38 ms·

A very sad day for everyone in Europe. The EU is not only about trade regulations, but about a continent who had a not very peaceful history finally growing tog

• bkor 10y ago
  > The freedom of movement for European citizens UK was not part of Schengen. As such, it was always more difficult to go to/from the UK. Foreigners having a Schengen visa (work permit) still need an expensive Visa to go to UK. Then there's the pound instead of having the Euro. What was more easy is _permanently_ moving from UK to e.g. Spain (which happens a lot). Finding work in another EU country and being able to live there without too much hassle.
  • paglia_s 10y ago
    That's false, Schengen only regulates border checks, EU citizens had the same right to move to the UK as UK citizens moving to a Schengen area country.
  • joeyspn 10y ago
    > it was always more difficult to go to/from the UK This is not true. You obviously haven't travelled many times from UK to other european countries (or viceversa)...
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • seszett 10y ago
      What? I haven't been stopped on a border a single time while travelling within Schengen. At the same time, crossing the Channel tunnel or taking the Eurostar means having to get through border control, handing out your passport and sometimes, if they feel like it, having to answer questions on what you're going to do in the UK. Taking the Eurostar from Brussels to Lille (because it's sometimes cheaper than a regular TGV, or because the timing is better) is even more bothersome because they get double suspicious that you only want to go to France instead of all the way to London.
      • martin_a 10y ago
        Don´t know what you did, but the last time I got off the plane in London (travelled from Germany), I showed my Personalausweis ("small" passport, everybody in Germany has one) and were good to go and leave the airport. No checks, no questions, nothing.
        • seszett 10y ago
          Well, I've never taken a plane within the EU, but usually the border checks are before boarding, not when you get off the plane. Similarly, the border checks are in Calais for Eurotunnel and in Paris or Brussels station for Eurostar. You have to embark and go through border checks 30 minutes before departure with Eurostar, that's a fact. Whether you will have to answer questions is very random and doesn't seem to depend on whether you give them a passport or just French ID. My wife has a Canadian passport and a French residency permit and this does make them ask more questions though. Eurotunnel checks were lighter when I used to take it, but that was before the Calais crisis so I would guess it has become more bothersome lately. In any case, you just can't say it's as easy as just hoping in your car and driving to Belgium and back to fetch your beer.
          • yandie 10y ago
  • tsaprailis 10y ago
    No, EU citizens can work without a VISA in the UK.
  • IkmoIkmo 10y ago
    > UK was not part of Schengen. As such, it was always more difficult to go to/from the UK. Foreigners having a Schengen visa (work permit) still need an expensive Visa to go to UK. UK opting out of Schengen has nothing to do with it, EU citizens are visa-exempted and I as a European have traveled to the UK many times without a visa.
    • easytiger 10y ago
      Travelling without a visa is not freedom of movement. That's visa waiver.
      • foldr 10y ago
        Completely false. EU citizens do not enter the UK on a visa waiver. They enter exactly the same way as British citizens. (i.e., show your passport, go through with no questions). A US citizen enters the UK on a visa waiver. The duration of their stay is limited, and there are limits on what they may do while they are in the UK (most importantly, no working). Please, after all the lies of the leave campaign, can we stop casually spreading utterly false information?
        • toyg 10y ago
          The thing is, even "informed beleavers" don't know they are spreading misinformation. A lot of them have no idea what they're talking about. Most of them don't even know the EU of 2016 is different from the EU of 2008. Ignorance is a terrible, terrible thing.
        • greggman 10y ago
          i'm confused. I can go from Copenhagen to Stockholm to Helsinki to Berlin to Paris to Brussels without once being asked to show ID but the moment I tried to go the UK I had to show ID. Not having to show ID = freedom of movement. Having to show ID = a chance to reject your movement = not free
          • detaro 10y ago
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • fuj 10y ago
    False, absolutely false. DailyMail reader?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• redthrowaway 10y ago
  The US did not magic itself into existence as a united state. It began in common purpose with a shared, very strong, external enemy. It then assigned itself a shared dream of settling the content. And, crucially, it already had a shared cultural identity, shared language, and shared religion when it began. The EU does not have a common enemy to force it together. It does not have a shared language, or culture, or identity. Its dream, while noble, does not speak to ordinary people. And it is pretty damned incompetent at what duties it has assigned itself. The prospect of a United States of Europe was extremely remote even before today. It's dead, now.
  • antirez 10y ago
    I don't agree with that, the EU has a very strong cultural union that was created by the enunciation of the French Revolution principles. It's not by accident that, for example, there is no state in EU with death penalty. This makes states within the EU very similar at certain levels, otherwise a claim could be made that the cultural delta is the same between two different EU states and between an EU state and US, but this is not true, if you check a bit the fundamental values you'll see that EU nations have a lot in common.
    • dharma1 10y ago
      Language, national identity. The US and EU are not the same
      • hacksonx 10y ago
        I could be wrong but even the French are still a monarchy. In fact the only case of a dissolved monarchy I've read of lately is the Spanish monarchy.
        • DonaldFisk 10y ago
          Ahem. France is a republic, and Spain is a constitutional monarchy.
        • 10y ago
• return0 10y ago
  What is weird is that english is the de facto language throughout the EU. There is so much integration that the new regulation will have to effectively re-establish the rights lost by brexit. UK will have to essentially become switzerland. I cannot see it being differently without people from both sides literally rioting.
