UK vote to leave the EU ['BREXIT'] - 23rd June

[JR8]

Some excerpts from an Op/Ed piece in today's Telegraph.
[Context: President of the EU Council -> you might imagine that job would make him an arch-insider. But Tusk is Polish, hence unlikely to take any bullying from Germany].
---------------------------------------------------------------------

'European Council president Donald Tusk has warned EU leaders in the bluntest terms that their “utopian” illusions are tearing Europe apart, and that any attempt to seize on Brexit to force through yet more integration would be a grave mistake....
In a passionate plea to Europe’s top conservatives, he accused the EU elites of living in a fool’s paradise and provoking the eurosceptic revolt now erupting in a string of countries.
“It is us who today are responsible,” he said, speaking at a conclave of Christian-Democrat and centre-right leaders in Luxembourg. “Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm.” ...
Mr Tusk, alert to the patriotic revival in his native Poland, lambasted the EU establishment for pushing “a utopia of Europe without nation states” that goes against the grain of European history and has produced a deep cultural backlash that cannot be dismissed as illegitimate far-right populism....
The initial reflex in many EU capitals was that divorce would be economically foolish for Britain while the rest of the union would march on serenely – even emancipated – but as June 23 draws frighteningly close this has given way to growing angst that the EU project itself may be at stake....
La Tribune reports that one camp in Paris is pushing for a harsh line to punish Britain – even to the point of denying the UK a Norwegian-style package in the European Economic Area, should it opt for that course – in order to ensure that Brexit fails so spectacularly that no other country dares to follow suit. [*]
It is hard to see what would be left of Europe’s moral appeal if it acted on such an impulse, effectively keeping nations locked in by means of threats and fear. Cooler heads in Paris and other EU capitals are already warning that a reflex of this kind smacks of fanaticism and would compound the damage....
Germany wants a calibrated approach that raps Britain across the knuckles [if it votes to leave the EU], just enough to hurt but not enough to blight strategic relations or to hurt a lucrative market for German cars. “The process of divorce must not be too easy or too pleasant, or others may be tempted,” said Mr Grant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... nd-brexit/

[*] This goes back to what's happened in Greece. They floated the idea of leaving the EU, only for Germany to very publicly flatten them - to ensure no other EU members started having thoughts of leaving.

@EF. The ship has run hard aground and is probably fatally holed before the water-line. And you suggest voting Remain, paying more to er... build the above-water superstructure even higher and more luxuriously, as if nothing is wrong below decks...

[BBCWatcher]

This goes back to what's happened in Greece. They floated the idea of leaving the EU, only for Germany to very publicly flatten them - to ensure no other EU members started having thoughts of leaving.

Greece considered leaving the Eurozone, not the EU.

[JR8]

A common typo in the EU, since one is tantamount to the other.

p.s. Out of the whole matter under discussion, the only contribution you have is pointing out one typo... sheesh

[BBCWatcher]

A common typo in the EU, since one is tantamount to the other.

They are not. There are 9 EU countries outside the Eurozone including the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has permanent derogation rights to remain outside the Eurozone. Eurozone membership is simply not on the referendum ballot.

There are 6 non-EU countries within the Eurozone: 4 (all European microstates) by formal agreement and 2 by their own choice.

[x9200]

Some excerpts from an Op/Ed piece in today's Telegraph.
[Context: President of the EU Council -> you might imagine that job would make him an arch-insider. But Tusk is Polish, hence unlikely to take any bullying from Germany].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'European Council president Donald Tusk has warned EU leaders in the bluntest terms that their “utopian” illusions are tearing Europe apart, and that any attempt to seize on Brexit to force through yet more integration would be a grave mistake....

Actually Tusk is a germanophile (for a lack of a better word) and is, or at least used to be on a pretty friendly terms with Merkel. He expressed earlier some similar opinions, but nothing that strong and clear. It is surprising. On the other hand, it just sounds like a well engineered political performance but could be genuine as well - I bet he still feels a bit like an outsider.

[JR8]

Actually Tusk is a germanophile (for a lack of a better word) and is, or at least used to be on a pretty friendly terms with Merkel. He expressed earlier some similar opinions, but nothing that strong and clear. It is surprising. On the other hand, it just sounds like a well engineered political performance but could be genuine as well - I bet he still feels a bit like an outsider.

