if we could collaborate on things like this.

It also seems that as bureaucracies grow (as they always want to) they tend to become bloated and demand more and more power. It always happens. They also tend to become more corrupt, and inward focused.

It also seems that the vast majority of people either think the EU is the very best thing that's ever happened, or the very worst. Why not somewhere in between, where on balance it can deliver a lot of benefits, but also has a lot of really big problems.

After seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave, it has cooled my opinion of them somewhat.

What would be lovely is if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade, and stop trying to set the laws for the whole bloc. A kind of reform. And perhaps people would vote to rejoin that. But they are never going to do that, as they want more power not less.

It also seems like the bureaucrats seem to love flying around in private jets, but tell the rest of us we shouldn't fly so much (just one example, and no in any way limited to just the EU).

So, yeah I would like to eat my cake and have it with cherries on top. I'm still on the fence about the whole thing.

Citation please ?

The EU enacted the rules that were in place. You might want to remember that the UK specifically made some of those rules you are considering as "punishment".

Then again, you might prefer to ignore that. Much more comfortable that way.

So, carry on !

> You might want to remember that the UK specifically made some of those rules you are considering as "punishment".

"I never thought leopards would eat my face".

Politico's can really do the feigned surprise or shock very well, more of them should be actors*. An impact assessment should have been created ahead of the vote to enable the reasonable debate we never saw (before or after).

*please

Given that the vote was labelled advisory and in absence of a previous impact assessment it would have been an appropriate reaction to carry one out as a first response to the vote. Instead Cameron panicked.

An impact assessment should have been created ahead of the vote to enable the reasonable debate we never saw (before or after).

They should have done that in 1992, before enacting Maastricht, where most of us didn't even get a vote.

Bloke down ‘spoons told me innit.

Most people didn't vote in the referendum ergo most people were happy to stay in Europe

@Tom Chiverton 1

"Most people didn't vote in the referendum ergo most people were happy to stay in Europe "

Most people didnt care about the EU and didnt feel it worth voting to support.

To correct the largest mistake however, the EU is not Europe. The UK didnt leave Europe it left the EU. One is geography the other is a political union.

Most people don't complain about Apple's terrible attitude to right to repair, so they are clearly happy not to repair their iPhones.

Is that how it works?

Most people didn't vote in the referendum

A total of 46,500,001 people were registered to vote in the referendum and 33,577,342 votes were cast, representing a turnout of 72.2%. That qualifies as "most people" by any reasonable definition.

I wasn't referring to Horizon when talking about the UE trying to punish Britain for leaving. I was talking about all the other stuff, which I don't think we need to regurgitate. It was all over the news. Made them seem petty and somewhat nasty. I'm trying to make the point that they aren't all good. Once we acknowledge their problems we stand a chance of fixing them. Although probably not, as no one wants to accept they are anything but perfect (at least not the remainer fanbois).

If they fixed their problems, perhaps it would make a convincing argument for enough people to want to rejoin? But they would have to slim themselves down considerably.

"I wasn't referring to Horizon when talking about the UE trying to punish Britain for leaving."

So you were OT? I know el Reg threads are apt to drift OT. Drift, not take a speedboat.

"I was talking about all the other stuff, which I don't think we need to regurgitate."

In the circumstances it's a bit difficult to work out just what you were talking about.

All the red tape now involved in exports to and imports from the EU? That was there previously. We were inside the red tape envelope previously. We* moved outside. We're now treated exactly the same as non-EU countries always were. Lots of us said it would happen. If its a punishment it's a self-inflicted one.

The ongoing problem with NI? Again, very predictable. The Good Friday agreement required a soft border between NI and the Republic. This was accomplished by NI, as part of the UK, and RI both being in a customs union as part of the EU. The Union (it's signified by the U in UK) required no trade barriers between GB & NI. Those requirements were mutually compatible. So along comes Brexit proposing to remove the UK from the customs union. That created a situation which could not be compatible with both the other two so we have an unstable fudge.

Or were you talking about some other equally foreseeable, self-inflicted consequence of no longer being in the EU for which you which to blame the EU because it's embarrassingly inconvenient to blame the lack of exercise of foresight by leavers. If you were a leaver and now don't like the consequences you have no cause to complain; those of us who weren't have every reason to - about the leavers.

* Some of us unwillingly, of course.

The Good Friday agreement required a soft border between NI and the Republic.

False. There is no reference to the border in the GFA.

"And although the agreement does not specifically refer to the border, it does mention removing all security installations."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-61968177

>>>the vast majority of people either think the EU is the very best thing that's ever happened, or the very worst.<<<

That's just the media stirring things up & opinionated loud mouthed gob offs*,

You've been downvoted (have a+1 from me) for merely not being 'on message', I'd go with most people not being too far off your middle of the road (realistic?) appraisal.

Still it's nice to see that after only seven mostly wasted years the bureaucracies of two major economies are finally getting on with actually trying to improve working together instead of throwing bricks from ivory towers.