  • eloisant 10y ago
    Actually the UK is likely to become less than Switzerland in terms of integration with Europe. There are many treaties between Switzerland and EU, and after they slammed the door I just don't see EU countries accepting the same deals with UK.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • lottin 10y ago
    Switzerland had to agree to freedom of movement of persons in order to get a free trade deal with the EU. The UK, on the other hand, is flat out opposed to freedom of movement, so it seems unlikely they'll manage to get the same conditions as the Swiss with regards to trade.
    • Sean1708 10y ago
      > The UK, on the other hand, is flat out opposed to freedom of movement 50% of the UK is flat out opposed to freedom of movement. In fact I'd wager it's even less than that since freedom of movement wasn't the only talking point of Leave.
      • tremon 10y ago
        It wasn't? It sure was the point that got the most coverage, at least here on the mainland. Other than "the EU is corrupt because we don't control it", what were the Leave side's arguments?
      • pbhjpbhj 10y ago
• digi_owl 10y ago
  Bah. Thats the kumbaya message the champagne left have been pushing for several decades at this point, while the finance right have been fleecing everyone under the guise of "one market".
• namaemuta 10y ago
  The problem is that the EU countries have a long history of fighting against each other and their cultural differences are too big to keep them together. There isn't the sentimental feeling of America in the EU, people don't feel themselves as European and since the current situation in EU is bad, the feeling of being independent has grown a lot.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • smarinov 10y ago
    I beg to differ. The more people from any single European country travel across Europe, the more they figure out that there are almost zero cultural differences between their countries. Things that people used to call 'typically French/German/Italian/Spanish/Slovak/Greek' are increasingly seen as typically European. I can't back this statistically, but virtually all the people I met in my life who have lived in at least two EU countries think this way. I honestly can't think of a single person who I've known and thinks otherwise and I should know because this topic almost always comes in discussions when you get to know somebody. Of course, there are some minor cultural differences, but these are not particularly larger than the ones found in the US, India, China, Brazil, or the Russian Federation for that matter.
    • namaemuta 10y ago
      Well, I'm living abroad and in my experience I can tell you that there are remarkable cultural differences, specially related to working habits.
      • bjelkeman-again 10y ago
        There are differences, but the similarities are bigger IMHO. I say this with the experience of having lived extensively in the UK, US, Sweden, work in the NL, and travelled to 40 countries on all continents. The difference in culture between the UK and other Northern European countries is often exagurated. Many say that the UK is more like the US. In my experience this really isn't true.
• rvanmil 10y ago
  I don't think an undemocratic government is required to achieve freedom of movement across the EU states. The problem however is that this is the only choice we have right now (and I sincerely hope the brexit will lead to a more democratic EU, instead of a collapse). Personally I think an undemocratic central government limits your freedom a lot more than any other benefits that might come from supporting such a government.
  • sievebrain 10y ago
    Yeah that's something missed by so many (and hardly pointed out by Leave - what a crap campaign). The EU is not the only way to get the good bits of European integration. It badly needs some competition. I wish the UK would create a competitor to the EU and start advertising the new union to EU member states.
  • dingaling 10y ago
    European citizens can already move freely between Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein which are members of the EEA, but not the EU. There are also significant movement and trade freedoms with Switzerland, which isn't even a member of the EEA.
    • Ressuder 10y ago
      Being a part of the EEA and not the EU basically means that you accept most rules from the EU while not being able to influence anything. The UK really has put themselves in a bad situation here. The main reason people voted to leave was immigration and to "take back power Brussels" and because they were convinced by the campaign that they could still get all the benefits of EU if they left. How will these people feel when they realise that they're going to need to join EEA which will mean the same level of immigration and less political power?
      • xorcist 10y ago
        I've hard it said that Norway would easily be in the top EU countries when it comes to speedily and effectively implementing EU directives in law, if they qualified for the list. On the other hand, they remain outside the widely impopular agriculture system. Those things really highlight that "leave" in itself means nothing. Would the EU skeptics of the country be content if the UK only left the EU itself and remained with all the agreements?
• danmaz74 10y ago
  > Especially I am sad for the young generation in the UK. A very large part (about 75%) voted to stay in Europe, and this future is taken from them. That's indeed really sad. Young Europeans have enjoyed a freedom to choose where to study, live and work that was unprecedented in Europe. What will come next, with the resurgence of nationalism and bigotry in Europe, is very difficult to say, but I see no good coming out of this.
  • dba7dba 10y ago
    Freedom to study, live and work anywhere in EU for European was an incredible privilege and liberating. Unfortunately no one had thought of millions of non-Europeans actually getting into EU in such a short time as it has last 2 years.
    • charlesdm 10y ago
      Yep. That issue has totally been resolved by leaving. We only had to wipe off trillions from global equities and other assets to do it.
      • dba7dba 10y ago
        I doubt most of the Britons voting for exit worried about trillions of global equites getting wiped out, as most are not affected by it in daily life.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• chvid 10y ago
  * EU has got to deliver * It needs to show that it can provide solutions for the euro financial crisis and the refugee crisis. Solutions that are sound, long term and have popular backing. It has shown that it cannot. And thus we europeans are better of with a smaller, simpler european cooperation of independent nation states. At least this should be the very real threat the EU politicians should operate under. We need a better EU.
