In Britain those casual racists were in power for the last 12 years (and have been replaced by a supposedly left-of-center mainstream party that's so much to the Right they're repeating the same anti-immigration bullshit as the other party).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

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 points 11 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.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 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.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour 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.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 48 minutes ago

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.