4 ms·

I live in the UK. I am an internationalist, believe in free trade, good governance and keen supporter of human rights. I also believe in self-determination an

I live in the UK. I am an internationalist, believe in free trade, good governance and keen supporter of human rights. I also believe in self-determination and will vote for UK leaving the EU when the time comes. I think the EU is undemocratic, deeply flawed and probably not reformable. Because of its size, these flaws matter in a crisis. Balkans, Euro, Ukraine, refugees - EU response to each has been ridiculous and dangerous.

rtpg 10y ago
At least for the Euro crisis, the main issue is not enough integration, not too much. Though honestly I can understand not wanting to give control of your budget over to Germany...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
onemorebrowser 10y ago
Consider the alternative to the EU's 'flawed and dangerous' response to the Balkans, etc - 28 individual responses which take no consideration of each other and cumulatively achieve nothing. Some bureaucracy, organisational headaches (and yes of course, allowing those evil men in Brussles to tell us how straight our carrots can be) are a small price to pay for getting stuff done in our closely connected continent. Taking the moral high ground with the 'undemocratic' argument gets you nowhere really. Britain has an unelected house of Parliament and many, many more historical oddities all of its own which are deeply undemocratic. All you end up with is 'our brand of undemocracy is better than your dirty foreign one', and yes I'm aware that this is an oversimplification of sovereignty, etc, etc.
flexie 10y ago
The EU is not democratic enough and does not have sufficient military power. But Britain is too small and weak to ever again become a unit regulating itself. Too much is cross border nowadays and probably also was back in the 1700s and 1800s when the notion of sovereign nation state flourished. The UK, like all other small and medium sized countries, is not a unit in itself in terms of any of the issues that a nation state would normally (pretend to) govern: - Economy; You import most of what you consume and much of what you produce is exported. - Tariffs; If you were to unilaterally increase tariffs, other countries would punish you the same way. - Language; Your language is a mixture of Germanic, Old Norse, French, Latin etc. - Education and research: You have imported most of what you learn, at any level of the educational system, and you export most of your valuable research. - Demographics; you are a diverse society. Quite many British people go abroad to work or study and many British are first, second or third generation immigrants. - Military; You depend on the good will and alliances of your neighbors and the US. Contrary to most other European states, you did manage to continue to function as a nation during WW2 but were it not for the Americans and the Russians, you would have lost to the Germans. The whole notion of military sovereignty for small countries is ridiculous. It's like a small dog barking at a bigger dog (I'm Danish, so I don't mean it as an offence). I could go on. No matter what the issue is, the solution is International. The UK, and any other European country, benefits from the EU. The UK with its financial industry, dependence of foreign labour and dependence of export more than most. The reason we all speak English here on HN is British colonialism. That was the preferred way to regulate and govern international relations back in the heydays of nation states. I prefer voluntary cooperation like the EU. A stronger, bigger and more democratic union, but a union.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > " But Britain is too small and weak to ever again become a unit regulating itself." With all due respect, the UK has the 5th largest economy in the world. Countries with weaker economies than the UK manage just fine on their own. The question isn't whether the UK can or can't do it, but rather whether we should.
  - flexie 10y ago
    You lost 90-something percent of your territory, 90 percent of your population. You used to be the largest economy but now you seem impressed to be 5th. You used to impose your influence on all others. Now you are mostly in the receiving end. One of the reasons you didn't wither any further is the EU, another is pax americana, as long as it lasts. As is the case for most of the other weaker economies that do 'just fine'.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      The UK is no longer a world superpower, that much is true, but I find your argument that because we're only 5th means that we're "mostly in the receiving end" to be not that convincing. Not all economic arrangements that the UK has made rely on the EU or the US. To give one example, the UK has one of the strongest banking sectors in the world. Aside from London, none of the top 10 financial centres of the world exist within an economic union, the closest is Luxembourg at 14th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index If it's not an issue for other countries to have a global financial centre outside an economic union, it's not going to be an issue for the UK either. Financial service companies based in London are unlikely to move anywhere else in the EU any time soon. For a better perspective on the position of the UK outside the EU, consider the difference between the economies of UK and Australia. Australia has the 13th largest economy in the world, yet there aren't the same type of calls for economic unity in Oceania. How can Australia survive as an independent territory? Why can't the UK do the same?
ZenoArrow 10y ago
With regards to free trade, can you explain what you mean by this? This is a genuine question. Free trade seems to me to be a somewhat nebulous term, stretched to serve a wide range of economic approaches, and I'd be interested in getting a better sense of clarity.
- hardlianotion 10y ago
  The effort to make trading relationships between people easy and not exploitative, the intent of making all parties richer. Obvious examples include removing tariffs, harmonising standards and law where this is possible and agreeing procedures for conflict resolution.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I see. In that case, are free trade and free trade agreements always the same thing? For example, if two countries strike up a free trade deal that protects the agriculture industries of those countries, do they do so in order to protect themselves from competition from other countries?
    - hardlianotion 10y ago
      Seems clear to me that they are not. Same for many other ideals when compared with what is actually done in practice.

