Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Arakhor]

I don't think that "allow" has anything to do it. Maybe "make as unpleasant as possible", perhaps.

If the UK leaves the EU the are pretty much going to stay in it, just like Norway technically isn't a part of the EU but is signatory to a lot of the treaties that bind EU countries together anyway. They'd have to follow most of the rules other EU countries have to follow anyway, they'd have to contribute money to the project, but would be shut out of any voting rights and ability to influence the organization.

Brilliant!

I keep saying that it's ludicrous to think otherwise, but some people seem to think that the UK will be able to dictate terms to the EU, even after leaving.

 

[Akka]

The only thing that makes me uneasy about the UK leaving is that it could start to seriously break up the EU.

Except for that, for the love of God and the Queen, yes please get out ! The UK will still be tied to most of the regulations which matters in practice, and we'll finally get rid of the spoiled kid who always want special treatment. Win-win !

 

[warpus]

I don't think this would lead to a breakup of the EU or any sort of instability in the organization. I think most countries would enjoy the increase in influence tbh, whether it's Germany, France, Poland, or smaller countries, even if it might make people think: "Who's next?? Should we leave too?"

The benefits of staying in probably still outweigh the benefits of leaving, by quite a bit. Unless you've got Norway oil or something like that.

I mean, I get that there is a lot of anti-EU rhetoric going around these days, but I would imagine most if not all of the more recent members to want to stay. They want their citizens to be able to travel to better off countries and work there. They also want that sweet sweet EU money. As for the more established members like Germany and France, I think they will just enjoy their increased influence. Why leave and lose that influence? I'm just guessing but I'd suspect there'd be talk of other countries leaving, but it wouldn't go anywhere. It's just a stupid idea, overall (unless you're somebody like Norway who has a sugahdaddy in the form of oil)

I mean, I also doubt that the UK will leave. Their electorate might be daft enough to vote for it... but I reckon in UK politicians minds this is just a bluff and not much else.

 

[Silurian]

If the people vote to leave the Conservatives will very likely leave or very likely lose many votes to UKIP and ensure a Labour win in 2020. It is even possible it could trigger a general election in the Autumn.

 

[really]

I don't think this would lead to a breakup of the EU or any sort of instability in the organization. I think most countries would enjoy the increase in influence tbh, whether it's Germany, France, Poland, or smaller countries, even if it might make people think: "Who's next?? Should we leave too?"
.

I don't follow how this would be an increase in influence for anyone?
The bloc would be smaller. The big countries are already big. New political groups have already emerged in the east as a balance to advocate for themselves. Some smaller countries would probably be less influential if a large country that shared outlook left. (Sweden, Ireland), the threat of leaving wouldn't be as great after it has happened once.

 

[warpus]

The EU would be smaller, but Europe would remain the same size, and most European countries are signatories to a whole slew of treaties with each other, which the EU wields a considerable influence over.

 

[sherbz]

The interesting thing about the UK (potentially) leaving the EU would be the effect it has on the French. Marianne La Penn has said that “Britain leaving the EU would be like the first bricks falling from the Berlin Wall”. If the UK leaves and makes a decent fist of it outside, gets some trade deals, and doesn’t crash and burn (like some doomsdayers are predicting), then I think there is a real danger that other countries would follow. Maybe even France itself. I think it almost certain that countries who have not adopted the Euro would be tempted. Because to me that is the biggest point over this whole thing. That would include Scandinavia and also Eastern Europe.

The whole point about Britain’s renegotiation is not to get more special treatment, as Akka seems to suggest. It is to recognise that we cannot continue the way we are because not everyone has adopted the euro. For the Eurozone it makes total sense to further integrate. It also makes total sense to add rules and regulations to level the playing field. But it doesn’t for the UK, and can actually be harmful to us as a result. Therefore we need a two tier Europe that is recognised as such now and for the future. Other non euro countries should benefit from this as well.

I just hope that the lingering bitterness in Britain over stupid policies like the CAP, which consumes almost half of the EU budget, and is paid to unprofitable and inefficient French farmers (by and large), doesn’t scupper the whole process. It will be a close run thing that is for sure.

 

[innonimatu]

The interesting thing about the UK (potentially) leaving the EU would be the effect it has on the French. Marianne La Penn has said that “Britain leaving the EU would be like the first bricks falling from the Berlin Wall”. If the UK leaves and makes a decent fist of it outside, gets some trade deals, and doesn’t crash and burn (like some doomsdayers are predicting), then I think there is a real danger that other countries would follow. Maybe even France itself. I think it almost certain that countries who have not adopted the Euro would be tempted. Because to me that is the biggest point over this whole thing. That would include Scandinavia and also Eastern Europe.

