Brexit Rambles

[Riedquat]

if you want to talk about childish attitudes then I suggest you look at your own side. People voted leave because they were lied to, they were told this would be easy, they were told we could be great again, they were told we could have our cake and eat it. All lies, now it we need to stock up on food because we're heading for disaster and it's not our fault, but the EU's.

If you believe that people paid much attention to the campaign (in any case a campaign that was running against a rather larger one with most official support behind it) "Stock up on food" and "disaster" doesn't suggest a more realistic assessment from the other side. Neither did talk about it being the cause of WWIII.

Why can't some people simply accept that others don't like what the EU has become or looks like becoming? The "you MUST be wrong because you don't value what I value" (which appears to be mostly money and little else) line simply doesn't cut it well enough.

[LittleRaven]

Better to use sticks and tell people which carrots they should like? Better to tell people what should matter to them, and beat them in to line when they disagree? No thanks.

But...there are always sticks. The sticks don't go away if you leave the EU. Literally all of human civilization has power dynamics baked into the pie at SOME level. It's all just a question of how the sticks relate to each other.

Besides, the EU isn't talking about preventing Britain from leaving. Of course Britain gets to leave. The sticks are just there to make sure nobody else gets the same idea.

Money and power (and who actually gets to benefit it)? Britain has been there, done that.

True that. As I said in my previous post, Britain has some unique ideas and approaches when it comes to power.

[Riedquat]

Following that line, should Britain have done more to prevent American independence? Should the UK have let Scotland have a referendum on independence?

Uh...Britain wasn't exactly keen on letting the US go. In fact, they objected somewhat strenuously. If it hadn't have been for France, they probably would have won, too. (love ya, Rochambeau!)[

I don't know enough about British history to say whether or not they could have done more. Certainly, in light of what America became...man, can you imagine if the power of the North American continent still answered to London? The world would be a very different place, that's for sure. But that would probably have been very, very hard to accomplish. Heck, it's been hard enough just keeping everything answering to DC.

I know they weren't keen on letting the US go - the point was entirely hypothetical!

As far as I know, Britain is fairly unique in its willingness to dissolve itself. The US would never, EVER let a state secede...we had a robust but definitive argument about that back in 1865. But Britain certainly seems sincere about letting Scotland leave if it wants to, which is amazing to me. And the way you guys just let your Empire go? Impressive. France had to be beaten bloody before they would retreat from anywhere...just ask the Algerians. Don't get me wrong, Britain certainly had the arguably smarter approach, but it strikes me as historically uncommon.

It does seem to be uncommon, and IMO it's something Britain can be very proud of (even if it's got a lot less to be proud of by how it got that empire in the first place). And how we still manage to get along well with many of the countries who got independence. It possibly explains a lot of frustration from the Leave side, there's a deep-running vein of respect for self-determination, above and beyond concerns of the like of economic benefits, that is being shown no respect from other quarters. I can entirely respect Scots who wanted Scotland independent simply because they wanted Scotland independent. For that matter I can entirely respect Brits who want to remain in the EU because they like the concept of the EU and don't have a problem with the way it's put together.

[Riedquat]

Better to use sticks and tell people which carrots they should like? Better to tell people what should matter to them, and beat them in to line when they disagree? No thanks.

But...there are always sticks. The sticks don't go away if you leave the EU. Literally all of human civilization has power dynamics baked into the pie at SOME level. It's all just a question of how the sticks relate to each other.

Besides, the EU isn't talking about preventing Britain from leaving. Of course Britain gets to leave. The sticks are just there to make sure nobody else gets the same idea.

Which brings us back to the desire to use those sticks driving the desire to get away, although you can debate just how much really is delibreate stick and how much is the EU tying itself (i.e. couldn't be more accommodating even if it wanted to).

[Antiboyscout]

Eh...the EU comes with plenty of carrots. Free movement throughout Europe, free trade, access to financial markets, a currency that ranks just behind the US dollar in terms of power. There are literally trillions of reasons to stay.

But sometimes, carrots aren't enough. That's why God invented sticks.

Those aren't carrots. Those are sticks in disguise.

Free movement is how Germany can unilaterally accept a million "refugees" and then force all the other members to take their "fair share"
Free trade is an illusion in the union. The hyper regulatory nature of the EU is designed to benefit technologically advanced countries, like Germany, and make sure they aren't out competed by low wage labor from developing members, like Poland.
The EU doesn't have a unified banking system. However, bad loans from Ireland, Italy, and Greece can bring the whole thing down.
The dream of the Euro taking over as the new global reserve currency is already dying. I think it's related to the bank bailout of Greece.
Being hooked together with one currency only guarantees that Southern Europe will lose out to Northern Europe. Without an independent monetary policy, Southern Europe can't compete, so, simply be virtue of not being mountainous, Northern Europe has practically stolen all of Southern Europe's industry.

[LittleRaven]

Those aren't carrots. Those are sticks in disguise.

I don't know about that. Sticks are punishments. Most of the things you mention are more like negative side effects.

