4 ms·

If true, would this not point towards avoiding such unions in the future?

kaybe 7y ago
This close interconnection of countries is one of the main points and goals of the EU. We should always remember why it was made, coming out of two horrible wars and after hundreds of years of smaller wars - not (only) to make life a little easier, not to redistribute money and not to boost economies, but to make wars impossible as much as can be done by interweaving their economies and citizens. In regards to this point, project EU has been highly successful. We're now far enough removed from these wars and most witnesses dead that we have to actively work on keeping the memory and reason alive. Our thoughts and dreams seem to become smaller somehow, lately. I hope it will not take another massive disaster to change that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ealexhudson 7y ago
No, it just points to a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense) and b. The public having the patience to understand 40+ years of cooperation can't be rolled back in a matter of months.
- throwaway122379 7y ago
  The 2 year window and article 50 was an addition from UK ironically Also they did not have to lodge the article 50 letter when they did, they could have spent years preparing and figuring out what it is exactly they want to accomplish. Finally the EU gave an extension twice now for them to figure out what they want, instead of doing that UK govt doubled down on stupid.
  - Asooka 7y ago
    > UK govt doubled down on stupid Seeing all that happen, I'm convinced we should abolish voting. Instead of voting for prime minister, etc. they should be chosen at random from the general population the same way we do jury duty. Monte Carlo government. It can't be any worse than the current government and since it's random selection you can't have the process corrupted.
    - martin8412 7y ago
      The UK does not vote on the PM.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    If the UK wants more time, they should just revoke article 50 and then activate it again later on. I don't understand this whole "will the EU grant an extension?" business.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      The Brexiteers are very aware that their win was narrow and they will never be given another chance. If it's revoked it will stay dead.
    - martin8412 7y ago
      They can't just revoke article 50 to only reenact it later on. A retraction of article 50 would have to be in good faith. A European court came to that conclusion.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >"a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense)" For comedy reasons, Article 50 was actually written for the EU, by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a cross bench peer in the UK's House of Lords. This was after the UK insisted the EU adopt something draconian, to dissuade new members from screwing the EU around.
bigbaguette 7y ago
You could just not cooperate with anyone if you're afraid of what happens when you decide unilaterally to stop cooperating.
thih9 7y ago
I don’t see why, could you elaborate? To me it could just as well point towards avoiding leaving such unions. Or towards not doing it without a greater majority / more planning / more time / etc.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Hard argument to make from either the United States, or the United Kingdom.

This close interconnection of countries is one of the main points and goals of the EU. We should always remember why it was made, coming out of two horrible wars and after hundreds of years of smaller wars - not (only) to make life a little easier, not to redistribute money and not to boost economies, but to make wars impossible as much as can be done by interweaving their economies and citizens. In regards to this point, project EU has been highly successful. We're now far enough removed from these wars and most witnesses dead that we have to actively work on keeping the memory and reason alive. Our thoughts and dreams seem to become smaller somehow, lately. I hope it will not take another massive disaster to change that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ealexhudson 7y ago

No, it just points to a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense) and b. The public having the patience to understand 40+ years of cooperation can't be rolled back in a matter of months.

throwaway122379 7y ago
The 2 year window and article 50 was an addition from UK ironically Also they did not have to lodge the article 50 letter when they did, they could have spent years preparing and figuring out what it is exactly they want to accomplish. Finally the EU gave an extension twice now for them to figure out what they want, instead of doing that UK govt doubled down on stupid.
- Asooka 7y ago
  > UK govt doubled down on stupid Seeing all that happen, I'm convinced we should abolish voting. Instead of voting for prime minister, etc. they should be chosen at random from the general population the same way we do jury duty. Monte Carlo government. It can't be any worse than the current government and since it's random selection you can't have the process corrupted.
  - martin8412 7y ago
    The UK does not vote on the PM.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  If the UK wants more time, they should just revoke article 50 and then activate it again later on. I don't understand this whole "will the EU grant an extension?" business.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The Brexiteers are very aware that their win was narrow and they will never be given another chance. If it's revoked it will stay dead.
  - martin8412 7y ago
    They can't just revoke article 50 to only reenact it later on. A retraction of article 50 would have to be in good faith. A European court came to that conclusion.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>"a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two years makes no sense)" For comedy reasons, Article 50 was actually written for the EU, by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a cross bench peer in the UK's House of Lords. This was after the UK insisted the EU adopt something draconian, to dissuade new members from screwing the EU around.

bigbaguette 7y ago

You could just not cooperate with anyone if you're afraid of what happens when you decide unilaterally to stop cooperating.

thih9 7y ago

I don’t see why, could you elaborate? To me it could just as well point towards avoiding leaving such unions. Or towards not doing it without a greater majority / more planning / more time / etc.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Hard argument to make from either the United States, or the United Kingdom.