7 ms·

This is such a tragedy. How many voters and observers understand than that European project was never primarily about economics? It was a political project that

This is such a tragedy. How many voters and observers understand than that European project was never primarily about economics? It was a political project that has produced 71 years "since an army crossed the Rhine with fire and sword" [0]. And now, we can watch as the project that has brought peace and prosperity to more than almost any in history unravels. And yes, Europe has been failed by horrendous, narrow-minded economic policies of the EU, but a previous generation of leaders who still remembered the horrors of war would not have sacrificed Europe for their own narrow benefits. [0] http://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2015/01/the-future-of-the-european-project-and-the-future-of-the-eurozone-a-talk-from-2013-the-honest-broker-for-the-week-of-janua.html http://delong.typepad.com/delong_long_form/2015/01/the-futur...

rukittenme 10y ago
I think you're wrong to despair. The Europe of < 1910 was very different. Socially, politically, and economically. If the EU dissolved today, I don't believe France and Germany would be at war within 200 years. So long as strong democratic values persist in Europe, peace, I think, is a certainty.
- afarrell 10y ago
  There is currently war in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_cr...
  - rukittenme 10y ago
    Yes but Russia is not a member of the EU and its not really a democracy.
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    There's never been a war between EU countries though.
- toyg 10y ago
  Nobody believed a dissolved Yugoslavia would be at war either. Ethnic cleansing followed. People don't realize how easy things can snowball, once you let in darkness. Watch this movie, it's brilliant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Civil_War
  - cyphar 10y ago
    Yugoslavia was always divided, so it's not _really_ a valid comparison.
    - toyg 10y ago
      Scotland was also "always divided". EU countries are still so divided in practice (this vote being proof). Look at Gibraltar. Channel tax havens. Nuclear submarines and oil platforms in Scotland. All these situations will now have to be renegotiated. Negotiations between states sometimes fail, and when they do, there's always that extension of diplomacy behind the corner: war. There are endless fault lines all around us, which will be opened by renouncing the superior structures keeping them together.
Hondor 10y ago
Are you really saying this could lead to war between Europe and the UK? That seems entirely unlikely unless some other major disaster happens, and in that case they would just quit the EU anyway if it suited them.
- duaneb 10y ago
  Major disasters are a certainty over long enough time. It's been 71 years—Europe can certainly revert in that time.
- dankohn1 10y ago
  Not necessarily between the UK and the EU. But I fear that Brexit is the first step in the dissolution of the EU. And I can certainly imagine a future conflict between, say, Austria and a Russia-oriented Hungary. Go look at the distribution of minority nationalities in Europe, and you will see an endless potential for conflict. That was the reality from 111 AD to 1945.
  - leakybit 10y ago
    I doubt there would be a major conflict in Europe with the US still being the dominate military force in the world.
francasso 10y ago
Structures are tools, and they are never better than the people that compose them. Even when they are created with the right ideals, they quickly degenerate unless those ideals begin to become real in people consciousness. The european project has failed in this sense. Europe is not the euro nor the current european institutions. Hopefully one day Europe will be the people.
- toyg 10y ago
  I don't think the fat lady has sung yet. Fact is, in Britain, the most Euro-skeptic country in the Union, almost half of the population is now convinced that the EU is fine. From a historical perspective is amazing, considering the country was dragged in what it was, at the time, little more than a trade union, and is now a semi-federalist structure. We only need a couple of generations of old angry men to die off, and then we'll be ok.
  - RGamma 10y ago