No kidding it's surprising! One might have imagined after us both having shared the impacts of German expansionism that the Poles wouldn't elect a 'friend of Merkel's'. Do you think Tusk's position reflects overall popular opinion for the EU in Poland? I'd have thought modern Poland would still hold a passionate Walensa-like disdain for external imperialism.
In the UK Cameron feigns being undecided/sceptical to try and court the BREXIT vote (he knows it's dangerous for him and his future personal ambitions), but the general view is he's discreetly fully signed up to the project.
I think if you're not born into the wider Franco-German block you're always going to be treated like an outsider within the EU. The insiders club is a very small one; the rest are just fare-paying passengers receiving orders.

[calugaruvaxile]

I think if you're not born into the wider Franco-German block you're always going to be treated like an outsider within the EU. The insiders club is a very small one; the rest are just fare-paying passengers receiving orders.

err ... i think you should limit to the german-french aristocracy, don't generalize to their people. check the last week's strikes, unemployment rates, purchasing power, etc

[x9200]

Actually Tusk is a germanophile (for a lack of a better word) and is, or at least used to be on a pretty friendly terms with Merkel. He expressed earlier some similar opinions, but nothing that strong and clear. It is surprising. On the other hand, it just sounds like a well engineered political performance but could be genuine as well - I bet he still feels a bit like an outsider.

No kidding it's surprising! One might have imagined after us both having shared the impacts of German expansionism that the Poles wouldn't elect a 'friend of Merkel's'. Do you think Tusk's position reflects overall popular opinion for the EU in Poland? I'd have thought modern Poland would still hold a passionate Walensa-like disdain for external imperialism.

Walesa is with Tusk on that one and the problem with seeing this actual or alleged German imperialism rising is that the generations born post-WW2 (say 50-60's onwards), for the vast majority of them, Germans are just ordinary and often good neighbours. Also Tusk is not the evil, but for the last decade he was a lesser evil. His party lost the last year election not because they did a bad job for the economy of the country, but because they were arrogant and failed to listen to people who had some problems in this new post-socialism reality (or had no problems at all - a Trump/nouveau riche syndrome). The replacement that come after, are populistic, mild, but still national-socialistic, often very incompetent bunch, but even that bunch, when pressed sufficiently hard admit they don't want to leave EU. Poland benefits a lot from EU. The UK (IMHO) not that much if anything.

I think what you quoted earlier from the Tusk's speech, “a utopia of Europe without nation states”, pretty much summarized what is a problem. People would still like to have the national and cultural identity and not be forced to do something they are deeply against, like accepting thousands of economical refugees just because Merkel alone invited them in.

In the UK Cameron feigns being undecided/sceptical to try and court the BREXIT vote (he knows it's dangerous for him and his future personal ambitions), but the general view is he's discreetly fully signed up to the project.

It's always about some private ambitions. Unfortunately.

[calugaruvaxile]

People would still like to have the national and cultural identity and not be forced to do something they are deeply against, like accepting thousands of economical refugees just because Merkel alone invited them in.

i'm not sure the cultural identity is what pisses people off, but the money (or lack of, to be more precise). when wealthy, people tend to be more tolerant. this is why europe is a great project ... for good times (and failed when times became bad).

the problem with eu is that they wanted it to be some kind of soviet union, not a real nation. a real nation has a common budget, the same salary/price range, a unitary education systems, etc. the eu is not at all that. it's a worse form of soviet union, with enormous non-uniformities in terms of wealth distribution. non-uniformities (says the thermodynamics) generate currents (gradients of concentration). so here we have a europe of migratory currents (both internal and external), plus the tensions between groups.

why the europe didn't become a single nation when that was possible (as now it isn't possible anymore)? i guess due to the incompetence and complacency of the political leaders who always treated their citizens with a greater contempt than the bourbons

[JR8]

No I don't think you quite get it in para1, at least not for me. It's not about money *for a worthy cause*, it's about being forced to pay for what seem to be economic migrants, over which we have no say nor influence.
I know in the UK [in my time when young] our villages and towns accepted and embraced asylum seekers, Ugandan Asians, and later the Indo-Chinese. I grew up amongst both such kinds of refugees; I was at school with several. My brother-in-law is one of the former.
A differentiator in both cases was they had no alternatives. And they arrived and wanted to work, fit in, and build new lives - become a valued part of their new community.
So it's not about a period of time when society feels wealthy and hence more indulgent, it's about believing in the cause you're being asked to pay for.