  • kabes 10y ago
    These are difficult problems without a good answer. Will the smaller independent nations be able to provide a better answer to these problems? I seriously doubt they will.
    • dageshi 10y ago
      In the case of the euro crisis smaller independent nations have already proven that they can. The UK is not in the euro, it was hit as bad if not worse than any other EU nation during the financial crisis but because it still retained control of its currency and had a functioning central bank it has dealt with that crisis while the flaws of the euro are still unresolved and have effectively been brushed under the rug. Make no mistake, if the EU had competently dealt with the issues with the euro the UK would not have left.
      • chvid 10y ago
        Yes, exactly. USA, Australia, Canada, Japan ... all had their challenges with immigration and fiscal/monetary issues and have been able to find suitable solutions without their federation/country falling apart.
        • wahrsagevogel 10y ago
          Since the EU does not have a common fiscal policy the challenges are not the same.
  • grive 10y ago
• herbst 10y ago
  Isnt that exactly what the people do not want? I for one moved away from the EU, also because i did not like how my country was slowing losing its sovereignty and with that their traditions and national proud (in a good sense, not the nazi one they have a lot of that right now).
• madshiva 10y ago
  it's not sad, it's a good news. The EU was only about trade regulations, nobody is thinking that we are EU but only think I'm French, I'm German, etc. How do you want that this is working? US have done nothing special, they only use the same money, and it's still splitted in "nation" then it's the same, different rules, different culture (rage against Spanish in some state, rage against black in other). We are not united, we are all alone in this war. When people will start to say "I'm a citizen of the world" and stop thinking that they are "French, US, etc." maybe the world will go better.
  • cr1895 10y ago
    >they only use the same money, and it's still splitted in "nation" then it's the same, different rules, different culture Have you ever actually been to the US?
    • madshiva 10y ago
      This was your best argument? I don't have been there then I can't have a judgment? Do you really thinks that people from Las Vegas take care of other states when they get all the water from other state? are you telling my that this is a global country where problem are solved in a global manner? No. This is true everywhere, even in UK you have not the same culture in the nord than the south.. check the result of the votes... even in my small country you can see the difference of culture between big town and small town.
      • cr1895 10y ago
        You tried to compare the US to Europe impying that US states are functionally equivalent to countries of Europe, sharing only currency but differing in laws and society (and, weird example you gave, the people they hate). Cultural differences in the US are largely regional, usually having little to do with the borders of a given state. The federal government is made up of officials elected and appointed from all states and is governing over all of the US. Laws enacted by Congress aren't then approved or enforced by state legislatures, they are decided by those elected to the national legislative body by all citizens of the US. So yes, this is a country where matters are largely decided at the federal level. You overestimate the influence and power of state (and local) governments. Maybe you'll visit some day and see what it's actually like!
• Fuxy 10y ago
  Well that was unexpected but I guess not that unexpected since only British citizens were asked. If all the people living in the UK regardless of citizenship were asked the result would have been different. I wasn't allowed to vote even though I've been living in the UK over 5 years since I'm not a British citizen for example. Edit: if you're going to down-vote at least explain your reasoning.
  • kyrre 10y ago
    why would they allow foreigners to vote whether or not to kick foreigners out? bizarre.
    • Fuxy 10y ago
      See that's the problem I'm still being treated as a foreigner even though I've been living here for years and have been contributing to the British NHS service, paying British taxes and in all generating wealth for the country. All the obligation but I don't get a say on what my new home country should do? Does that seem right to you?
      • knackernews 10y ago
        It's perfectly fine. Just go through the naturalization process that is available to you, swear allegiance to the Queen and you can have your say in the country's future. Being a citizen is more than being a tax payer or generating wealth.
        • 7Z7 10y ago
          Or just be colonised by the British at some point in your past..
        • hk__2 10y ago
          Isn’t it absurd that as someone who lives somewhere and pay their taxes you can’t have a say on local politics, just because you don’t have a piece of paper that says you have the right nationality? As a French I can live 10 years outside of the country and still vote for the mayor of Paris. You don’t even need to live in Europe to vote for European elections if you have that paper that says you’re “French”.
• atmosx 10y ago
  > A very large part (about 75%) voted to stay in Europe Can you share the source of this data? I'd be interested in investigating. I agree with everything that you said. Taking a glimpse at the history of the EU starting from the 2nd WW, Bretton Woods, Nixon Shock brought us 2008 is very well documented in Varoufakis latest book[1]. I travelled lately from Greece to Bulgaria and to Turkey. Having border controls really feels like 1980 and I believe it adds NOTHING to security. It's just a sign of hostility towards the neighbour country. Ideally borders should be like the ones the Swiss have with Austria or Austrians with Czechs. But unlike technology, society progresses in cycles... My hope is that brussels will get re-shaped in a more democratic way, stop abiding to stupid rules and start looking after the prosperity of the remaining members of the Eurozone. But doesn't look good :-( [1] "And the week suffer what they must?", goodreads URL: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24886497-and-the-weak-suffer-what-they-must https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24886497-and-the-weak-su...
  • Sharlin 10y ago
    > I travelled lately from Greece to Bulgaria and to Turkey. Having border controls really feels like 1980 and I believe it adds NOTHING to security. It's just a sign of hostility towards the neighbour country. Ideally borders should be like the ones the Swiss have with Austria or Austrians with Czechs. UK border controls, though, probably aren't going to change much. They never had open borders, although they did - and will probably continue to - have mutual agreements on somewhat less strict border formalities with most Schengen countries (eg. a national ID is enough to enter, no passport required, but you still have to go through passport control).
