Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Larch]

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

[The Brain]

Farm subsidies.

[Liep]

[grumbler]

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.

[Zanza]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.