    They might still not think the EU is fine. Just that leaving is worse. There will be reforms of the EU regardless of this outcome I hope and the member states left might stand to gain from it.
  - Radim 10y ago
    I don't think anyone is really claiming EU is fine. Or that the dividing line is defined along young/old. What is being voted on is simply whether the good bits outweigh the sucky bits. Or whether the sucky bits are at least reformable. Existence of the sucky bits is beyond question.
fdsaaf 10y ago
It's possible to understand the nature and purpose of the European project and still, resignedly, vote "leave". People voting "leave" aren't opposed to peace and prosperity. They're saying that the EU is so badly run and so antithetical to their way of life that despite the advantages of the European project, the UK is better off without it. So far, I've seen most commentators cast aspersions on the UK public for squandering an opportunity for peace and unity. I wish more people would entertain the notion that the EU was so badly run and so antithetical to the UK way of life that leaving was the right choice, however sad it was that the EU dream didn't become reality.
- dankohn1 10y ago
  Although I've lived in London twice, my viewpoint is obviously biased as an American living in New York City. But at least from over here, the "leave" campaign has not seemed to be based on a demand for reform of the EU [0]. [0] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/brexit-anti-immigration-ukip-poster-raises-questions-160621112722799.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/brexit-ant...
  - fdsaaf 10y ago
    I think that arguments for leaving the EU based on concerns about immigration are implicit calls for a rethinking of the EU social contract with respect to freedom of movement. It's exactly this idea that discussions predicated on group identity are somehow outside the realm of legitimate politics that leads to the very resentment that made Britain leave the EU. It's a shame, because if the EU had treated this issue as a political one, subject to compromise and regulation, they'd have been able to come up with a political solution. Instead, a lot of people treated this issue as a moral crusade and provoked a huge, destructive backlash. God, homo sapiens is doomed.
    - _delirium 10y ago
      Is there any real appetite for that in the rest of the EU, though? You need some kind of potential partners to put together significant reform of a 28-member bloc, and restricting the free movement of labour would be a huge change. I could see it happening if there are increasing questions in many EU countries about it, but not if there are only really increasing questions in one. External immigration is a huge issue in many parts of the EU, and a common rallying point for the anti-immigration right. Especially Muslim immigration has become a major political issue in many EU countries. There is probably a coalition that could be put together with a hard-line view on refugees and external immigration (and one is sort of forming in opposition to the Merkel-led coalition's more accommodating view). But internal EU movement is a much smaller political issue in much of the rest of the EU (though it is a big issue in non-EU, but Schengen member Switzerland). Anti-immigration parties elsewhere in Europe, like Sweden Democrats, are mainly animated by worry about Muslim immigration from outside the EU, and don't really have the beef with e.g. Polish immigrants that some of the UK anti-immigration groups have.
mc32 10y ago
On the contrary, you see people using their vote rather than force to seek their will and self-determination. No arms fired. In some ways, one of the main thrusts of this effort, the wish to be more independent and having self determination and resulting in more control over employment and immigration is understandable. Unlike the US where anti-immigration brings calls of racism, in the UK the animus is against people of the same "race". (it also affects people from non-EU, and of non-European descent, but less so). I think this is the attitude evidenced when people decry "gentrification". Or No "Californians" in Portland, OR or Seattle, WA. People don't mind immigration (influx of outsiders) or change, so long as it's controlled to some degree and they have a benefit (unaffordable housing and competition for blue collar jobs from regions who are used to lower wages, makes it a wedge for people of that economic class).