    • atmosx 10y ago
      Right, right. I totally forgot because the border controls in the UK didn't look like the ones Turkey has in place. Bulgaria (which is 40k away from my town) had very lose controls. They had been tightened lately, I'm guessing because of the refugee crisis.
      • ommunist 10y ago
• grondilu 10y ago
  > I would guess no small part of them will try to move to the remaining EU states. You seem to underestimate the language barrier. I once talked to a few British young people about which country they would like to move to and I recall they mentioned New Zealand and the US, none of them mentioned any country in continental Europe and when I asked why I got confirmation that language issues matter. That's one reason among many why Europe can't quite work as a federation as the USA do.
  • rukuu001 10y ago
    Since we're swapping anecdotes - I've personally known 4 monolingual English speakers, who've lived and worked in the EU (Spain, Switzerland and Germany) and got long fine. They weren't monolingual when they left.
  • Nursie 10y ago
    Indeed. The top emigration destinations for British people are nit in the EU - the US, China and Australia.
    • yhylord 10y ago
      Wow why would them want to emigrate to China?
      • jen20 10y ago
        Hong Kong?
      • patrickk 10y ago
        Hong Kong, which speaks English or for English teaching jobs in China.
    • yitchelle 10y ago
      Wow, China. That debunked that the language is the compelling reason.
• dangjc 10y ago
  Freedom of movement is an ideal to aspire to, but maybe the reality we live in now is that immigration needs to be managed to maintain social cohesion. People need time to stop thinking of themselves as British or German first but rather European. Eastern European countries need time to develop. The Eurozone needs time to stabilize. Eventually I think the EU will get there, but maybe for now, the survival of the European project depends on reconciling ideals with realities.
  • tremon 10y ago
    People need time to stop thinking of themselves as British or German first but rather European. This. But I will add that it is mainly the English that do not consider themselves part of Europe. You'll find much more European identity on the mainland, or north of Hadrian's wall.
  • emptyfile 10y ago
    The reality is that free movement of people is the core value, principle and the foundation of the EU as we know it. If Britain has a problem with it, then goodbye Britain, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
  • erkkie 10y ago
    Develop how/where exactly? What are the Eastern European countries missing development wise that's hindering the EU?
    • dangjc 10y ago
      Economically develop. Wages in eastern Europe are a fraction of western Europe.
      • erkkie 10y ago
        That's true about wages (although some are close to South Europe at least). How is that hindering the EU though? Do you mean workers migrating for higher pay? Is that not, economically, beneficial for both parties?
• gadders 10y ago
  We're actually still in Europe. We're just not in the EU. EU != Europe.
  • pluma 10y ago
    Canada and Latin/South America have been fighting the same fight for ages. Doesn't work. "Europe" = EU, "America" = US. Sometimes even "Africa" = South Africa (depending on the topic). It's a large enough territory and it has the name of the continent in its official name. Good luck trying to correct people.
    • alfonsodev 10y ago
      In Europe is more like "Plays the FIFA Euro cup" = "Europe" :p
      • pluma 10y ago
        Technically the European Championship is run by UEFA, which isn't directly part of the FIFA (but recognized by it). Also, by that logic Israel is part of Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA#Members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA#Members Though I guess Israel must be European if it's also in the Eurovision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Participants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_the_Eurov... Upon closer inspection participation in the Eurovision Song Contest is restricted to countries that are members of the European Council or members of the European Broadcasting Union: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Union#Members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Broadcasting_Union#Me... Here's an idea: a map of countries overlaid with membership in the various "EU" groups (i.e. including EC, EEA etc), membership in UEFA, membership in the EBU and participation in the Eurovision Song Contest (per year). That should answer the question of Europeanness of individual countries once and for all.
        • alfonsodev 10y ago
          I found this image[1] that shows the overlap of Council of Europe, European Free Trade Association, European Economic Area, European Union, Euro Zone, EU customs Union, Schengen Area. Unfortunately my source is a tweet that didn't mention original source. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClsjOjxUkAEldmL.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClsjOjxUkAEldmL.jpg:large
• grondilu 10y ago
  In politics, I don't think bigger is better. I'd even say it's dangerous.
  • internaut 10y ago
    This is what we should be talking more about. Once a political unit gets too large things get weird. There exists an optimum complexity for political units for them to function effectively or you get fragmentation.
    • BrutallyHonest 10y ago
      The whole thing needs to be refactored.
• grondilu 10y ago
  > The freedom of movement for European citizens was not only "convenient" but in fact an important civil right. Borders exist so the concept of freedom of movement is not absolute. Now, maybe that's a bad thing and we should abolish all borders all around the World. I feel that would be unreasonable though, but it's probably debatable.
  • 7Z7 10y ago
    How did you get to "absolute" and "all borders around the World", from "an important civil right" that we granted outselves within the regions we control?
