[objectivistbrit]

I'm pro-economic liberty and voted for Brexit. Every analysis like this has tunnel vision: yes, the free trade opened up by the EU brought prosperity to an entire continent. Had we been voting for the 1970s era EEC, I'd have gladly voted Remain.

But in 40 years the EEC has evolved into the EU, with a constitution, a parliament, a president, a national anthem, a flag, supreme law-making powers and a currency.

Maybe the Merckel anti-integration faction will remain dominant and they'll stop there. Given the Juncker faction pushes further integration as the solution to every crisis, and given the EU is in constant crisis, the next 10 years should be interesting.

The EU is a world-historical experiment in social democracy - free markets + state regulation + the welfare state. The consensus is that this system represents the current pinnacle of political evolution. (Both 'progressive' Scandinavia and 'capitalist' America implement variants of it). An alternative perspective is that it's simply a compromise system which emerged after WWII and is already showing severe cracks.

Maybe the EU will create prosperity by such actions as forcing Google to break up, throwing state money at impoverished regions, etc. Maybe the populations of France, Spain, Italy et al will accept that they can't fund welfare states by borrowing in perpetuity and stop voting in radical left-wing governments. Maybe they'll find an alternative solution to the ever growing debt-burden, over Piketty's proposal for seizing 15% of all bank accounts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_long-term_solutions...

I have no idea. I would like to see pro-EU articles which actually address these issues, and not simply assume that the only reason to be against the EU is that you're an ignorant racist, deluded by propaganda and lies.

[TelmoMenezes]

> Had we been voting for the 1970s era EEC, I'd have gladly voted Remain.

The UK was not a signatory of any relevant treaty post-EEC. It opted out of the Schengen Area, of the Euro zone and even of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The idea that the UK was being controlled by a distant bureaucracy in Brussels is one of the many lies told by tabloids. The EU is far from perfect, but the UK was never in it in any meaningful sense. It was mostly being oppressed by tomato size regulations and things of that sort. Ironically, they will probably still have to comply to all that if they wish to maintain trade agreements with Europe. This entire thing was based on lies and disgust at "experts". And a good dose of xenophobia.

I have lived in the UK and I have never seen a EU flag being flown anywhere (unlike what you see in any other EU country). It was always more likely to see an American of Commonwealth-country flag than an EU one.

There is no EU constitution, by the way. It was rejected by referendum in several member states and the project died.

The UK already enjoyed access to EU markets while giving almost nothing in return to the common project. In fact, many people in Europe felt that the UK was participating mostly to prevent further integration. Even British comedy thought so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

I think younger people see things differently, are less xenophobic and less attached to nationalist ideas, borders and walls. The next generation might have brought real participation of the UK in the EU (i.e. real skin in the game). Unfortunately, Baby Boomers still had another social contract to wipe their asses with before they checked out. So here we are.

[misja111]

> There is no EU constitution, by the way. It was rejected by referendum in several member states and the project died.

It's true the EU constitution was rejected, but the project didn't die: it was replaced by the treaty of Lisbon which contained most of the changes which were in the proposal for the EU constitution. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu...

The fact that those changes were brought back in via the back door created even more distrust in the political leaders and the EU than before, in particular in those countries where the EU constitution was rejected in referendums.

[mpeg]

> Maybe the populations of France, Spain, Italy et al will accept that they can't fund welfare states by borrowing in perpetuity and stop voting in radical left-wing governments.

Spain has never had a left-wing government, let alone radical left. Since democracy, we have had 4 centre-right legislatures and 6 centre-left, last of which was in 2008, with the current election deadlock still resulting in a majority of centre-right votes.

[objectivistbrit]

Thanks for the correction. I was researching the different political parties of Eurozone countries yesterday and it's difficult keeping track of whether a particular 'People's Party' is on the left or right.

I overstated that point but there certainly seems to be a strong left-wing base in every centre-left coalition in Southern Europe. And the centre-right coalitions follow a pragmatic mix of nationalism, traditionalism and capitalism. I.e., neither side has a strong will to cut state spending. Liberalism seems to be more a Protestant northern Europe thing.

[AnonymousPlanet]

> The EU is a world-historical experiment in social democracy - free markets + state regulation + the welfare state. The consensus is that this system represents the current pinnacle of political evolution.

Where does the EU provide the means for a welfare state? Do jobless people get money from the EU? Any country can handle its own version of welfare state. There is no mandate from the EU.

The perception is usually actually the other way round: many people think the EU caters too much to the multinationals and bends over backwards to let the "turbo capitalists" have their way with the little people. At least that is what I hear from pretty much everyone I know in the south of Europe, the left in France and Germany, and UKIP supporters in the UK (think of the TTIP discussions). So which is it now? A socialist welfare state or bureaucrats pleasing bankers and corporations?

[gambiting]

It's the "quantum immigrant" problem - where simultaneously immigrants steal all jobs and at the same time sit at home and claim all the benefits.