The problems with the EU are, amongst others:-
- They have come about by deceit. Most people don't even understand why we are at where we are. Never mind where we are going. But that was entirely the plan.
- The EU was originally designed for the post-war period. Europe perceived if it wasn't in a huge geo-political entity, it couldn't survive vs the other such, the USA and USSR. Plus, super-states self-police, so the likelihood of further wars in Europe would be much diminished.
- They have got so far via stealth and lying. But now they're about at the end of those tracks the game is up. They should be creating unified taxation, an EU army, an entire EU-wide Federal finance and tax structure. That is what the original plan envisaged as final steps and requires. - One very big problem. The Germans absolutely refuse to fund the like of 'the feckless Greeks'; or any other failing EU economy for that matter. ... So here we are, stuck about 75% way through the original script, and no sign of future progress, meanwhile the PIIGS burn and bring the entire new empire into doubt...

'Why didn't?' you ask. Because it's never been a project known to, nor supported by the citizenry. The entire blue-print was and is, slip in integration 'step by step, each progressive step not so big that anyone will notice what is happening or reject it: Until eventually the goal of complete integration has been achieved [ie. by stealth and deceit]'. And in this day and age 55/+ years after the original blueprints for this manipulative and now wholly outdated journey, they hadn't figured on widespread knowledge and understanding about such things down to the level of the 'average man on the street'.

And that's why the project has stalled. Empowerment of the citizenry has now overtaken the ability of the establishment to force lies down people's throats.

[BBCWatcher]

It's not about money *for a worthy cause*, it's about being forced to pay for what seem to be economic migrants, over which we have no say nor influence.

There's isn't much evidence that EU migrants are a net burden. The EU has asked the U.K. government for such evidence, but the evidence is, at best for the government, weak. Also bear in mind there are 1.2 million Britons living outside the United Kingdom in the EU, and a certain percentage of them are "burdens."

With or without the EU the United Kingdom will still have its Geneva Convention responsibilities to refugees. But without the EU France doesn't have to allow the U.K. Border Force access to Calais, for example.

The greatest "foreign" economic disruption is probably the incredible real estate bubble, especially in London, that wealthy foreign investors are supporting. That has nothing to do with the EU, and if the U.K. government wanted to combat that problem it could, all on its own.

One must be very careful here to understand what is actually on the referendum ballot. Refugees from places such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq are still going to try to come to the United Kingdom. That part is not on the ballot. (Or, if it is, that particular problem might get worse with a "leave" vote.) Yes, there might be fewer French, Romanian, Dutch, and Polish workers (as examples) coming into the United Kingdom if the U.K. votes to leave, but there will also be fewer U.K. citizens moving elsewhere in Europe -- these freedom of movement rights are reciprocal. Forget retiring to Spain, probably. That part is on the ballot.

EU workers in the United Kingdom are a net economic addition to the economy. They are less burdensome than the typical U.K. resident U.K. citizen. They pay taxes but don't collect many benefits. The evidence is rather overwhelming on that point.

There are some reasonable "leave" arguments, but there are some unreasonable ones, too. For example, if somebody is arguing that there will be no more Syrian refugees starting on June 24, that's absurd.

[x9200]

It's not about money *for a worthy cause*, it's about being forced to pay for what seem to be economic migrants, over which we have no say nor influence.

There's isn't much evidence that EU migrants are a net burden.

I think it is pretty clear that EU can manage it financially but I see it more as a freedom of choice where the money goes. What I wrote earlier, just because Merkel welcomed ++1m people (BTW, Germans have no clue of the whereabouts of a large fraction of them) why everybody has to share the burden? Especially that what Merkel did was completely irresponsible and very soon her rethorics had to change to more conservative with the borders being closed etc etc. Lack of global political strategy of EU regarding the migrants lead to the current situation where not only millions of migrants are already in EU with probably 2/3rd of them being economical migrants but EU is also now dependent in that respect on Turkey.

Don't make this basic mistake assuming that people are not willing to help. This is not true. Everybody understands that refugees, the real ones, with their lives in danger in their countries, need help, but completely wild uncontrolled intake of some random individuals is hardly the way this should be done. This only endangers the public safety and make ordinary people angry.

With or without the EU the United Kingdom will still have its Geneva Convention responsibilities to refugees.

I don't think the Geneva Convention oblige its signatories to accept economical migrants.

[BBCWatcher]

I think you meant economic migrants, i.e. migrants migrating for economic reasons. Economical migrants are a great deal by definition -- they're economical (low cost, inexpensive).

