5 ms·

(Not a European, so appropriate caveats apply.) > I am an EU nerd. As a young civil servant, I was involved in negotiating the Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon trea

(Not a European, so appropriate caveats apply.) > I am an EU nerd. As a young civil servant, I was involved in negotiating the Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon treaties. I have always been fascinated by enlargement and institutional reform. I am an advocate of both widening and deepening. I wrote my PhD on flexible integration If some ordinary citizens of Italy, Poland, Spain, etc. were calling out for "widening and deepening" I might be more impressed. Especially if the citizens of the UK hadn't explicitly voted to leave. >This time, there is no choice. Indecision will lead to frustration and instability. There is no space for petty, low-level tinkering or domestic politics. Democracy... it's SO messy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kmonsen 4y ago
I agree with him that it would be the best way forward (and as a Norwegian I think Norway should join). But it seem pretty clear this is not what people want at this time, so equally clearly it is not the right thing to do as democratic countries. Trying to influence opinions is OK, forcing treaties on us is not OK. In my opinion. EU can start by building trust and transparency and perhaps look inward instead at blaming people for not trusting them.
sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago
> If some ordinary citizens of Italy, Poland, Spain, etc. were calling out for "widening and deepening" I might be more impressed. Especially if the citizens of the UK hadn't explicitly voted to leave. Ok, I'm here then. Let me know if you have questions for me?
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
> If some ordinary citizens of Italy, Poland, Spain, etc. were calling out for "widening and deepening" I might be more impressed. Poland is an extremely pro-EU country, the support for the EU reaches 94% in large cities and 88% in the rest of the country. And Poles are very much in favor of these poorer countries joining the EU in one way or another, because everybody knows forming ties with Russia is apparently cheap, but there is always a price to pay at the end. [0] https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/majority-of-poles-want-poland-to-stay-in-eu---poll-24695 https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/majority-of-poles-want-...
skissane 4y ago
> Especially if the citizens of the UK hadn't explicitly voted to leave. By a rather narrow margin – a less than 4% margin of victory, it could have very easily gone the other way. And, the way the Brexit vote itself was structured leaves much to be desired. Many other countries have protections against constitutional-level issues being decided by a bare national majority. In spite of the UK's (unusual) lack of a codified national constitution, EU membership is undoubtedly a constitutional-level issue – indeed, many EU member states refer to their EU membership in their national constitutions. In the US, a bare national majority is insufficient to amend the national constitution – instead, it requires 75% of states to approve (usually by vote of their state legislature, with state ratifying conventions as an alternative procedure which has only once been used). In Canada, most major constitutional amendments require approval by two-thirds of provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of Canada's population. Similarly, in Australia, to pass a constitutional amendment requires a referendum with a double majority – a majority nation-wide, and a majority in a majority of states. If the UK had adopted an Australia-style approach to the Brexit referendum, "Leave" would have required not just a national majority, but also a majority in three out of the four constituent countries – a hurdle it failed to meet (England and Wales both voted to "Leave", but "Remain" won in Scotland and Northern Ireland). Given the lopsided-nature of the UK – England has over 80% of the population – you'd think protection for the smaller national constituents would be even more pressing than it is in Australia, Canada or the US – but that idea never seemed to occur to the Brexit referendum's architects.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  Maybe they should have changed the rules before the game was played. Otherwise, it sounds like "hey, you plebs, you're going to keep voting until you get it right."
  - skissane 4y ago
    The UK has long had a dire need for constitutional reform–especially, some entrenched protections against the built-in possibility that any sufficiently large English majority can lord it over the other three constituent countries. Maybe they should have addressed that far more fundamental issue first, before holding a referendum on EU membership? The failure to do so has likely hastened the UK's own demise – the experience of being outvoted on the Brexit gave a big boost to pro-independence sentiment in Scotland, and created a pragmatic case for Irish reunification which did not exist before (and stands a chance of eventually winning over even many who are culturally predisposed to oppose the idea.) While I think both outcomes are still many years away (especially in the case of Northern Ireland), it seems likely they'll be with us much earlier than they would have in a timeline in which the Brexit referendum had gone differently.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kmonsen 4y ago

I agree with him that it would be the best way forward (and as a Norwegian I think Norway should join). But it seem pretty clear this is not what people want at this time, so equally clearly it is not the right thing to do as democratic countries. Trying to influence opinions is OK, forcing treaties on us is not OK. In my opinion. EU can start by building trust and transparency and perhaps look inward instead at blaming people for not trusting them.

sdfhdhjdw3 4y ago

> If some ordinary citizens of Italy, Poland, Spain, etc. were calling out for "widening and deepening" I might be more impressed. Especially if the citizens of the UK hadn't explicitly voted to leave. Ok, I'm here then. Let me know if you have questions for me?

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

> If some ordinary citizens of Italy, Poland, Spain, etc. were calling out for "widening and deepening" I might be more impressed. Poland is an extremely pro-EU country, the support for the EU reaches 94% in large cities and 88% in the rest of the country. And Poles are very much in favor of these poorer countries joining the EU in one way or another, because everybody knows forming ties with Russia is apparently cheap, but there is always a price to pay at the end. [0] https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/majority-of-poles-want-poland-to-stay-in-eu---poll-24695 https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/majority-of-poles-want-...

skissane 4y ago

> Especially if the citizens of the UK hadn't explicitly voted to leave. By a rather narrow margin – a less than 4% margin of victory, it could have very easily gone the other way. And, the way the Brexit vote itself was structured leaves much to be desired. Many other countries have protections against constitutional-level issues being decided by a bare national majority. In spite of the UK's (unusual) lack of a codified national constitution, EU membership is undoubtedly a constitutional-level issue – indeed, many EU member states refer to their EU membership in their national constitutions. In the US, a bare national majority is insufficient to amend the national constitution – instead, it requires 75% of states to approve (usually by vote of their state legislature, with state ratifying conventions as an alternative procedure which has only once been used). In Canada, most major constitutional amendments require approval by two-thirds of provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of Canada's population. Similarly, in Australia, to pass a constitutional amendment requires a referendum with a double majority – a majority nation-wide, and a majority in a majority of states. If the UK had adopted an Australia-style approach to the Brexit referendum, "Leave" would have required not just a national majority, but also a majority in three out of the four constituent countries – a hurdle it failed to meet (England and Wales both voted to "Leave", but "Remain" won in Scotland and Northern Ireland). Given the lopsided-nature of the UK – England has over 80% of the population – you'd think protection for the smaller national constituents would be even more pressing than it is in Australia, Canada or the US – but that idea never seemed to occur to the Brexit referendum's architects.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
Maybe they should have changed the rules before the game was played. Otherwise, it sounds like "hey, you plebs, you're going to keep voting until you get it right."
- skissane 4y ago
  The UK has long had a dire need for constitutional reform–especially, some entrenched protections against the built-in possibility that any sufficiently large English majority can lord it over the other three constituent countries. Maybe they should have addressed that far more fundamental issue first, before holding a referendum on EU membership? The failure to do so has likely hastened the UK's own demise – the experience of being outvoted on the Brexit gave a big boost to pro-independence sentiment in Scotland, and created a pragmatic case for Irish reunification which did not exist before (and stands a chance of eventually winning over even many who are culturally predisposed to oppose the idea.) While I think both outcomes are still many years away (especially in the case of Northern Ireland), it seems likely they'll be with us much earlier than they would have in a timeline in which the Brexit referendum had gone differently.