Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

Zanza has a habit of being fundamentally wrong on every single issue pertaining to the EU.

Zanza has a habit of using facts to inform.  Others, not so much.

[Tamas]

The idea that Britain should be punished over its people voting to leave in a democratic referendum is silly.

If Britain leaves, we should offer them full EEA membership (maybe including fisheries). Of course that would entail the four freedoms, so Britain would still have to accept the free movement of workers. We should definitely not compromise our values there.

Good bye Greece, Spain, Portugal, maybe Italy too, then. And the East Euros as well once they have depleted the EU funds.

What?

Yeah, we are net payers to begin with...

exactly

[Zanza]

Exactly what? Italy in your list has been a net payer for decades. Why would Brexit make them leave now?

[The Larch]

Exactly what? Italy in your list has been a net payer for decades. Why would Brexit make them leave now?

I guess he's of the cynical worldview that the countries are only in the EU for the structural funds.

[grumbler]

Exactly what? Italy in your list has been a net payer for decades. Why would Brexit make them leave now?

All the net payers will leave because they are net payers, and all the net receivers will leave once the net payers leave.  Only Luxembourg will remain in the EU.

[The Minsky Moment]

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).

And yet even though California lacks these sovereign attributes and is stuck in a union with other states with quite different priorities and cultures, there isn't any interest in independence.  Why is that?

[The Brain]

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).

And yet even though California lacks these sovereign attributes and is stuck in a union with other states with quite different priorities and cultures, there isn't any interest in independence.  Why is that?

Californians don't have the heart for fighting and winning a war against the Union. The US isn't as lenient towards regions that wish to leave as European countries are.

[Tamas]

Exactly what? Italy in your list has been a net payer for decades. Why would Brexit make them leave now?

How being a net payer is LESS of a motivation to leave than a net receiver of funds? I don't get it.

[garbon]

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).

And yet even though California lacks these sovereign attributes and is stuck in a union with other states with quite different priorities and cultures, there isn't any interest in independence.  Why is that?

Californians don't have the heart for fighting and winning a war against the Union. The US isn't as lenient towards regions that wish to leave as European countries are.

As a Californian, I can say that's not why.

[Zanza]

Exactly what? Italy in your list has been a net payer for decades. Why would Brexit make them leave now?

How being a net payer is LESS of a motivation to leave than a net receiver of funds? I don't get it.

No, you wrote "Good bye Greece, Spain, Portugal and maybe Italy too, then" as an answer to me saying we should offer Britain EEA membership after a possible Brexit. You didn't explain why you think this will happen. When celedhring pointed out that Spain is a net payer, you just said "exactly". So I have to assume your argument is that all net payers will leave or that these Southern states leaving is at least incentivized by being net payers, but you see other reasons (somehow related to British EEA membership?) why they would want to leave.

Portugal and Greece aren't net payers and Italy has been a net payer for decades. So if your argument is that all countries are only in the EU for the very narrow interest of being a net payer or receiver I find your argument very unconvincing. A billion more or less in Spain's or Italy's general government budget doesn't really make a big difference and I doubt that's their motivation for their EU membership or an incentive to follow Britain in leaving no matter what kind of deal Britain would get afterwards.

So what exactly is your argument why offering Britain EEA membership would lead to these countries leaving? Maybe it's very obvious to you (and perhaps Marti), but it sure isn't to me and apparently the Spanish posters. 

[Gups]

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).

And yet even though California lacks these sovereign attributes and is stuck in a union with other states with quite different priorities and cultures, there isn't any interest in independence.  Why is that?

Who knows, lots of reasons I guess. Historical, political, economic. A say in choosing the executive of the state may be relevant.  One could equally ask why Canada isn't interested in surrendering its independence.

[Valmy]

One could equally ask why Canada isn't interested in surrendering its independence.

It did kind of. It signed NAFTA. Since signing and abiding by treaties is a "loss of sovereignty" apparently.

[Gups]

One could equally ask why Canada isn't interested in surrendering its independence.

It did kind of. It signed NAFTA. Since signing and abiding by treaties is a "loss of sovereignty" apparently.

It's a question of degree and extent.

[Malthus]

One could equally ask why Canada isn't interested in surrendering its independence.

It did kind of. It signed NAFTA. Since signing and abiding by treaties is a "loss of sovereignty" apparently.

Hey, you got that the wrong way around. NAFTA was the US surrendering its independence to Canada and Mexico. 

I know this, because Donald Trump keep saying it. 

[The Brain]

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).

And yet even though California lacks these sovereign attributes and is stuck in a union with other states with quite different priorities and cultures, there isn't any interest in independence.  Why is that?

Californians don't have the heart for fighting and winning a war against the Union. The US isn't as lenient towards regions that wish to leave as European countries are.

As a Californian, I can say that's not why.

Warmonger.