Le Pen is right about that. If the UK leaves, the aura of inevitability in which the EU has wrapped itself is ripped apart. A lot of people are fed up with a decade of crisis in the continent. There's worse coming (just look at how debt kept increasing). The Euro has been an economic disaster, one that can only be fixed by ending it. But the EU has become "the Eurozone": as one fails, so will the other.

Something else will certainly arise from the ruins. Free travel across some borders quill quickly be renegotiated, as well as free trade in some goods. But it will have to be renegotiated. The EU must break apart first, because it was deliberately set up to be irreversible: the only options are to go along with "further integration", or leaving. The EU is held by those involved with it as more infalibe than the pope: not a single EU "political step" was ever reversed. the only possible way is forward, with some temporary delays if voters in a country that matters misbehave. That was the deal Cameron got: delays in the inevitable march towards "integration". The EU bureaucrats are incapable of backstepping or even admiting that some aspect of it is good enough as it is. To them the end goal, the United States of Europe, must be achieved. Not because that is what the people of europe wish, but because being "big" in the world stage is important to these political leaders.

 

[AdrienIer]

When progressives build something, conservatives* are always saying that it's never going to work. If it doesn't they say "I told you so", and if it does they say we should go back to the society we used to have, but also adding that one thing that works well. Well it's the same thing with the EU. Free travel and free trade are a huge step forward from 50 years ago. And that is the kind of things that European integration and the EU in general has brought to the people of Europe. The main thing that's dragging it down is the legal disparities that create loopholes (Luxemburg and Ireland's fiscal advantages, eastern european worker working in western Europe for low wages etc...)

What we need is to reform the union, not destroy it. But compromises are hard, especially with so many countries with so many diverging interests. Some people are advocating a 2 tier Europe, with a bunch of countries ready to compromise and get into further integration, and the rest in a (perhaps looser) union. But even that would require many countries to start to be constructive in European negotiations instead of being selfish (I'm talking about pretty much everyone in Europe actually, even the main powers). Reform, don't destroy !

Also can we stop talking about the EU like it forced itself upon Europeans ? Almost every country has entered the EU through referendum and they knew what they voted for. There's no EU vs the people here, the people wanted the EU and now they have it.

Really, England is acting like a spoiled teenager. They've been given a LOT for decades compared to what the other countries have contributed but they still want more. Grow up already.


*not meaning Tories here but conservative minded people in general

 

[Arwon]

The SNP is chomping at the bit to have a 'legitimate' reason to hold another referendum. Of course, it's a really shady way to go about it as by far the vast majority of anti-EU people are in England.

Why is that shady? If the English impose a change in status like exiting the EU this on Scots against their will, it seems pretty reasonable to run another referendum to see what Scots now think of their new status.

 

[Arakhor]

The obvious answer would be that the Scottish people agreed to remain part of the UK, so if the UK votes to leave the EU, then so should Scotland along with England and Wales.

Either way, it's just naked political grandstanding to get independence at any cost, despite that only 45% of Scots wanted to break up the Union.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well - Arwon got a point that such a decision of course depends on circumstances.
But Arakhor got a point in so far as that such a decision shouldn't be used to regularly and duly influence national politics. Incidentally, that is just what the UK is doing. Are you in favor of the UK shutting up for the future about leaving the EU if it decided to stay this year? I suppose not, but it is not fundamentally illegitimate to value Biritsh politics as more sacred than EU politics in it not being taken hostage by a jumpy renegade, I suppose.

But really, I suspect what it comes down to is that you just don't want the Scots to constantly bully the English folk with secession threats. Am I right?

 

[Arakhor]

If the UK votes to not leave to the EU, then yes, I would be very grateful if people would just shut up about it. If my countrymen do vote to leave however, I imagine that no one will ever shut up about it again.

As for your second comment, yes, that's about right. The SNP are in power and the UK is still just about united. They shouldn't be going out of their way to ensure that this changes, so soon after their last failure.

 

[Arwon]

I don't think you can just wish away 45% of a population expressing the desire to separate from the state that currently governs them.

Secessionist sentiment is clearly substantial and remains alive within the political landscape. And a change in circumstances as fundamental as leaving the EU has pretty significant ramifications for such sentiment.

Like of course it's a significant factor to be discussed during the exit referendum campaign. Fancy saying that the government and largest political party in Scotland shouldn't talk about how the referendum affects and changes this.

I'm sure the Northern Irish political scene is having its own version of the same debate. If you want to talk about whether the "United" Kingdom should leave the EU surely that debate should play out within all the component parts of that UK.

 

[innonimatu]

When progressives build something, conservatives* are always saying that it's never going to work.

The only way in which I may be a "conservative" is that I abhor the "caviar left".

What we need is to reform the union, not destroy it.

Reform in EU-speak means advancint towards a federal state. Centralizing power. Always.

