Brexit Rambles

[LittleRaven]

It's this sort of thinking that really frustrates me, and I seem to see it a lot. Instead of working on a solution that makes things better for everyone, a solution is latched onto that satisfies the immediate emotional need to feel like they've won. There are surely ways to maintain a stronger sovereignty for Britain inside the EU that benefits Britain much better than simply leaving (without any structured, itemized plan for doing so, no less).

To be fair to Leavers though...it's really not clear that there IS a way to stay sovereign and stay in the EU.

I mean, the EU isn't exactly new. It's been around since the 50s, and in that time, everything has gone in one direction only - MORE centralized authority in Brussels and LESS sovereignty for the individual states. And that's only to be expected. There's just no way to really do an economic union without also creating a political union, and there's no way to have a political union without centralizing authority. We here in the states know this, because we tried it back when we first broke away. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. It can't work.

Now this doesn't mean the EU is a bad idea. It's probably a good idea. God knows the US is infinitely stronger as a collection of states under a central authority than we ever would have been if each state had stayed sovereign. The EU can do the same, but it will mean that people stop being British, or German, or French, in the sense that they are now. Yes, yes, labels will remain and remain relevant, but in the same way that American is a Texan, or a New Yorker, or a Californian. Sure, they may be those things, but they are first and foremost an American. Texas may run an advertising campaign about how it's a whole different country, but it isn't. There are many things that the Texas state government can not do. And by and large, we're fine with that. But lots of British people aren't fine with that, and I can understand why. It will be a big change - particularly since, let's face it, Germany will end up running most of the show. That's just the way these things work.

[unknownsample]

Honestly, I don't understand what Leave's endgame is supposed to look like. Barrier free trade with the European Union is key because the EU has a large economy and is very close to Britain. Britons and Europeans both benefit from right of abode. What does Leave want?

Disclaimer - I am not a Leaver, hell, I'm not even British. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

More seriously, I've been listening to every Leaver I can find online, like Daniel Hannan. And if there's a unifying theme among the various disparate Leavers...it's sovereignty. Basically, they greatly resent Britain subjecting her citizens to the authority of people outside their ability to select.

And this is where the basic problem of the EU comes into play. Unlike Antiboyscout, I don't believe that the EU is in immediate danger of any kind of breakup, but I do think that the EU has a fundamental crack that will persist until a new understanding is reached. The EU was supposed to be an economic partnership that preserved political autonomy for its members. And that's great in theory, but in practice, it's virtually impossible. The two are just inextricably linked. And so the EU has gradually acquired many of the trappings of a nation-state - it has a Parliament, a Supreme Court, a currency, a flag, its own representative at the UN...the list goes on and on. And that's fine...heck, I can see how a 'nation called Europe' could offer many advantages to its citizens, and I'm sure lots of people would actively embrace that notion.

But that isn't what a lot of Leavers want. They want to stay British, and know that while they are in Britain, they are being governed by London, not Brussels.

Speaking as someone who is A) British and B voted remain I can tell you Leavers talk about sovereignty but only believe it when it suits them, they are perfectly happy to ride roughshod over Parliament when it suits them.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

That's because the Leave camp don't want to confront the reality of Brexit.

Always replies along that line "don't understand", "don't want to confront reality" as soon as you disagree rather than even consider that different people with different values and priorities can come to different conclusions?

Do you remember the post-brexit poll talks where lots of people were like "I don't know why I voted for it" or "I didn't think we'd actually win"?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Words like "disaster" get thrown around all too often and unfortunately give the impression of not having thought things through. If someone is very keen on the concept of the EU then it's depressing and upsetting and maybe a disaster for their ideals (and I can sympathise with that), but fears of it having a serious effect on everyone on a day to day level are baseless.

You don't take a series of leaders backpedaling from this and avoiding the seat of power to try to survive without egg on their face as a sign that things might not have been thought through properly?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Right of abode is a contentious one due to it resulting in significant unbalanced population movements. Unfortunately there usually seems to be someone who starts throwing out accusations of racism and xenophobia as soon as it's mentioned, which stifles debate (and runs the danger of creating sympathy for the actual racists and xenophobes).

1. How does it stifle debate if they are relevant factors in the political landscape?
2. They get plenty of sympathy anyway.

[Madner Kami]

But lots of British people aren't fine with that, and I can understand why. It will be a big change - particularly since, let's face it, Germany will end up running most of the show. That's just the way these things work.

I find it funny, how Germany ends up in this situation, whether it actively seeks to achieve that position or just naturally ends up there somehow. Conversely, I am flabbergasted by how willing Europe is to just follow Germany, despite constantly complaining about it.
For the better part of the last ~70 years, Germany was mostly occupied with being nice to France and took a backseat to the politics being driven by other nations and the other nations were happy, because they were, and possibly still are, scared shitless of an extroverted Germany for various reasons. Yet somehow, say starting around the late 1980s to early 1990s, Germany took an increasingly active role in european politics and without much obvious pressure, everyone just started to follow the lead somehow, even going so far as to calling Germany out to take action when Germany wasn't doing anything, which is just flabbergasting considering the last century's history and the continued constant complaints about when Germany springs into action, even while still everyone follows the lead like a good little doggo.