rtpg 10y ago

At least for the Euro crisis, the main issue is not enough integration, not too much. Though honestly I can understand not wanting to give control of your budget over to Germany...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

onemorebrowser 10y ago

Consider the alternative to the EU's 'flawed and dangerous' response to the Balkans, etc - 28 individual responses which take no consideration of each other and cumulatively achieve nothing. Some bureaucracy, organisational headaches (and yes of course, allowing those evil men in Brussles to tell us how straight our carrots can be) are a small price to pay for getting stuff done in our closely connected continent. Taking the moral high ground with the 'undemocratic' argument gets you nowhere really. Britain has an unelected house of Parliament and many, many more historical oddities all of its own which are deeply undemocratic. All you end up with is 'our brand of undemocracy is better than your dirty foreign one', and yes I'm aware that this is an oversimplification of sovereignty, etc, etc.

flexie 10y ago

The EU is not democratic enough and does not have sufficient military power. But Britain is too small and weak to ever again become a unit regulating itself. Too much is cross border nowadays and probably also was back in the 1700s and 1800s when the notion of sovereign nation state flourished. The UK, like all other small and medium sized countries, is not a unit in itself in terms of any of the issues that a nation state would normally (pretend to) govern: - Economy; You import most of what you consume and much of what you produce is exported. - Tariffs; If you were to unilaterally increase tariffs, other countries would punish you the same way. - Language; Your language is a mixture of Germanic, Old Norse, French, Latin etc. - Education and research: You have imported most of what you learn, at any level of the educational system, and you export most of your valuable research. - Demographics; you are a diverse society. Quite many British people go abroad to work or study and many British are first, second or third generation immigrants. - Military; You depend on the good will and alliances of your neighbors and the US. Contrary to most other European states, you did manage to continue to function as a nation during WW2 but were it not for the Americans and the Russians, you would have lost to the Germans. The whole notion of military sovereignty for small countries is ridiculous. It's like a small dog barking at a bigger dog (I'm Danish, so I don't mean it as an offence). I could go on. No matter what the issue is, the solution is International. The UK, and any other European country, benefits from the EU. The UK with its financial industry, dependence of foreign labour and dependence of export more than most. The reason we all speak English here on HN is British colonialism. That was the preferred way to regulate and govern international relations back in the heydays of nation states. I prefer voluntary cooperation like the EU. A stronger, bigger and more democratic union, but a union.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ZenoArrow 10y ago
> " But Britain is too small and weak to ever again become a unit regulating itself." With all due respect, the UK has the 5th largest economy in the world. Countries with weaker economies than the UK manage just fine on their own. The question isn't whether the UK can or can't do it, but rather whether we should.
- flexie 10y ago
  You lost 90-something percent of your territory, 90 percent of your population. You used to be the largest economy but now you seem impressed to be 5th. You used to impose your influence on all others. Now you are mostly in the receiving end. One of the reasons you didn't wither any further is the EU, another is pax americana, as long as it lasts. As is the case for most of the other weaker economies that do 'just fine'.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    The UK is no longer a world superpower, that much is true, but I find your argument that because we're only 5th means that we're "mostly in the receiving end" to be not that convincing. Not all economic arrangements that the UK has made rely on the EU or the US. To give one example, the UK has one of the strongest banking sectors in the world. Aside from London, none of the top 10 financial centres of the world exist within an economic union, the closest is Luxembourg at 14th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index If it's not an issue for other countries to have a global financial centre outside an economic union, it's not going to be an issue for the UK either. Financial service companies based in London are unlikely to move anywhere else in the EU any time soon. For a better perspective on the position of the UK outside the EU, consider the difference between the economies of UK and Australia. Australia has the 13th largest economy in the world, yet there aren't the same type of calls for economic unity in Oceania. How can Australia survive as an independent territory? Why can't the UK do the same?

ZenoArrow 10y ago

With regards to free trade, can you explain what you mean by this? This is a genuine question. Free trade seems to me to be a somewhat nebulous term, stretched to serve a wide range of economic approaches, and I'd be interested in getting a better sense of clarity.

hardlianotion 10y ago
The effort to make trading relationships between people easy and not exploitative, the intent of making all parties richer. Obvious examples include removing tariffs, harmonising standards and law where this is possible and agreeing procedures for conflict resolution.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I see. In that case, are free trade and free trade agreements always the same thing? For example, if two countries strike up a free trade deal that protects the agriculture industries of those countries, do they do so in order to protect themselves from competition from other countries?
  - hardlianotion 10y ago
    Seems clear to me that they are not. Same for many other ideals when compared with what is actually done in practice.