Membership in the EU has nothing to do with whether or not the United Kingdom is or it not accepting non-EU economic migrants. The United Kingdom already has processes for determining whether a migrant is non-economic (at least in part) and eligible for asylum. None of these issues is on the ballot -- or, if they are, if anything EU membership is an advantage in trying to quell non-EU economic migration. The agreement with France, with U.K. officers working in Calais, is a big example of that EU cooperation. Also, EU membership gives the U.K. the opportunity to influence Germany and its migration policies. Leaving the EU would reduce or eliminate what influence the U.K. has now on Germany's policies. Germany can accept however many non-EU migrants (economic and non-economic; the latter it is required to accept by treaty) it wants, and the same with the U.K.

EU citizen migrants are on the ballot. But so are U.K. citizen migrants, inseparably. That part is reciprocal. U.K. voters will have to decide whether they want to reduce EU citizen migration into the United Kingdom...and also reduce their own citizen migration to the 30-odd EU/EEA countries. That issue is on the ballot.

[x9200]

People would still like to have the national and cultural identity and not be forced to do something they are deeply against, like accepting thousands of economical refugees just because Merkel alone invited them in.

i'm not sure the cultural identity is what pisses people off, but the money (or lack of, to be more precise). when wealthy, people tend to be more tolerant. this is why europe is a great project ... for good times (and failed when times became bad).

Cultural identity may not be the best word but EU tends to impose PC-like behavior leading, for example to de facto reigns of minorities. It is perhaps not a dominating factor, but more like a last straw factor. A specular example is to ban Christmas decorations in some towns in Denmark or Germany.

Also I don't think the wealth makes people more tolerant. This the social or personal maturity that makes them. Wealth is just often an accompanying factor as more matured societies tend to be more wealthy

the problem with eu is that they wanted it to be some kind of soviet union, not a real nation. a real nation has a common budget, the same salary/price range, a unitary education systems, etc. the eu is not at all that. it's a worse form of soviet union, with enormous non-uniformities in terms of wealth distribution. non-uniformities (says the thermodynamics) generate currents (gradients of concentration). so here we have a europe of migratory currents (both internal and external), plus the tensions between groups.

why the europe didn't become a single nation when that was possible (as now it isn't possible anymore)? i guess due to the incompetence and complacency of the political leaders who always treated their citizens with a greater contempt than the bourbons

I don't quite understand the above paragraphs. What you seem to be advocating for sounds exactly like the Soviet Union. IMO people have no problems with the wealth distribution as it is now and accept it as something natural. Making everything equal just by some sort of directive would not make any good. Wealth doesn't come only by some monetary equity but also by standards, working and trade culture to be established and followed. It is IMHO important for the less wealthy EU countries to find their own way to reach the level of the wealthier countries. EU should help them with this by creating opportunities and with some financial, but well targeted support. I believe they do it more-less reasonably in that respect and the support is sometimes too generous.

I also don't really see any serious tensions because of the inter-EU migration. I don't think, for example, the UK anti-migrant sentiments are based that much on the migrants coming for work, but by the abuse of the welfare system.

[x9200]

I think you meant economic migrants, i.e. migrants migrating for economic reasons. Economical migrants are a great deal by definition -- they're economical (low cost, inexpensive).

Membership in the EU has nothing to do with whether or not the United Kingdom is or it not accepting non-EU economic migrants. The United Kingdom already has processes for determining whether a migrant is non-economic (at least in part) and eligible for asylum. None of these issues is on the ballot -- or, if they are, if anything EU membership is an advantage in trying to quell non-EU economic migration. The agreement with France, with U.K. officers working in Calais, is a big example of that EU cooperation. Also, EU membership gives the U.K. the opportunity to influence Germany and its migration policies. Leaving the EU would reduce or eliminate what influence the U.K. has now on Germany's policies. Germany can accept however many non-EU migrants (economic and non-economic; the latter it is required to accept by treaty) it wants, and the same with the U.K.

EU citizen migrants are on the ballot. But so are U.K. citizen migrants, inseparably. That part is reciprocal. U.K. voters will have to decide whether they want to reduce EU citizen migration into the United Kingdom...and also reduce their own citizen migration to the 30-odd EU/EEA countries. That issue is on the ballot.

Yes yes, economic, not economical although it is desired for the economic migrants to be economical.
Back to the subject, in simple words, there are quotas so the UK should accept some migrants. It's up to the UK to negotiate the numbers but I guess the EU membership makes them this or that way obliged to do this. If they are outside, nobody can tell them what to do (subject to the said convention only).