Also can we stop talking about the EU like it forced itself upon Europeans ? Almost every country has entered the EU through referendum and they knew what they voted for. There's no EU vs the people here, the people wanted the EU and now they have it.

BULLCRAP!

The original incarnation of the Lisbon Treaty, currently in force with some modifications, was subject to four referendums under the name of "constitution". It was approved in Spain and the Luxembourg, and rejected in France and the Netherlands. It was the rejection in France that broke it, everywhere else where public opinion was suspected of being against there was no referendum allowed.

Unhappy that the move towards federation had been rejected by the people, the bureaucrats renamed it Treaty of Lisbon, which was put to a vote in ONE country. It was rejected and the voters were then ordered to vote again and better approve it, or else suffer economic retaliation. It did not had to be plainly said, in the context of the financial crisis the threat was very obvious.

Really, England is acting like a spoiled teenager. They've been given a LOT for decades compared to what the other countries have contributed but they still want more. Grow up already.

England has been given nothing.

The UK folded its own empire because it was proving a drag, too expensive to maintain. The british chose instead to have a government focused on the needs of the people of the UK, rather that exploiting that people to pay the costs of empire with its bureaucracy, magnates, imperial governors and pompous politicians.

Then they joined the European Common Market.

Then the european common market was morphed into a would-be empire, the EU. Complete with its burecrats, magnates, imperial governors and pompous politicians. And the UK has been financing this, diverting resources (it has always been a net contributor) to finance a new imperial system where it is but a mere peripheral region! The UK owes nothing to the EU. And the best way to bring down this new empire and the parasites that feed on it is to cut their the funding, So I do hope that the citizens of the UK decide to pull out from this new exercise

I see nothing in the European treaties since Maastricht that was positive. We already had free trate and free movement in the EEC. Everything since that was a move towards federalism for the sake of empowering a new transnational ruling elite, the imperial bureaucracy, that would be at best absolutely useless to the citizens, but (as the eurozone sorry state shows) proved totally incompenent to manage the affairs of the countries in the EU and extremely destructive already.

Not to mention the tiny detain that you cannot build an empire democratically. The "leaders" of the EU are not building it through conquest, they're trying to do it through legal manipulation: accumulation powers by treaty, slowly, expecting that people won't notice and protest each new "small" power grab. When they do notice the ting is already "irreversible", or so the slavish media will tell the citizens. Doesn't make it any better that the Hapsburg Empire built by the rulers throgh marriage. The subjects are expected to just accept the decisions of their betters, right?
Indeed the best comparison I can make is to the rotten Austrian-Hungarian empire so well characterized in the works fo Kafka.

 

[Agent327]

Beware:

BULLCRAP!

Reform in EU-speak means advancint towards a federal state. Centralizing power. Always.

Sources missing. (Hint: they don't exist.)

The original incarnation of the Lisbon Treaty, currently in force with some modifications, was subject to four referendums under the name of "constitution". It was approved in Spain and the Luxembourg, and rejected in France and the Netherlands. It was the rejection in France that broke it, everywhere else where public opinion was suspected of being against there was no referendum allowed.

Unhappy that the move towards federation had been rejected by the people, the bureaucrats renamed it Treaty of Lisbon, which was put to a vote in ONE country. It was rejected and the voters were then ordered to vote again and better approve it, or else suffer economic retaliation. It did not had to be plainly said, in the context of the financial crisis the threat was very obvious.

The Lisbon Treaty founded the EU, did it?

Beware, more:

BULLCRAP!

England has been given nothing.

Source missing.

The UK folded its own empire because it was proving a drag, too expensive to maintain. The british chose instead to have a government focused on the needs of the people of the UK, rather that exploiting that people to pay the costs of empire with its bureaucracy, magnates, imperial governors and pompous politicians.

I recommend you check a history book sometime. Decolonization wasn't exactly a matter of free choice, such as you seem to think.

Then they joined the European Common Market.

Not quite. The UK's desired EU membership was effectively blocked by De Gaulle for years.

I see nothing in the European treaties since Maastricht that was positive. We already had free trate and free movement in the EEC. Everything since that was a move towards federalism for the sake of empowering a new transnational ruling elite, the imperial bureaucracy, that would be at best absolutely useless to the citizens, but (as the eurozone sorry state shows) proved totally incompenent to manage the affairs of the countries in the EU and extremely destructive already.

You don't appear to understand the meaning of the word 'federalism'. Also, the UK did not partake in the free movement treaty.

Summing up, what do we have here? A typical euro criticism devoid of factual knowledge? Or just the same rant you always post?

 

[Flying Pig]

The obvious answer would be that the Scottish people agreed to remain part of the UK, so if the UK votes to leave the EU, then so should Scotland along with England and Wales.

Either way, it's just naked political grandstanding to get independence at any cost, despite that only 45% of Scots wanted to break up the Union.