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
• tiatia 10y ago
  It is good news for Europe (and bad news for the UK). You don't have to be a fan of the bureaucratic EU but leaving was madness. They have now all the disadvantages and no advantage. The UK will likely have to pay MORE to the EU than before if they want to keep access to the EU market (see Norway who pays more per head already while not being a EU member). "The City" will lose big time: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-16/london-could-lose-its-euro-trading-if-u-k-leaves-eu https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-16/london-co... And the EU gets a chance to restructure. A good day for Europe and a bad day for the UK. Would be insane if Scotland and Northern Ireland now want to leave the UK. Biggest Idiot of them all: Camerone. Wanting to leave the EU for years, then becoming an advocate of staying. He got what he asked for. At least he took the consequences. But all in all an idiot extraordinaire.
  • darkr 10y ago
    > Would be insane if Scotland and Northern Ireland now want to leave the UK. One of the larger vote swingers for Scotland staying part of the UK was that they would have had to renegotiate their membership with the EU from a weak position. Scotland overwhelmingly voted remain in the EU referendum last night, so arguably the SNP now have a valid mandate to hold another Scottish referendum on membership of the UK. It's like they had a housemate they didn't really like, but who took them to all of the cool parties. Now they won't even get to go to the parties anymore, and I don't blame them for wanting to move out. Arguably London is larger both in population and economy than Scotland and Wales combined, and also overwhelmingly voted remain. If there is a referendum on whether London should leave England, I know which way I'm voting..
    • barrkel 10y ago
      I would dearly love to vote to uproot the contents of the M25 and place it somewhere picturesque and better connected, perhaps on the foothills of the Alps.
• rihegher 10y ago
  Wait and See. Uk is not out of the EU yet, nothing has been triggered officialy in either side and the frenchs like me who remember the 29 May 2005 referendum http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/98.abstract http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/98.abstract knows that referendum results can be forgotten and ignored quite easily.
• Kurtz79 10y ago
  Agreed. As an aside, for me this is a sterling example of the dangers of "direct democracy", that many see as the solution of all evils that plague the political process. The majority of UK lawmakers (democratically elected by the same people that voted the referendum) were in favor of staying in the Union: even a large number with conservative and traditionalist background (including the PM). Yet the future of the UK (and EU) was decided by people (on both sides) that cannot possibly have an idea of what the implications of this decision will be, and that can be easily swayed my media and influenced by emotions. Representative democracy has its faults and inefficiencies, but if the alternative is to have gut-reaction votes and petty nationalism decide the future of a country, count me out.
  • tomp 10y ago
    But isn't this the point of direct democracy? That you can elect someone (a MP) to represent you in most issues you care mildly about, despite not agreeing with them on some very important issues. You get to vote on those issues separately.
    • keithpeter 10y ago
      Disclaimer: I voted to remain (I fit the demographic of the 16 million - postgrad degree, professional &c). The leave voters I spoke to kept mentioning 'feeling in control' and concern about EU immigration and benefits. Also 'don't want them to ignore us'. Basically, bye election rhetoric. They bought the suggestion that 'a deal will be done' about England's access to European Economic Area as more or less certain. I hope they are right about the last one :-)
      • emp_zealoth 10y ago
        Ironically, I heard that access to European Economic Area means european regulations, european migrants, european workers. Basically everything they hate
        • keithpeter 10y ago
• FuNe 10y ago
  EU was never about the people. It was and is all about banks and corporations. When they had enough for themselves and to provide enough scrapes for people to keep everyone happy all seemed well. The moment they started bailing in states to save banks and corporations (selling this as German 'austerity' fiscal policy) it all started cracking. So - to more and more 'Europeans' EU means a never ending future of joblessness and 'austerity' imposed on them by fat cats in Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, Paris, etc. It is unfortunate that extreme right wings and nazis are capitalizing on this frustration but somebody eventually would.
  • glenndebacker 10y ago
    "It was and is all about banks and corporations" Funny you say that. If I remembered correctly it was the UK that blocked a lot of the banking reforms because it wanted to protect their financial industry... Not the way around. "EU means a never ending future of joblessness" Weird independent projections in this European country talks about new 140.000 jobs in a period of three years and we got horrific terrorist attacks in March which has a big negative economic impact. Maybe with regards of new jobs it has also something to do with political choices ?
    • Chris2048 10y ago
      > Funny you say that And global warming means some places actually get colder. You can't cherry pick things out of context. wrt political choices, it'd be nice to choose for ourselves, which is one reason for the Brexit. Brussels doesn't exactly lead the way wrt good immigration policy.
  • eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >It is unfortunate that extreme right wings and nazis are capitalizing on this frustration but somebody eventually would. Somebody eventually would, and in 2008 it was considered of paramount importance that it not be extreme left-wingers and communists. Stomp the Communists, get the Nazis.
