4 ms·

The entire benefit is depending on how much you value autonomy. I feel like there was no real argument from pragmatics (I mean there was the NHS claims for dupe

The entire benefit is depending on how much you value autonomy. I feel like there was no real argument from pragmatics (I mean there was the NHS claims for dupes) but really it was „what is independence worth to you?” For the lead Brexiteers it’s alpha and omega and no suffering will dissuade them.

petre 5y ago
Yes, for the Scots and Northern Irish too. They value autonomy allright. Does that nean we should go back to city states now?
- strawhatguy 5y ago
  Smaller states do tend to be better behaved. Can’t make as many mistakes.
  - petre 5y ago
    Yes, only Russia, China and the US and to a lesser extent the EU will easily bully them. Just take a look at any of their neighbours. Most of Russia's neighbours aren't its frinds. Same goes for China. Kyrghystan went from being a colony of Russia to becoming a colony of China. Mongolia might end up there as well. Canada (#9) and Mexico (#18) are big states. Cuba, Guatemala or Nicaragua not so much. The EU is not as much a bully rather than a bigger brother, but somehow manages to push Switzerland into submission and would also try it with the UK as well (fishing rights). Serbia and North Macedonia both manage to obtain EU funds through different partnership projects with some hope of acession as a full EU member.
  - cafard 5y ago
    Not if neighboring states are of comparable size.
- roenxi 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League It gets tried from time to time. You didn't make an argument for why it is a bad thing. The biggest atrocities are routinely committed by the biggest countries.
  - petre 5y ago
    It's not bad, just anachronic. That was in the 12th century. Now there are >7bn of people on this planet, and greater challenges, economic or otherwise. Let's just say you'd either want to be banking other more powerful countries' money or gold reserves, like Switzerland, or have some kind of nuclear capability for protection against bullies, like Israel or North Korea do, maybe put on a show once in a while.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      That isn't really a strong argument for why it is necessary and proper for Scottish people to be ruled from London. The idea of local Scottish people governing themselves doesn't seem horrifying. They could team up with England for defence purposes and share an army without the rest of the administrative baggage. If the argument against city states is that they're uncommon, that isn't much of an argument. English global colonialism and hegemony has been pretty common for the last 200 years and it is a stretch to say it is the desirable equilibrium. A globe made up of small city states might be more pleasant to live in. Similarly, "if England doesn't rule you, someone else will!" is ... not a strong argument if they aren't happy with English rule.
      - petre 5y ago
        I see what you mean, however the Scots have their own Parliament and two governments (Scottish and UK). They could transfer some more power from the UK government to Scotland through further negotiations or proclaim independence. The latter however has its disadvantages, as the supposedly newly created Scotland would not be part of any union and then there's also the case of the UK's nuclear weapons controlled by the London government. Thus I personally believe negotiation is the better option, especially now that the London government is in a weakened position due to 'brexit going badly'. https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/devolution/ https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/... I doubt a country teams up with other countries for defence purposes as long as they don't also share the defence costs, the exception here being the US. Of course, this comes at the price of hosting US troops and installations operated by the US on foreign soil and also becoming a potential target to US enemies. This also doesn't quite work if for instance Texas were to secede from the US and then asked for US protection if it got attacked by Mexico. The US would probably occupy Texas and told them to shut up and put up with the US military or the federal government in charge of running the show. What other options does Scotland have, ask France for military protection? Because the EU does not yet have an army.
atoav 5y ago
The thing with autonomy is, that you have to be built to exercise it. If you are an adult impulsively leaving your parents house in a rainy night is a hassle, but you are accurly aware what you are getting yourself into. If you are a kid, you can do the same thing, but you don't know what awaits you, you are not autonomous because you are a playball of the forces you didn't even knew existed. One can now ask themselves whether the UK truly is "more autonomous" now that they merely react to things much bigger players can now force onto them. In my eyes they had more autonomy when they had a seat at the table. I can't recall who it was, but someone compared UK to a teenager who moves into their parents garage and declares themselves independent (and acts surprised when they now have to pay the electrical bill for said garage). Note: I have nothing against autonomy, but it needs to be realistic and respectful. E.g. you cannot tell your spouse that the relationship needs to be more open and then scold her when she starts seeing other people. The realistic take on Brexit always was that there was a lot to loose in practical terms, while the freedoms won are of symbolic nature and can only be seen if you squinch your eyes in just the right way. And this is not what was promised.

