Yes Minister — Why Britain Joined the European Union

> Had we been voting for the 1970s era EEC, I'd have gladly voted Remain. The UK was not a signatory of any relevant treaty post-EEC. It opted out of the Schengen Area, of the Euro zone and even of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The idea that the UK was being controlled by a distant bureaucracy in Brussels is one of the many lies told by tabloids. The EU is far from perfect, but the UK was never in it in any meaningful sense. It was mostly being oppressed by tomato size regulations and things of that sort. Ironically, they will probably still have to comply to all that if they wish to maintain trade agreements with Europe. This entire thing was based on lies and disgust at "experts". And a good dose of xenophobia. I have lived in the UK and I have never seen a EU flag being flown anywhere (unlike what you see in any other EU country). It was always more likely to see an American of Commonwealth-country flag than an EU one. There is no EU constitution, by the way. It was rejected by referendum in several member states and the project died. The UK already enjoyed access to EU markets while giving almost nothing in return to the common project. In fact, many people in Europe felt that the UK was participating mostly to prevent further integration. Even British comedy thought so: [VIDEO] I think younger people see things differently, are less xenophobic and less attached to nationalist ideas, borders and walls. The next generation might have brought real participation of the

The clip of him explaining Britain's joining the EU to muck it up is jolly [VIDEO] It's kind of prophetic that Hacker goes from Minister to PM on the back of some anti-EU stuff whipped up by the tabloids. Of course it's basically BS and nothing much changes with the EU. We'll see how it works out for May. [LINK] [LINK]

> our relationship with Great Britain throughout history I've been watching some episodes of "Yes Minister", a British comedy show from about 30 years ago, and it's weird how much is still relevant. [VIDEO]

"I want my money back!" Margret Thatcher at the European Union summit in Dublin in 1980 "That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain, with her traditional strengths and global destiny, should ever have been part of it will appear a political error of historic magnitude." Margret Thatcher from her book Statecraft published in 2003 ... just pointing out that Margaret Thatchers views on Europe were nuanced at best. Probably best explained by this segment from Yes Minister [VIDEO]

Why the EU was necessary: [VIDEO] To divide and disunite Europe and make a complete pig's breakfast of the continent.

See [LINK] for lots of examples showing that regulatory capture is a real issue in Europe. The fact that you turn a blind eye towards it shows that jingoism isn't a purely American trait. And for the record, I grew up in Canada. I am not opposed to the idea of regulation in principle. However every approach has failure modes. And regulation works a lot better in practice when you exercise skepticism about the actual aim as opposed to the stated one. If you wish to build your skills at skepticism, I highly recommend watching the series Yes, Minister . It is from the UK in the 1980s. However the lessons about how bureaucrats manage to get their way while pretending to listen to politicians are timeless. It also came out much later that it is less fiction than it first appears - most episodes were based on actual incidents. And some were downright prophetic - compare [VIDEO] with actual British policy towards the EU since. I have no reason to believe that the picture painted then of the bureaucracy in Whitehall is significantly better than the bureaucracy that has sprung up in the EU.

I will agree the UK has never really embraced the whole EU project as it has become. I also agree that in many votes, the UK has been the stumbling block and with that did anybody in the UK and those wanting to keep the UK in the EU ever asked themselves - what is best for the EU? I did and that is why I voted leave myself - better for the EU and the UK. That was my reason for voting as I did. Equally, many area's in the EU that need fixing and by the UK leaving, those would stick out and get fixed. Case in point, the UK initially asked for reform within the EU and got palmed off with some concessions and we had a vote on the back of that. Now after the vote - Tusk et all have said, the EU needs reform and Macron is driving for that reform. Ironically that reform won't happen or even start to be discussed, until the UK leaves. I often get people who go on about the EU and how they are pro-EU and demanding a second vote (probably a third....until they get the result they want...) but if you ask them - what has the UK done for the EU? They stumble. But as always - comedy foretold the whole story: [VIDEO]

> EU accounts have been signed off with a clean opinion every year since 2007. Whilst the debate about how accounts with errors could be signed off, the matter probably best covered here: [LINK] > That's equally applicable at the national level too Very true and politics as it stands needs an overall to align with modern times as akin to electing one tool to handle all issues for 4-5 years is never an ideal solution as anybody who uses tools can attest. A more granular say in things is needed and whilst we are stuck with a limited choice selection of inputs we can only put an X every 4-5 years, politics will always drift from public opinion however initially the party was elected. >Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote? Point I was making is that had there been something that irrespective of how it effected the UK seen to change within the EU then politically there would of been a fair reason to put the brexit vote back to the people as what they had voted upon had changed and would of been a valid reason to enable that. Sure both sides had their rhetoric charismatics but the crux was without that change it would of been seen as a repeat vote, if something in the EU had changed then that would be totally different and even Tusk at the time as did many EU politician state that the EU needed some reforms. That is a matter they don't disagree upon, yet Macron has made it clear that any such reforms do not happen until the UK has left

The UK was in favor of enlargement precisely because it would hinder integration. The best explanation of this: [VIDEO]

The TV show "Yes, Minister" was a truly amazing show because of the brilliant writing, and how humorously it could speak the truth: Sir Humphrey Appleby: The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it’s really anti-Europe. The civil service was united in its desire to make sure that the Common Market didn’t work. That’s why we went into it. Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, French and Italians against the Germans, and the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well? Jim Hacker: It’s all ancient history, surely. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we are inside, we can make a big pig’s breakfast of the whole thing! Set the Germans against the French, French against Italians, Italians against Dutch —The Foreign Office is terribly pleased! It’s just like old times! Jim Hacker: Surely we are committed to the European ideal! Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister! Jim Hacker: If not, why are we pressing for an increase in membership? Sir Humphrey Appleby: For the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and