• coldtea 10y ago
  >A very sad day for everyone in Europe. I don't know, I'm pretty glad myself. >The EU is not only about trade regulations, but about a continent who had a not very peaceful history finally growing together. Only there is not much "growing together". Besides the bureaucracy there were certain large countries (and alliances) pissing all over smaller ones, in things from trade agreements to fiscal policies and other decisions. A lot of people seem to value vague unity, but this was the opposite of democracy, where rampant groups with no official standing (the ad-hoc "Eurogroup" for one) and bodies no one voted for, where ruling a whole continent. So, valuing this kind of faux unity is, for me, like saying "It was nice when the US, Canada, India, Australia, England, Scotland, Ireland etc were united -- under British rule". >so that there are no arbitrary geographic borders limiting the freedom and the rights of the individual Borders in Europe are the opposite of arbitrary: they are based on culture, history, economy, popular revolutions, sovereignty, and lots of other factors. (In a continent like Africa yes, a lot of borders are arbitrary, because they were decided and drawn on some map from colonial powers dividing their lands -- the will of the local people, culture, etc be damned). And borders are not some plight on the "individual". They are a large-scale extension of their individuality -- ensuring the individuality and independence of their way of life at a larger scale. There's a whole order of magnitude difference of 350 million people (most of which have different cultures and priorities, not to mention interests) voting for what happens in your country of 30 or 20 million. Even worse when the decision is left to some bureaucrats in the pockets of big business. >In my eyes, the EU was very much about the same thing. It didn't matter in which part of the EU you lived or had your business. Being part of the EU granted you rights and equal access to the rest of Europe. Well, if you could have that without the political power plays, coercion, disregard for democracy, and plundering of lesser countries, that would be great.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • FungalRaincloud 10y ago
    While I feel like voting to leave is the wrong step here, and will undoubtedly lead to some problems in the immediate future, I do find some truth in your post. The unity of the EU has always felt ethereal to me. It has never felt like the EU was one entity. I'm hoping that this sparks a movement toward something that IS more unified, and more representative of the needs of the individual member states. Even if the EU dissolves entirely, perhaps this will mean adoption of common treaties and policies that are drafted during the preparation of the UK to leave.
• hmmdiggy 10y ago
  > Especially I am sad for the young generation in the UK. A very large part (about 75%) voted to stay in Europe, and this future is taken from them The undertones in this point imply that votes from the young generation is worth more than others.
  • Jgrubb 10y ago
    I took it to imply that the youth will have to live with the consequences of this vote for a much longer time period than the majority of folks who voted to leave.
    • Chris2048 10y ago
      Which has the same consequence. Alternatively, they'll have longer to change things than the older generation too.
      • Jgrubb 10y ago
        I like your alternatively. Thank you for the optimism.
  • neolefty 10y ago
    As an older person, I'd say the younger generation is worth more than others. I want to prioritize young people's futures over mine. The opposite -- sacrificing the next generation's well-being for mine is downright criminal and an abuse of power. Of course, it's not a dichotomy. I think we can both have reasonable welfare.
    • hmmdiggy 10y ago
      I'm talking strictly about the voting weight of an individual.
  • barrkel 10y ago
    They aren't, but they should be worth more, since long term policies affect them more.
• nickik 10y ago
  One can be for free movement, free trade, peace and 'growing together' without being Pro-EU. The EU is not a abstract entity that only lives of ideas. Its a concrete implementation of these ideas (and many others). This implementation I judge to be deficient. The issues are to many to list here, but I just wanted to state the principe. Europe can achieve most of the things you want without the EU. Switzerland has many of those things with the EU states. You can easily have all these contracts as bilateral contracts that everybody signs. Then you can do the joining and leaving independently, creating much better incentives for both the people who create the contracts as for the participants in the contract. Their are already tons of things like that, and their could be more. Look at ESA for example. > This is not always easy, and it means, that the richer parts have to give to the poorer, but that is just basic humanity. You totally falsely imply that the richer part "HAVE TO" to give the poorer parts money to achieve these goals. That is totally false. Only with a currency their is a real issue and that is solvable even if you want a common currency without massive redistribution. What you are doing is deceptive, you are making a operational argument for a issue that relates to moral. If we choice this kind of redistribution, we should do it based on MORAL properties and not operational issues.
  • Skinney 10y ago
    Switzerland and Norway (where I'm from) has the worst of it. They're essentially member states without any voting privileges. We pay a large sum of money each year, and we implement a most of their laws, without any representation in the union proper.
    • runeb 10y ago
      The parent commenter is referring to the European Free Trade Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Associatio...
    • spriggan3 10y ago
      And without the UK in the EU both Switzerland and Norway will have a greater bargaining power.
• madengr 10y ago
  The EU grants rights; I have read your charter. In the US, our rights are inalienable and not granted by government; big difference.
  • _ph_ 10y ago
    I am not a lawyer nor a native english speaker, but in both cases we have a central power which limits the powers of the constituting states. In the USA you have the constitution, in Europe its the treaty of Lisbon. And there is a high European court which is the counterpart to the US supreme court. So I am not sure what the fundamental difference is you are referring to.
  • yardie 10y ago
    In the US, our rights are inalienable As long as you are white. They fixed that later with a few amendments. If you served a prison sentence you may have lost a few as well. Seems like this inalienable rights can be taken away arbitrarily is what I'm saying.
  • dragonwriter 10y ago
    Both the EU and US structures of individual rights are based on philosophies of pre-existing, fundamental rights; both the EU and US have governing documents which establish legal rights grounded in those concepts of pre-existing, fundamental rights.
• MustardTiger 10y ago
  The outright disdain shown for democracy here is shocking. The EU is a completely undemocratic institution with a huge amount of control over member nations. Having an organization I have no say in control my life and my country is insane. Especially one that threatens sanctions against member nations that elect "wrong" governments, where "wrong" means "opposes any EU policies". The US wouldn't be united if the citizens of the individual states had no vote in the federal government.
  • kevcampb 10y ago
    You do realise MEPs were democratically elected, yes?
    • MustardTiger 10y ago
      MEPs belong to EU political parties, and serve the interests of the EU, not the member nation electing them. And again, having people in France elect representatives to create laws in the UK is absurd.
