Brexit

[Rudy Tamasz]

That logic would be valid, if UK did not have any say in any of the decision making.

That's the whole problem with EU: it is not transparent and nobody can figure out who has how much say in the decision making. Vertically, it is an elitist project. Horizontally, the authority is distributed very unevenly between individual countries and central bodies. It was only a matter of time before voters would express their discontent. They already did a few times rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, but the politicians shoved it down their throats anyway. And the inevitable happened.

Similar problems buried the Soviet Union. A lot of people are nostalgic, but most don't miss it.

[gadjo_dilo]

Similar problems buried the Soviet Union. A lot of people are nostalgic, but most don't miss it.

The difference is that the most of the former states of Soviet Union never "joined" by their own will and request.

[Big Ben]

The normal working people didnt really did they and they are the ones that have voted to leave. All a lot of them see is the start of a European super state. Which many dont want. There is no point saying they are wrong. Thats what the feel and maybe why some of them voted that way. Plus the UK never committed fully to it by having lots of special let offs, so obviously couldnt change it and didnt want to commit to the future.

The EU is very slow as it is with the way it works. Having 28 nations that have to constantly agree on everything makes every decision taking process painfully slow. To fix that we would have to make the ever closer union something more than a simple stated intention. Some reforms are needed but I believe that's the right direction. The unelected European bureucrats argument is mainly BS. Most governments are made of unelected bureaucrats. You can't just elect people for every little office. Is the British PM directly elected for that job? Will Boris Johnson be? But even electing people for more offices would be a step in the ever closer union direction and that's exactly what the English don't want. So it is again that duplicitous attitude, complaining about one thing and being totally against any solutions at the same time while not really coming up with any solutions of their own.

Now the English have voted to leave so good for them. I'm afraid however that this will end up being the same circus as ever with the UK, causing a lot of trouble without acting in the end. It's probably the main reason why so many decided to go for the 'go already' stance.

I'm afraid the result of this referendum can be explained by this sort of attitude from the remain side, Steve. Yeah, I vote remain, but I don't know... the EU is bad, I understand why we want to leave but I vote remain.. I don't really know why. It's just that I am a little afraid. But maybe we're better off out anyway. I don't know. I'll vote remain but I'm good either way. I know that "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" but in the end I guess the ones who voted out wanted more to leave than the one's who voted in wanted to remain.

[Big Ben]

The difference is that the most of the former states of Soviet Union never "joined" by their own will and request.

Oh well, what can one say when someone's comparing EU with the third reich and the soviet union? Those comparisons are so stupid it's better to just ignore them.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Oh well, what can one say when someone's comparing EU with the third reich and the soviet union? Those comparisons are so stupid it's better to just ignore them.

"Ignore" is the word that best describes your thinking, Ben. It is a common point in the discourse of the Europhiles saying that this type of integration kept the nativist instincts in check and prevented Europe from another outbreak of violence, clearly referring to WWII. The frame of reference for these people is WWII. For me the frame of reference is the pre-Masstricht and pre-Lisbon state of things. You can continue referring to the distant past. You can even bring up dinosaurs and how better off we are without them thanks to the great Brussels. I prefer thinking about the present and future.

[Rollo]

I prefer thinking about the present and future.

What about the possibility of the currency going kaput (because Greece lied to get into it; like it did with the Latin monetary union) and the rise of naitivism fueling outright conflict.

It is a common point in the discourse of the Europhiles saying that this type of integration kept the nativist instincts in check and prevented Europe from another outbreak of violence, clearly referring to WWII.

And 1871.
And 1848.
And 1803.
And 1792.
And 1756.
And 1740.
And 1727.

You can continue referring to the distant past. You don't want that distant past rearing its head again and again and again. The European Coal and Steel Community, then the European Economic Community and then the EU proper is precisely about clogging up the wheels of European "diplomacy" so that people in board rooms and great halls don't fling people's sons into each other at great speed and bloodshed.

[jens]

The difference with Soviet Union is very clear.

In Soviet Union - a) they forced an economic system, which was inefficient; b) they forced it with violence; c) they brought the overall living levels down. The whole Eastern Europe, the former communist bloc, is lagging well behind the Western Europe in economy and life standards in many areas.

The EU has its problems, but the key factors are positive - a) it actually increases the competitiveness of economy with less trade barriers and more freedom; b) it has instilled peace instead of violence between nations and ideologies.

No system will ever be free of problems. If there is a complex governing system, there also IS bureaucracy. There is no way around it. Of course we can debate about the details - how it should exactly be managed, or how big the EU should be - i.e whether it should include the likes of Greece.

But Europe is better off with EU, rather than without it. Also interesting to ponder is that once upon a time UK actually decided to join EU. It was in the 70s. And the reason back then was precisely because their economy was lagging behind France, Germany, and others, and they wanted to be more competitive. What will be different this time around, when they are on their own? We'll see I guess...

[steveaki13]

Regardless of all this. Surely if any country/person/company join an organisation they have the option to leave surely?

[donKey jote]

Of course. Article 50. Who's delaying you, surely not unelected EU politicians?

[gadjo_dilo]

https://youtu.be/37iHSwA1SwE