[LittleRaven]

I find it funny, how Germany ends up in this situation, whether it actively seeks to achieve that position or just naturally ends up there somehow. Conversely, I am flabbergasted by how willing Europe is to just follow Germany, despite constantly complaining about it.

Neither situation is confusing, although I grant both are amusing.

Germany has landed in a position of power because Germany is rich. Why exactly Germany is richer than its neighbors is no doubt complicated and nuanced, but there's no denying the simple fact. And wealth and power inevitably follow each other. Even in the US, where are states are theoretically equal, this situation holds. New York, California, Texas...these states are WEALTHY, and enjoy out sized influence in the national government as a result. Its no coincidence that Presidents, VPs, and particularly powerful representatives tend to come from these states, and their interests are always given first consideration on the national scene. Germany is the California of Europe, and as Europe consolidates, it is only natural that Germany will become the first among equals.

But why would so many other countries be willing to follow Germany? Once again, just look to the US. Yes, rich states like California and Texas have LOTS of pull with the Federal government. But...they are also expected to put LOTS of money into the Federal coffers. This money is then redistributed nation-wide, with the result that poor states like Alabama end up getting huge cash inflows from the Feds every year. In effect, rich states subsidize poor states....or, more specifically, poor state governments. This is why, on average, the government of an EU state is much more EU friendly than the population that government represents. The average Italian may stand to gain a little from transferring sovereignty to Brussels, but the Italian government stands to gain a whole lot more, since they're the ones that will presumably manage this wealth transfer, and that's always a good position to be in.

It IS kind of funny that Germany has tried to conquer Europe with arms, been thwarted each time, and is finally succeeding without firing a shot. But then, Germany today is not Germany of 100 years ago, and it's probably important to remember that.

[Riedquat]

Right of abode is a contentious one due to it resulting in significant unbalanced population movements. Unfortunately there usually seems to be someone who starts throwing out accusations of racism and xenophobia as soon as it's mentioned, which stifles debate (and runs the danger of creating sympathy for the actual racists and xenophobes).

1. How does it stifle debate if they are relevant factors in the political landscape?
2. They get plenty of sympathy anyway.

Debate is stifled when people are finding an excuse to label people as some sort of bogeyman and try to twist the same subject to being only about that every single time it is raised. It happens a lot unfortunately. "That's it, you're a racist, everything you say is rotten, nothing more to discuss" is a reaction that happens far, far too often as soon as you say you've issues with freedom of movement. And a lot of others crowd around that reaction - "can't be seen to have anything to do with someone accused of being a racist, who cares what their reasons are, they're just excuses to cover their real motivations." FWIW my issue is entirely with rapid population growth, whatever the source, and regard promoting it, by whatever means, as a short term attempt at papering over some cracks with serious long-term negative consequences; it looks rather akin to a pyramid scheme. You may disagree with that, and fair enough, good that we all have different opinions, but trust me, I've been called racist and xenophobe to my face several times before I've even had a chance to offer that opinion. That is unquestionably stifling debate.

They get plenty of sympathy, yes. Don't let them get more!

[Riedquat]

Words like "disaster" get thrown around all too often and unfortunately give the impression of not having thought things through. If someone is very keen on the concept of the EU then it's depressing and upsetting and maybe a disaster for their ideals (and I can sympathise with that), but fears of it having a serious effect on everyone on a day to day level are baseless.

You don't take a series of leaders backpedaling from this and avoiding the seat of power to try to survive without egg on their face as a sign that things might not have been thought through properly?

Oh, the leadership has been dire and the referendum was held for all the wrong reasons by someone who assumed Remain was a foregone conclusion. The government doesn't appear to realise that it's job is to govern - they seem to think they're only there to play politics. But that's not going to influence my view of the actual question. It was their job to plan and think things through. Should we be held to ransom by the threat of incompetency?

[unknownsample]

Words like "disaster" get thrown around all too often and unfortunately give the impression of not having thought things through. If someone is very keen on the concept of the EU then it's depressing and upsetting and maybe a disaster for their ideals (and I can sympathise with that), but fears of it having a serious effect on everyone on a day to day level are baseless.

You don't take a series of leaders backpedaling from this and avoiding the seat of power to try to survive without egg on their face as a sign that things might not have been thought through properly?

Oh, the leadership has been dire and the referendum was held for all the wrong reasons by someone who assumed Remain was a foregone conclusion. The government doesn't appear to realise that it's job is to govern - they seem to think they're only there to play politics. But that's not going to influence my view of the actual question. It was their job to plan and think things through. Should we be held to ransom by the threat of incompetency?

So despite the whole thing being a shit sandwich your're still going to back it?