petre 5y ago

Yes, for the Scots and Northern Irish too. They value autonomy allright. Does that nean we should go back to city states now?

strawhatguy 5y ago
Smaller states do tend to be better behaved. Can’t make as many mistakes.
- petre 5y ago
  Yes, only Russia, China and the US and to a lesser extent the EU will easily bully them. Just take a look at any of their neighbours. Most of Russia's neighbours aren't its frinds. Same goes for China. Kyrghystan went from being a colony of Russia to becoming a colony of China. Mongolia might end up there as well. Canada (#9) and Mexico (#18) are big states. Cuba, Guatemala or Nicaragua not so much. The EU is not as much a bully rather than a bigger brother, but somehow manages to push Switzerland into submission and would also try it with the UK as well (fishing rights). Serbia and North Macedonia both manage to obtain EU funds through different partnership projects with some hope of acession as a full EU member.
- cafard 5y ago
  Not if neighboring states are of comparable size.
roenxi 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League It gets tried from time to time. You didn't make an argument for why it is a bad thing. The biggest atrocities are routinely committed by the biggest countries.
- petre 5y ago
  It's not bad, just anachronic. That was in the 12th century. Now there are >7bn of people on this planet, and greater challenges, economic or otherwise. Let's just say you'd either want to be banking other more powerful countries' money or gold reserves, like Switzerland, or have some kind of nuclear capability for protection against bullies, like Israel or North Korea do, maybe put on a show once in a while.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    That isn't really a strong argument for why it is necessary and proper for Scottish people to be ruled from London. The idea of local Scottish people governing themselves doesn't seem horrifying. They could team up with England for defence purposes and share an army without the rest of the administrative baggage. If the argument against city states is that they're uncommon, that isn't much of an argument. English global colonialism and hegemony has been pretty common for the last 200 years and it is a stretch to say it is the desirable equilibrium. A globe made up of small city states might be more pleasant to live in. Similarly, "if England doesn't rule you, someone else will!" is ... not a strong argument if they aren't happy with English rule.
    - petre 5y ago
      I see what you mean, however the Scots have their own Parliament and two governments (Scottish and UK). They could transfer some more power from the UK government to Scotland through further negotiations or proclaim independence. The latter however has its disadvantages, as the supposedly newly created Scotland would not be part of any union and then there's also the case of the UK's nuclear weapons controlled by the London government. Thus I personally believe negotiation is the better option, especially now that the London government is in a weakened position due to 'brexit going badly'. https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/devolution/ https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.uk/scotland-in-the-uk/... I doubt a country teams up with other countries for defence purposes as long as they don't also share the defence costs, the exception here being the US. Of course, this comes at the price of hosting US troops and installations operated by the US on foreign soil and also becoming a potential target to US enemies. This also doesn't quite work if for instance Texas were to secede from the US and then asked for US protection if it got attacked by Mexico. The US would probably occupy Texas and told them to shut up and put up with the US military or the federal government in charge of running the show. What other options does Scotland have, ask France for military protection? Because the EU does not yet have an army.

atoav 5y ago

The thing with autonomy is, that you have to be built to exercise it. If you are an adult impulsively leaving your parents house in a rainy night is a hassle, but you are accurly aware what you are getting yourself into. If you are a kid, you can do the same thing, but you don't know what awaits you, you are not autonomous because you are a playball of the forces you didn't even knew existed. One can now ask themselves whether the UK truly is "more autonomous" now that they merely react to things much bigger players can now force onto them. In my eyes they had more autonomy when they had a seat at the table. I can't recall who it was, but someone compared UK to a teenager who moves into their parents garage and declares themselves independent (and acts surprised when they now have to pay the electrical bill for said garage). Note: I have nothing against autonomy, but it needs to be realistic and respectful. E.g. you cannot tell your spouse that the relationship needs to be more open and then scold her when she starts seeing other people. The realistic take on Brexit always was that there was a lot to loose in practical terms, while the freedoms won are of symbolic nature and can only be seen if you squinch your eyes in just the right way. And this is not what was promised.