Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

Started by Josquius, February 20, 2016, 07:46:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How would you vote on Britain remaining in the EU?

British- Remain
12 (12%)
British - Leave
7 (7%)
Other European - Remain
21 (21%)
Other European - Leave
6 (6%)
ROTW - Remain
34 (34%)
ROTW - Leave
20 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 98

The Larch

Just saw this on my FB wall and decided to share it.  :lol:


The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Liep

"Af alle latterlige Ting forekommer det mig at være det allerlatterligste at have travlt" - Kierkegaard

"JamenajmenømahrmDÆ!DÆ! Æhvnårvaæhvadlelæh! Hvor er det crazy, det her, mand!" - Uffe Elbæk

grumbler

Quote from: Gups on February 26, 2016, 04:21:40 AM

Although, it doesn't mention immigration, which is the biggest driver of support for Brexit, this Bloomberg article comes pretty close to my own view. As the farmer said when asked for directions to a town said "Well, I wouldn't start from here".


http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-25/britain-s-unsolvable-problem-with-europe

(snip)

thanks for sharing.  This will be useful in my AP Euro class this afternoon.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Zanza

Quote from: Gups on February 26, 2016, 04:21:40 AM
Moreover, on the face of it, there's no reason you couldn't combine single-market freedoms with more national sovereignty than the EU's members now have. Deep economic integration didn't require a single currency, a European Parliament and least of all a European Court of Justice (a supreme court of the EU). If Europe wanted to, it could in fact agree to a friendly divorce, preserving most of the union's mutual single-market benefits but letting Britain step aside from the political project.
I disagree with the notion that you don't need the ECJ for the single market to function as it does now. The depth and width of the single market mean that there needs to be some kind of forum for arbitration between the member states or other parties when it comes to the application of those rules. This forum is the ECJ and if you would abolish it, you would need something else with a similar power.

Tamas

Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
Quote from: Gups on February 26, 2016, 04:21:40 AM
Moreover, on the face of it, there's no reason you couldn't combine single-market freedoms with more national sovereignty than the EU's members now have. Deep economic integration didn't require a single currency, a European Parliament and least of all a European Court of Justice (a supreme court of the EU). If Europe wanted to, it could in fact agree to a friendly divorce, preserving most of the union's mutual single-market benefits but letting Britain step aside from the political project.
I disagree with the notion that you don't need the ECJ for the single market to function as it does now. The depth and width of the single market mean that there needs to be some kind of forum for arbitration between the member states or other parties when it comes to the application of those rules. This forum is the ECJ and if you would abolish it, you would need something else with a similar power.

OR they could always do what the British tell them to. They obviously know better.

Zanza

I also find the comparison with California and Canada bizarre. Britain is clearly a sovereign state - it could leave the EU. California can't leave the United States. So in terms of relative sovereignity Britain is currently much closer to Canada than it is to a US state.

Gups

Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
Quote from: Gups on February 26, 2016, 04:21:40 AM
Moreover, on the face of it, there's no reason you couldn't combine single-market freedoms with more national sovereignty than the EU's members now have. Deep economic integration didn't require a single currency, a European Parliament and least of all a European Court of Justice (a supreme court of the EU). If Europe wanted to, it could in fact agree to a friendly divorce, preserving most of the union's mutual single-market benefits but letting Britain step aside from the political project.
I disagree with the notion that you don't need the ECJ for the single market to function as it does now. The depth and width of the single market mean that there needs to be some kind of forum for arbitration between the member states or other parties when it comes to the application of those rules. This forum is the ECJ and if you would abolish it, you would need something else with a similar power.

Yes, I agree. Some form of arbitration is necessary and the ECJ is fine for that purpose.

Gups

Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2016, 12:38:55 PM
I also find the comparison with California and Canada bizarre. Britain is clearly a sovereign state - it could leave the EU. California can't leave the United States. So in terms of relative sovereignity Britain is currently much closer to Canada than it is to a US state.

That's a bit circular isn't it? He is talking about the ability of a polity to draft its own laws. The UK clearly has more sovereignty than California but less than Canada - it is unable to set its own immigration policy for example. If it stays in the EU it remains in that position. If it leaves it regains some of the sovereignty it has lost (or pooled if you prefer).

Iormlund

Do the Brits really think that all it takes to stop immigration is to leave the EU?

Are Hungarian programmers that bad? Spanish engineers? Polish plumbers? That's the only sort of immigrant that'll pass on the UK.

The reason West-European countries have immigrants is not that there's a supranational institution keeping them down. It's that there are prosperous.

Zanza

Have you really "lost" sovereignity when you have pooled sovereignity but there is nothing that stops you from leaving that pooled sovereignity once it doesn't suit you anymore? Britain is in the union following its own free will and can leave peacefully if it chooses so. Surely the point where you can call sovereignity "lost" is when you can't just step away anymore.

Iormlund

Another couple of points about the Bloomberg article.

  • The author mentions a desire to strengthen European ties within the Union. It is true that this exists, but it is by no means universal, much less after the Euro debacle. The UK could find ready allies to counterweight the "inner" EU if it wanted. But it doesn't. It doesn't seem to have been looking for them for quite some time. This whole thing is a testament to the failure that has been British diplomacy for a generation.
  • The author also mentions having to realign security alliances, which doesn't seem a grave concern. European joint foreign policy is purely symbolic and the Brits will presumably still collaborate actively with the US (as the rest of Western Europe does).

Martinus

As with the Greek crisis, the EU would be foolish to let the Brits get off easily - even if it wasn't in the EU's best interest, economically, the Brits, like the Greeks, would need to be made an example of - otherwise a number of other countries may think about asking for similar treatment.

Razgovory

I agree with Marty, this sort of hostage taking should be punished somehow.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Richard Hakluyt

Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2016, 07:07:43 PM
As with the Greek crisis, the EU would be foolish to let the Brits get off easily - even if it wasn't in the EU's best interest, economically, the Brits, like the Greeks, would need to be made an example of - otherwise a number of other countries may think about asking for similar treatment.

Yes, a severe beating would be appropriate, or at least a horse's head placed in Britannia's bed.