rukittenme 10y ago

I think you're wrong to despair. The Europe of < 1910 was very different. Socially, politically, and economically. If the EU dissolved today, I don't believe France and Germany would be at war within 200 years. So long as strong democratic values persist in Europe, peace, I think, is a certainty.

afarrell 10y ago
There is currently war in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_cr...
- rukittenme 10y ago
  Yes but Russia is not a member of the EU and its not really a democracy.
- thomasahle 10y ago
  There's never been a war between EU countries though.
toyg 10y ago
Nobody believed a dissolved Yugoslavia would be at war either. Ethnic cleansing followed. People don't realize how easy things can snowball, once you let in darkness. Watch this movie, it's brilliant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Civil_War
- cyphar 10y ago
  Yugoslavia was always divided, so it's not _really_ a valid comparison.
  - toyg 10y ago
    Scotland was also "always divided". EU countries are still so divided in practice (this vote being proof). Look at Gibraltar. Channel tax havens. Nuclear submarines and oil platforms in Scotland. All these situations will now have to be renegotiated. Negotiations between states sometimes fail, and when they do, there's always that extension of diplomacy behind the corner: war. There are endless fault lines all around us, which will be opened by renouncing the superior structures keeping them together.

Hondor 10y ago

Are you really saying this could lead to war between Europe and the UK? That seems entirely unlikely unless some other major disaster happens, and in that case they would just quit the EU anyway if it suited them.

duaneb 10y ago
Major disasters are a certainty over long enough time. It's been 71 years—Europe can certainly revert in that time.
dankohn1 10y ago
Not necessarily between the UK and the EU. But I fear that Brexit is the first step in the dissolution of the EU. And I can certainly imagine a future conflict between, say, Austria and a Russia-oriented Hungary. Go look at the distribution of minority nationalities in Europe, and you will see an endless potential for conflict. That was the reality from 111 AD to 1945.
- leakybit 10y ago
  I doubt there would be a major conflict in Europe with the US still being the dominate military force in the world.

francasso 10y ago

Structures are tools, and they are never better than the people that compose them. Even when they are created with the right ideals, they quickly degenerate unless those ideals begin to become real in people consciousness. The european project has failed in this sense. Europe is not the euro nor the current european institutions. Hopefully one day Europe will be the people.

toyg 10y ago
I don't think the fat lady has sung yet. Fact is, in Britain, the most Euro-skeptic country in the Union, almost half of the population is now convinced that the EU is fine. From a historical perspective is amazing, considering the country was dragged in what it was, at the time, little more than a trade union, and is now a semi-federalist structure. We only need a couple of generations of old angry men to die off, and then we'll be ok.
- RGamma 10y ago
  They might still not think the EU is fine. Just that leaving is worse. There will be reforms of the EU regardless of this outcome I hope and the member states left might stand to gain from it.
- Radim 10y ago
  I don't think anyone is really claiming EU is fine. Or that the dividing line is defined along young/old. What is being voted on is simply whether the good bits outweigh the sucky bits. Or whether the sucky bits are at least reformable. Existence of the sucky bits is beyond question.

fdsaaf 10y ago

It's possible to understand the nature and purpose of the European project and still, resignedly, vote "leave". People voting "leave" aren't opposed to peace and prosperity. They're saying that the EU is so badly run and so antithetical to their way of life that despite the advantages of the European project, the UK is better off without it. So far, I've seen most commentators cast aspersions on the UK public for squandering an opportunity for peace and unity. I wish more people would entertain the notion that the EU was so badly run and so antithetical to the UK way of life that leaving was the right choice, however sad it was that the EU dream didn't become reality.

dankohn1 10y ago
Although I've lived in London twice, my viewpoint is obviously biased as an American living in New York City. But at least from over here, the "leave" campaign has not seemed to be based on a demand for reform of the EU [0]. [0] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/brexit-anti-immigration-ukip-poster-raises-questions-160621112722799.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/brexit-ant...
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  I think that arguments for leaving the EU based on concerns about immigration are implicit calls for a rethinking of the EU social contract with respect to freedom of movement. It's exactly this idea that discussions predicated on group identity are somehow outside the realm of legitimate politics that leads to the very resentment that made Britain leave the EU. It's a shame, because if the EU had treated this issue as a political one, subject to compromise and regulation, they'd have been able to come up with a political solution. Instead, a lot of people treated this issue as a moral crusade and provoked a huge, destructive backlash. God, homo sapiens is doomed.
  - _delirium 10y ago
    Is there any real appetite for that in the rest of the EU, though? You need some kind of potential partners to put together significant reform of a 28-member bloc, and restricting the free movement of labour would be a huge change. I could see it happening if there are increasing questions in many EU countries about it, but not if there are only really increasing questions in one. External immigration is a huge issue in many parts of the EU, and a common rallying point for the anti-immigration right. Especially Muslim immigration has become a major political issue in many EU countries. There is probably a coalition that could be put together with a hard-line view on refugees and external immigration (and one is sort of forming in opposition to the Merkel-led coalition's more accommodating view). But internal EU movement is a much smaller political issue in much of the rest of the EU (though it is a big issue in non-EU, but Schengen member Switzerland). Anti-immigration parties elsewhere in Europe, like Sweden Democrats, are mainly animated by worry about Muslim immigration from outside the EU, and don't really have the beef with e.g. Polish immigrants that some of the UK anti-immigration groups have.

mc32 10y ago

On the contrary, you see people using their vote rather than force to seek their will and self-determination. No arms fired. In some ways, one of the main thrusts of this effort, the wish to be more independent and having self determination and resulting in more control over employment and immigration is understandable. Unlike the US where anti-immigration brings calls of racism, in the UK the animus is against people of the same "race". (it also affects people from non-EU, and of non-European descent, but less so). I think this is the attitude evidenced when people decry "gentrification". Or No "Californians" in Portland, OR or Seattle, WA. People don't mind immigration (influx of outsiders) or change, so long as it's controlled to some degree and they have a benefit (unaffordable housing and competition for blue collar jobs from regions who are used to lower wages, makes it a wedge for people of that economic class).