*politicians and others with an axe to grind

No votes

"You've been downvoted (have a+1 from me) for merely not being 'on message'"

You forgot to tell us about "the narrative"

He's got a point though. These forums definitely take a view about anything that might be percieved to be pro Brexit.

What so scary about "the narrative"?

It's just short for The Stories That The Press and Politicians Make Up to Sell Us Their Latest Thing.

It's just short for The Stories That The Conspiracists Cherry Pick From The Press and Politicians To Prove They Are Right

FTFY

Today, it is "the narrative", tomorrow "you are all sheeple"

"if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade"

What now exists was painstakingly negotiated amongst various numbers of countries depending on the phase of the EU's evolution. At present, there are 27 countries that would have to agree to something different and apart from the difficulty in getting agreement, they'd need an incentive to change those agreements that intricately balance a whole range of different interests. What would be their incentive?

If you look at the trade agreements the EU has with other third countries, the British deal is very much shaped by Britain's own red lines: no veterinary agreements, no CE standards participation, no flexibility for touring musicians, school children or language students, etc. All of those things were on offer but they were declined because there would have to be reciprocity or an acceptance of EU standards which, de facto, we need to adhere to anyway. That's not punishment, it's masochism.

After seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave, it has cooled my opinion of them somewhat.

That they haven't punished us is what most surprises me.

Not really; that's just a turn of phrase. The EU behaved exactly as I expected it to, calmly putting our tantrum and throwing our toys out the pram behind them and carrying on as normal.

That must have been the real kicker for those who lied that the EU needed us more than we needed them, believed the fantasy that the EU would quickly collapse without us.

What would be lovely is if we could have a slimmed down version where they just focus on trade, and stop trying to set the laws for the whole bloc

Indeed, they could maybe call it the "European Community".

Or even European Economic Community

Why not fhe European Community for Coal and Steel?

Closer integration was the goal since the 1956 beginning, the EU was always planned for. That it was a surprise for some Brits is not even a lack of foresight, but of reading the foundational documents.

After seeing the way they have punished the UK for wanting to leave, it has cooled my opinion of them somewhat.

Do you actually know anything about the EU? I know of many who just get their information from the Daily Mail.

I think this is how it will happen, by a trickle of deals bringing the common sense back to the relationship, slowly edging closer, deal by deal to a fuller cooperation.

Next, sort out the border. There is no benefit to making transport and goods movement to our closest neighbours more difficult for ordinary travellers and traders, but a whole lot of downside.

The EU hasn't slammed the door on us since we stormed out but there's zero chance of us getting what brexiteers want, membership benefits without being a member, having our cake and eating it, which they always promised we would get.

We are indeed world leaders in duplicity, mendacity and sophistry but the EU can see right through that.

Even now brexiteers see it as some sort of god-given right to be given what they want and it's "punishing us" to deny them that.

We will only secure meaningful deals and make brexit work - if we don't abandon it, once the grown-ups take back control.

Wasn't that the whole point? Membership is a carrot and stick deal (or less emotively, a cost vs benefit), and some people didn't like the stick.

For those people, being able to make our own decisions about which benefits and which costs we wanted to commit to was the whole point, rather than agreeing to the whole package.

Of course, no-one is actually claiming that you could have only the benefits (even Brexiteers aren't that stupid), but it's not unreasonable to suggest that the alternative view (that you could only possibly get the benefits by accepting the full costs) is just as ridiculous.

You can be in the EU and out of the Euro and decouple from the ERM. You can be in the EU and out of Schengen.

"even Brexiteers aren't that stupid"

Citation needed.

Brexiteers are visionaries, not the sort of people who bother about pettifogging rules and spend their time reading actual bank statements.

Are they, Mr Farage?!

Sorting out the border issues would clearly be advantageous to both groups, but would benefit the UK more than it would benefit the EU. It is therefore totally unacceptable to people like Emmanuel Macron, who have always insisted that the UK must suffer consequences for daring to leave the club.

The borders were always there. We (usual disclaimer) deliberately moved from one side to the other. The obvious consequences were pointed out and at best ignored, but usually the pointing out was deprecated. What's to sort out?

The case for Brexit was built upon the claim that the UK held all the cards and that the EU would be so desperate for a deal that they'd agree to one on any terms the UK asked for.

Ever since that turned out not to be the case, the line from Brexiteers has like yourself been that the EU is being variously petty and vindictive towards the UK (*).

If this claim of victimhood is true, it flies in the face of what we were told above- that the EU can both afford the luxury of such alleged pettiness *and* has the power to inflict it. When the whole basis of Brexit was- in effect- that it was the *UK* that would be pushing the EU around.

It's almost as if that was always delusional shite and that Boris Johnson and chums spewing out endless John Bull-style puffery couldn't magically make it real after all.

(*) For treating it as the third-party outsider and rival it wanted to be in the first place and now is, and for having to make clear that, no, you can't have your cake and eat it.