• benbenolson 10y ago
  The primary difference between the States and the EU is that the federal government is checked by the power of the state governments. The EU has no such check.
• audunw 10y ago
  The US was a dream to follow, but it has also become a nightmare. The US federal state has become quite horrible over the years as well. My conclusion is that current day democracy does not work at the scale of hundreds of millions of people. The US, the EU, Russia and China are all examples of that in different ways. We need a new form of democracy which scales better than the one we have today. Only then can we try to build sustainable unions on this scale. I have no answer to what that would look like though. I can only guess at some of the components.
  • mongol 10y ago
    How is China an example that large scale democracy does not work?
  • jpetso 10y ago
    I think it would greatly help if people who vote were required to demonstrate that they understand the underlying facts to some degree. In addition to making sure everyone has the means to freely access and learn these facts. Once you know the facts, it's much easier to draw correct conclusions. On the other hand, democratic elections as we know them skip the basic-understanding part entirely and go straight to the debate, denounce & convince part. Having that would be fine if people actually had a solid base from which to judge these arguments. Personally, I wouldn't mind if there were a test similar to driver's license tests, far less involved but still a bit of a hurdle, and the voter base shrinking to a much smaller but on average much better informed populace. Again, this has to come with completely free, government-sponsored access to time, opportunity and information for any citizen, so that even the poorest homeless person has a reasonable chance to take and pass that test. In that sense, it's a fragile system that can (maybe too) easily be rigged against the poor and struggling by educated and potentially malicious actors.
    • Nadya 10y ago
      >Once you know the facts, it's much easier to draw correct conclusions. I disagree. Facts can and do often get in the way or confuse people - and oversimplifying the facts for mass consumption has its own problems. What if the facts are data/statistics? Depending how they get massaged you can have wildly different conclusions and both still be "right". Or voters not willing to investigate the data themselves (or lack the ability to perform statistical analysis) could be easily influenced by how the data is presented, if the data is presented in a manner meant to make drawing the "favored" solution easier. What if the information presented is meant to mislead people with facts? Such as the old "ban dihydrogen monoxide" campaign. I can't remember the city (state?), but they held a vote to ban Uber. The way the phrasing was to accept/decline the ordinance to outlaw Uber was so confusingly worded I read it several times and still wasn't sure if I was supposed to vote "yes" or "no" on the ordinance... was it saying "yes" to the new ordinance to overrule/replace the old ordinance or was it voting "yes" to keep the old ordinance? If I voted "yes" was I voting to outlaw Uber or allow Uber? I have a feeling it was intentionally made as confusing as possible.
• nickbauman 10y ago
  > the richer parts have to give to the poorer That's what's different monetary-policy-wise. California, for instance get's like 10 cents on the dollar back from its federal tax burden. Those 90 cents are used to shore up economically (and perhaps other kinds of) backward states like Mississippi. Nothing like this happened in the EU. Germany keeps a lions share of revenue and sends a tiny trickle back to the EU. This was never going to last long. Britain has probably only hastened the inevitable.
  • gaul 10y ago
    You have this backwards; California sends the federal government $1.00 and receives 90 cents in return: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st...
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• samirm 10y ago
  > "no arbitrary geographic borders limiting the freedom and the rights of the individual" Wouldn't that be nice? Too bad no one stops to think about the rest of the world...
• Khaine 10y ago
  But the difference is the US is a political union and the EU is not. In fact truthfully the EU is flawed as the 'freedom of movement' implies political union, which it is not. And this is what has lead to brexit. The euro is flawed[1] for similar reasons. The economies of southern Europe are too different and its impossible to adjust as the flow of labour is limited due to cultural and language difficulties. [1] http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/revenge-of-the-optimum-currency-area/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/revenge-of-the-o...
• known 10y ago
  "The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects; In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings." http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/t...
• wobbleblob 10y ago
  > I would guess no small part of them will try to move to the remaining EU states. Ironically, that might not be as easy as it sounds. Closing the borders works both ways.
• tamana 10y ago
  Freedom of movement isn't totally correlated to EU membership, though
• y04nn 10y ago
  To be faire the UK never totally adhered to the EU, they didn't adopt the euro, they are not part of the Schengen Area and they were against a lot of decisions and slowed the the EU contruction. I see this break-up as an opportunity for the EU to grow faster without the UK slowing it down and with 2 leaders at its head (France and Germany). And anyway, economically speaking, the UK will probably make a treaty with the EU that will be similar to the current situation. The danger is that it gives ideas to quit the EU to other members.
  • barrkel 10y ago
    The UK was one of the biggest proponents of the eastern expansion (2004 expansion) to take in Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc. They were such big proponents that they didn't stipulate any national limitations on new members working in the UK immediately after accession, like most existing EU countries did. A move that, at the time, UK elite thought was illiberal. The UK, little more than 10 years ago, was pro-immigration via EU in a way that seems inconceivable now. The UK's anti-immigration response today probably owes something to those decisions. Turns out those other EU countries knew a thing or two about immigration after all.
