Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Minsky Moment]

Who knows, lots of reasons I guess. Historical, political, economic. A say in choosing the executive of the state may be relevant.

UK chooses its own executive.

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

Or alternatively, why Canada shouldn't dissolve and devolve its sovereignties to the provinces, as is favored by at least some significant portion of the population.

To point out that participation in the EU entails some limitation of sovereignty is a truism, not an argument.  (just as the same "argument" was made for Scotland).  Any political unit smaller than the globe could always convey powers upwards, and at the same time it could devolve downward to smaller units.  So the question is what attributes of sovereignty are best retained at what level.  There is no California independence movement because Californians are happy to share national defense functions with 49 other similar situated political units, while retaining substantial control over education, policing, etc.  Exit from the EU for Britain makes sense only if the sovereign functions it would regain are so important to have at the UK level that it outweighs the potential loss in policy coordination in other spheres.

[Gups]

Who knows, lots of reasons I guess. Historical, political, economic. A say in choosing the executive of the state may be relevant.

UK chooses its own executive.

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

Or alternatively, why Canada shouldn't dissolve and devolve its sovereignties to the provinces, as is favored by at least some significant portion of the population.

To point out that participation in the EU entails some limitation of sovereignty is a truism, not an argument.  (just as the same "argument" was made for Scotland).  Any political unit smaller than the globe could always convey powers upwards, and at the same time it could devolve downward to smaller units.  So the question is what attributes of sovereignty are best retained at what level.  There is no California independence movement because Californians are happy to share national defense functions with 49 other similar situated political units, while retaining substantial control over education, policing, etc.  Exit from the EU for Britain makes sense only if the sovereign functions it would regain are so important to have at the UK level that it outweighs the potential loss in policy coordination in other spheres.

The UK's population has no direct vote in the Commission (nor has any other state).

Obviously I agree with your last sentence. For many people in the UK the loss of control of immigration policy outweighs all other factors. They perceive a direct effect on their lives - wage suppression, pressures on schools, housing, health services etc. The evidence in support of that is mixed but with net migration in excess of 300,000 a year it has sufficient plausibility for many voters and outweighs any advantages of co-ordination, which appear nebulous to most. I'll vote to stay in because the risks and uncertainties are too great for me but the arguments against are perfectly respectable.

[Iormlund]

The UK's population has no direct vote on its Prime Minister either. Or Parliament, for that matter.

As for immigration, those 300k include non-EU nationals, which make a big percentage of the total. There are more people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jamaica, South Africa or Kenya than there are Spaniards in the UK. Is the EU also to blame for this? Will this madness stop once powers are brought back to Westminster?

[katmai]

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

Says the MASShole.

[Eddie Teach]

As a fellow Californian, I agree with garbon. 

[garbon]

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

Says the MASShole.

17 years in Cali, baby. 7 in Massachusetts.

edit: It is also the only state I've been in for at least several days, every year of my life.

[katmai]

Still less a Californian than me

[garbon]

I've also have significantly fewer years on this planet than you.

[Eddie Teach]

Still less a Californian than me

You're gonna be an Alaskan the rest of your life. 

[katmai]

I've also have significantly fewer years on this planet than you.

Not that many....

[The Minsky Moment]

The UK's population has no direct vote in the Commission (nor has any other state).

The UK population does have a vote for the EU Parliament and the EU Council.  The Commission can be analogized to the executive departments in the US or the UK civil service which are also unelected but have de facto - and in part de jure - legislative powers.  True the Commission could be said to be supercharged in this respect.  But the solution to that perceived problem is some more institutional tinkering, not outright exit.

For many people in the UK the loss of control of immigration policy outweighs all other factors. They perceive a direct effect on their lives - wage suppression, pressures on schools, housing, health services etc. The evidence in support of that is mixed but with net migration in excess of 300,000 a year it has sufficient plausibility for many voters and outweighs any advantages of co-ordination, which appear nebulous to most. I'll vote to stay in because the risks and uncertainties are too great for me but the arguments against are perfectly respectable.

Thus the logical outcome would be some kind of partial UK out from common immigration policy.
The reality is that views on immigration Europe-wide are for better or worse shifting in light of the current crisis.  The UK may be pushing through a door that appears now to be closed but is set to open on its own soon enough.

[katmai]

Still less a Californian than me

You're gonna be an Alaskan the rest of your life. 

Do you know something i don't?

[Eddie Teach]

[garbon]

I've also have significantly fewer years on this planet than you.

Not that many....

[crazy canuck]

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

That would be an odd question since we often do seek closer ties to the US.  The better question is why do the "have" Canadian Provinces stay in Confederation?  BC has much closer ties to the Western US than the rest of Canada. The answer has to do with the fact that the Federation offers more than just structural payments.