Well, it would be legitimate, if the results of the two referenda in Scotland disagree, to ask them which they feel is more important - particularly as a large plank of the 'no' campaign for Scotland was that voting 'Yes' would make Scotland's EU status uncertain. I think the 'independence at any cost' argument has to contend with the fact that the SNP are throwing their weight behind the 'in' side, so if they want a 'no' vote and a second referendum, at least a big chunk of their effort is working in the opposite direction.

 

[AdrienIer]

The only way in which I may be a "conservative" is that I abhor the "caviar left".

Whether you like it or not, wanting to come back to a pre-EU society (we all know it was all better before ) makes you a conservative on this issue.

Reform in EU-speak means advancing towards a federal state. Centralizing power. Always.

The Brussels bureaucrats want more bureaucracy. That's hardly news. What pisses me off to no ends is that instead of a giant continent-wide movement to reform the EU in a different direction there is a giant continent-wide movement to destroy everything that's been done in the past 50 years. The world is going to laugh at us when they see us going nowhere.

The original incarnation of the Lisbon Treaty, currently in force with some modifications, was subject to four referendums under the name of "constitution". It was approved in Spain and the Luxembourg, and rejected in France and the Netherlands. It was the rejection in France that broke it, everywhere else where public opinion was suspected of being against there was no referendum allowed.

Unhappy that the move towards federation had been rejected by the people, the bureaucrats renamed it Treaty of Lisbon, which was put to a vote in ONE country. It was rejected and the voters were then ordered to vote again and better approve it, or else suffer economic retaliation. It did not had to be plainly said, in the context of the financial crisis the threat was very obvious.

That was terrible mismanagement by the EU, and this is the only good reason to be angry at the EU today.
Also, politicians found out during that period that if you blame the EU for everything that's not working people tend to become anti-EU on principle and say no to whatever European treaty you put in front of them. Most french politicians have learned their lesson and have stopped doing that. Obviously that's not the case in Britain

England has been given nothing.

Yeah right. That's 4 billion a year compared to what you should be paying

The UK folded its own empire because it was proving a drag, too expensive to maintain. The british chose instead to have a government focused on the needs of the people of the UK, rather that exploiting that people to pay the costs of empire with its bureaucracy, magnates, imperial governors and pompous politicians.

How humane of you, I didn't realize that decolonization was desired by the British government. I'm sure Indian people feel the same

Then they joined the European Common Market.

Oh so you're jumping through decades now ? Because that "then" is a few decades later.

Then the european common market was morphed into a would-be empire, the EU.

Do you know what an empire is ?

Complete with its burecrats, magnates, imperial governors and pompous politicians.

Apparently you don't. You forget the small detail that an empire is, by definition, ruled by an emperor. The EU is well known for having no central authority.

And the UK has been financing this, diverting resources (it has always been a net contributor) to finance a new imperial system where it is but a mere peripheral region! The UK owes nothing to the EU. And the best way to bring down this new empire and the parasites that feed on it is to cut their the funding, So I do hope that the citizens of the UK decide to pull out from this new exercise

Poor UK, diverting resources. We've payed billions of what should be your EU budget. Read this and stop complaining about having it hard. Even Italy is paying more than you in percentage of GNI, and they almost went bankrupt a few years back.

I see nothing in the European treaties since Maastricht that was positive. We already had free trate and free movement in the EEC. Everything since that was a move towards federalism for the sake of empowering a new transnational ruling elite, the imperial bureaucracy, that would be at best absolutely useless to the citizens, but (as the eurozone sorry state shows) proved totally incompenent to manage the affairs of the countries in the EU and extremely destructive already.

No centralized decisions at all (which would be the result of a EU destruction) makes for a very poor management of Europe. It gives states the impression of sovereignty though, and people always like to believe they're making their own decisions. Not that it would actually be the case of course.
The current situation is also very inefficient because everyone is still playing for themselves in EU negociations. Which means we need to reform the EU.

Not to mention the tiny detail that you cannot build an empire democratically.

You're saying we can't build the EU democratically because there's no historical precedent ? Is there a historical precedent for the Channel Tunnel ? Does it mean it couldn't be done ?
That looks like a very arbitrary thing to say.

Your rant about the Habsburg empire is totally irrelevant of course. You're forgetting the "tiny detail" that the Habsburg empire was actually an empire, an empire that was based on a decrepit system of nobility.

 

[Arakhor]

How like a Frenchman to abhor the Second Estate.

 

[AdrienIer]

How like a Frenchman to abhor the Second Estate.

Actually my Hungarian great-grandfather was from a noble family. He fought in the first world war as an (I think artillery) officer because of his birth. So if the Habsburg empire hadn't been so backward he'd have been in the front lines like everyone else and I might not be here today. Thanks feudal Austria !