• Joeri 10y ago
  It's sad, but it's also not a given that this is bad for the EU. The EU today is much too occupied with staying where they are, instead of thinking about where they're going. The leave camp offered a story of future prosperity, making things better than they were before. The remain camp's argument reduced to "things are as good as they can be, and leaving will make it worse". The remain camp's future was definitely bleaker. Maybe this vote can galvanize the EU leaders into thinking about the future, instead of narrowly focusing on maintaining the present. What the EU needs is a story about its future identity. What should the european values be? How do we bring more of those values to the EU's citizens? In other words: how do we make the EU better for those already in it, instead of just talking about how to preserve the status quo? Unless and until the EU develops a vision for future prosperity, it will keep facing "no" votes from its citizens. People want to believe their children will be better off than themselves, and they'll vote for anyone who promises them that. Who can blame them?
• ParkerK 10y ago
  > The EU is not only about trade regulations, but about a continent who had a not very peaceful history finally growing together. I feel like the EU has been becoming more of a ruling political power than just the trade regulator it began as. I think the recent increase in EU laws is what set this into motion. I agree that the EU is beneficial for trade, but I don't understand why they've started trying to make political moves impacting citizens day to day lives
• PopsiclePete 10y ago
  For some, like Germany, the EU is great. Their export-oriented economy coupled with control of the ECB and the Euro currency means they get to export their goods to the entire continent without tariffs. Someone like Greece/Portugal, who are not manufacturing/export economies, in the meantime get to enjoy endless debt and with no control to print and devalue their own currency, are essentially fucked. Forever. Is the EU "great" for them? I dunno. Portugal is in trouble, so is Italy. The upcoming Italian banking center crisis, which is pretty much inevitable, will reset any economic gains from the last 5 years quite nicely. France is doing okay-ish. Definitely second fiddle to Germany though. Speaking of Germany. Their bone-headed fear of - gasp - inflation and austerity measures are dividing Europe, not to mention Merkel's idiotic handling of the refugee crisis. Euro-scepticism is growing. Fully 1/3 of Germans are now Euro-sceptics. Let that sink in for a moment. Right-wing nationalism is increasing. Marie Le Pen and Geert Wilders are growing in popularity. If that's not a failure of Euro-liberal policies, I don't know what is. I don't think what happened yesterday is great. But portraying the EU experiment (I call it that since it still might fail) as some kind of giant happy family and the UK being the unhappy, ungrateful child is grossly inaccurate. The EU project has been in trouble and under pressure for a while now. I'm 100% convinced this is only the first domino to fall.
  • aioprisan 10y ago
    Sorry, but if your country's economy is not producing anything worth exporting and, you know, selling to others in exchange for money and jobs being created by that growth, then there's nothing the EU or any other union can do for you - or is, for that matter, taking anything away.
    • PopsiclePete 10y ago
      Greece actually was doing ok before the Euro even though they never produced anything of value. Tourism was basically enough. What they had, that they've now lost, is control of their own currency and sovereignty. And if you control your own currency, you can at least inflate your way out of some debt. At least you could do that, yes? And then - boom - your country just became a cheap tourist destination and cash starts flowing in. Now, the Greeks don't even have that. They're basically a collective EU servant class. Portugal is in the same boat. Italy is not too much better. That's your precious EU with a single-currency-under-German-control right there, Bud.
• OJFord 10y ago
  > When ... in one state of the US, you are ... granted [a] lot of fundamental rights and freedoms. In my eyes, the EU was very much about the same thing. That is absolutely what the UK has never wanted from the EU. I would wager a good chunk of the Remain voters would have voted against a 'US of E'.
• andrepd 10y ago
  That last paragraph is the clincher for me. A 60 year old is going to see maybe the next 20 years of long term effects pass them by in their old age. A 20 year old is going to see a lifetime of the consequences of this split, with special emphasis in their youth and entry in the job market and whatnot. Very very sad that the future of today's youth was just put in jeopardy. It crushes me to think of the hardships ahead.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• davidf18 10y ago
  > "A very sad day for everyone in Europe." The unskilled, or partially skilled working class in Britain had to compete with immigrants from poorer EU countries for jobs and the immigrants also drove down wage rates. The leadership of the EU is able to dictate treaties to member countries, but the leadership (unlike the President of the US) is not elected by the people, but rather appointed by elites. In other words, the leadership of the EU had no mandate to govern by the electorate of the EU. This favored policies that favored elites, but not the working class. The rise of Trump and of Sanders was caused by the Republican and Democratic political elites and media elites that ignored the suffering of the working class. Working class in the US has to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs while at the same time having their wages depressed. It is against the law to hire illegal immigrants, but they are hired anyway. Meanwhile firms are exporting jobs to Mexico, China etc. Recently Carrier air conditioners closed a factory in Indiana and moved the jobs to Mexico. There is a video on youtube with the Carrier leadership acting terribly towards the factory workers in Indiana. Only Donald Trump spoke out against Carrier exporting jobs. Trump may not be able to "fix" the problems, but at least he's not a member of the Republican or Democratic elites that simply ignore the plight of the working class. The UK withdrawal from the EU was most about economics for the working class and lack of autonomy for voters. The situation was created by British political and media elite who by and large simply ignored the complaints of the working class. PM Cameron had the hubris to call for the referendum because he that it was impossible that he would lose. The EU leadership and the leadership of individual EU member countries need to start listening more to the citizens, the electorate and less to their clueless elites. They need to take into account the job concerns of the working class in member countries instead of just ignoring them. This is all probably because of a structural problem in the EU that makes it basically not a democratic institution elected by the people. If the EU has any chance of a successful union, they need to ensure that all leadership offices are elected, much as they are in the US.