Besides, most of those negative side effects come from the fact that the EU is a fairly complete economic union but a desperately incomplete political one. You point about Greece not being able to compete with Germany, for example. That is absolutely true. Germany is going to be way more competitive and way richer than Greece for the foreseeable future.

But we have the same situation here in the US. Alabama is nowhere near as wealthy or competitive as, say, New York. And because New York is way larger and richer, they get more political power than Alabama does. But there's a critical difference - we're also a political union, so New York is expected to share the wealth....and they do. Alabama gets back way more in tax dollars from the Feds than they send, New York gets back way less. Ideally, this is how an actual EU would work as well - sure, Germany and France would end up running most stuff, but they would subsidize everyone else. In theory, everyone wins.

It certainly works for us in the States.

[Riedquat]

Those aren't carrots. Those are sticks in disguise.

I don't know about that. Sticks are punishments. Most of the things you mention are more like negative side effects.

Besides, most of those negative side effects come from the fact that the EU is a fairly complete economic union but a desperately incomplete political one. You point about Greece not being able to compete with Germany, for example. That is absolutely true. Germany is going to be way more competitive and way richer than Greece for the foreseeable future.

But we have the same situation here in the US. Alabama is nowhere near as wealthy or competitive as, say, New York. And because New York is way larger and richer, they get more political power than Alabama does. But there's a critical difference - we're also a political union, so New York is expected to share the wealth....and they do. Alabama gets back way more in tax dollars from the Feds than they send, New York gets back way less. Ideally, this is how an actual EU would work as well - sure, Germany and France would end up running most stuff, but they would subsidize everyone else. In theory, everyone wins.

It certainly works for us in the States.

A United States of Europe is one of those things EU supporters are usually very keen to point out isn't on the cards, that the fear of heading in that direction is not a sound reason for leaving. It's something many people very definitely don't want no matter the economic benefits it may or may not bring (I question it because it implies there should be a good correlation between the standard of living and the size of a country). You've got a huge amount of historical and cultural differences across Europe. Even with much less history would the USA be willing to subsume itself as a small part of something larger?

[LittleRaven]

A United States of Europe is one of those things EU supporters are usually very keen to point out isn't on the cards, that the fear of heading in that direction is not a sound reason for leaving.

Yeah, I realize that nobody says it, but the EU is definitely acquiring all the trappings of a nation state. An economic union doesn't need a Parliament or a Supreme Court or permanent diplomatic missions...but the EU has all of these. And justifiably so...I mean, there's only so much you can do with an economic union before you need a political union as well. You start to get severe imbalances that require political intervention to counterbalance. We in the US know...we tried a loose political union in the beginning, and it was a disaster.

It's something many people very definitely don't want no matter the economic benefits it may or may not bring (I question it because it implies there should be a good correlation between the standard of living and the size of a country).

I don't know about standards of living, but there's a very definite correlation between size and power. And power is what gives you the ability to change your standard of living.

Even with much less history would the USA be willing to subsume itself as a small part of something larger?

We'd need a heck of a lot of carrots, that's for sure. But then, we've always been more like France than England in that regard. There's no way we're giving up OUR empire without a fight.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

A conspiracy among powerful men to dethrone a king or member states banning together to break a German dominated union.

Those both sound like internal threats to me.

Machiavelli was giving advice on how to keep your own house in order, since historically that's the biggest threat to any prince. He favored the approach taken by Saddam or Gaddaffi - make everyone afraid of you. Sure, get their love if you can, but make sure they never lose the fear, because once they do, the conspiracies start.

Of course, you don't want to pull a Napoleon either. If all of your neighbors get more afraid of you than each other, well, then you can have a real problem on your hands as well. But I don't think the EU has to worry about THAT kind of problem any time soon.

"Fear grows strange crops. Often it produces the corn of obedience, but sometimes, it creates the potatoes of rebellion."

[Antiboyscout]

A United States of Europe is one of those things EU supporters are usually very keen to point out isn't on the cards, that the fear of heading in that direction is not a sound reason for leaving.

Yeah, I realize that nobody says it, but the EU is definitely acquiring all the trappings of a nation state. An economic union doesn't need a Parliament or a Supreme Court or permanent diplomatic missions...but the EU has all of these. And justifiably so...I mean, there's only so much you can do with an economic union before you need a political union as well. You start to get severe imbalances that require political intervention to counterbalance. We in the US know...we tried a loose political union in the beginning, and it was a disaster.

It's something many people very definitely don't want no matter the economic benefits it may or may not bring (I question it because it implies there should be a good correlation between the standard of living and the size of a country).

I don't know about standards of living, but there's a very definite correlation between size and power. And power is what gives you the ability to change your standard of living.

Even with much less history would the USA be willing to subsume itself as a small part of something larger?

We'd need a heck of a lot of carrots, that's for sure. But then, we've always been more like France than England in that regard. There's no way we're giving up OUR empire without a fight.

India and South East Asia would like to have a word with you in regards to the UK and the Netherlands.

You think the UK gave up it's empire willingly? What do you think the Suez Crisis was about?