[objectivistbrit]

I should have been clearer: every country in the EU has a welfare state, and since the more fiscally responsible countries bankroll the less responsible, they're indirectly supporting welfare recipients in those countries. Plus direct support via the EU's many handout programmes (CAP, etc).

In absolute terms, the amounts involved aren't huge right now, but this is a problem that will grow worse with time as a) most European countries have aging populations and face a pensions timebomb and b ) cutting welfare spending is politically very difficult.

Some voices in the EU have been pushing for a welfare and pensions union. It's impossible to predict if this will actually happen, but it shows that many people want to head in that direction.

The EU is indeed more pro-market than many member nations. This is where the left/right axis just confuses the debate. 'Market-friendly social democracy' is the most accurate term for the system promoted by the EU (and the linked NYT article, and most educated elites): a system with 1) free enterprise 2) state regulation of industry 3) state management of the economy and currency and 4) a welfare state.

It's a compromise system which appears capitalistic (and is denounced as neoliberal) but the underlying theory is socialist (a descendant of the gradualist theories promoted by most anti-communist socialists of past generations). History will tell whether it's sustainable.

[return0]

You make it sound as if the UK was not in the EU all these years. You had bargaining and Veto powers to steer the EU to your direction, but i can't remember when you did so. Probably that's the reason why most EU citizens are indifferently watching you leave.

[dageshi]

I believe the UK tried very hard to avoid the creation of the euro but when it became apparant that it was going to happen anyway it got itself an opt out. I think after that the UK largely disengaged because the common view was the currency couldn't succeed without a much higher level of political integration than was being proposed at the time and the British public simply wasn't interested.

So I think you're incorrect, the UK did try but failed to steer the EU in its direction because it was outvoted.

[return0]

Yep , but that was 20+ years ago (plus apparently the UK succeeded in steering the EU as separate from the eurozone; that's why it's not rallying countries NOT to join the euro ). The Brexit debate was not really about euro, however, it was all about immigration.

[dageshi]

And why is there such high immigration to the UK from the EU? Perhaps because numerous economies within the EU continue to suffer with high unemployment, especially high youth unemployment which has forced their citizens to move to more functional economies, the UK being one.

If the euro crisis had not happened or at the very least had been solved within some reasonable timeframe then I doubt we would have had an EU referendum in the UK. The EU looked and still looks incompetent in its handling of the issue which in very large part lead to the rise in UKIP popularity which ultimately created the pressure for a referendum.

[pjc50]

The UK has essentially opted out of everything it could, but with one big exception: not delaying free movement for the accession of Poland, Bulgaria and Romania.

Now that anger has been roused about immigration, a substantial part of the Brexit vote wants to end free movement altogether, which is simply not achievable in the EU.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Maybe the populations of France, Spain, Italy et al will accept that they can't fund welfare states by borrowing in perpetuity and stop voting in radical left-wing governments."

I agree with a lot of what you said, apart from this statement.

There are problems with borrowing in a system based on debt, particularly if the interest on that debt is in the hands of profit-motivated enterprises. However, that is not the only way of funding public spending. It's possible to shift to a debt-free money system where new money reaches the system through government spending. That way there's no debt to pay back, and the level of public spending would only need to be limited by a need to keep a manageable rate of inflation.

In other words, whilst I agree there are problems with how public spending is funded right now, the problem isn't the radical left per se, as there are ways of running a fiscally responsible 'radical left' government.

[gambiting]

>>stop voting in radical left-wing government

I'd like to point out that nearly every government in EU is right-wing at the moment. The UK government that is apparently giving so many benefits away and letting so many immigrants in was right-wing for quite a while now, so I don't think it's the "radical left-wing" which is the problem here.

And the reason why these issues as you called them are not being addressed is that maybe not everyone sees them as issues? I'd love to live long enough to see creation of United States of Europe, where my own nationality was just replaced with one EU passport - but a lot of people are vehemently against that, thinking that national identities matter in 2016.

[madaxe_again]

What's wrong with integration? You clearly think it's bad but don't say why.

Ah, downvote me for replying with a question. Mature. I guess you don't have a reason that doesn't boil down to "I don't want foreigners next door"?

[objectivistbrit]

Downvote wasn't mine. I upvoted you to cancel it out. But thanks for dishonestly implying I'm racist (thereby proving my point), when my entire comment was on economic issues.

By integration I mean political integration. I think very large states have scale problems, large democracies in particular. (Look at India or the US). You either end up with populist parties who need to appeal to the lowest common denominator of hundreds of millions of people, or technocratic elites who ignore the people. The EU has 500 million citizens from 27 ancient nations, with wildly different cultures and economies. There's no way you can fuse them into one giant country, and the inevitable outcome is fuelling nationalism and populism centred around anti-EU resentment.

[ghaff]

Yes. It's certainly the case that many Brexiter voters voted that way for reasons that bordered on or went over the line to be racist--not that a desire to place controls on immigration is inherently racist.

That said, if I had been voting (I'm a US citizen) I would almost certainly have voted remain in part because pulling out of the existing union is going to be a mess. And because the UK is already outside of important parts of EU-related structure such as the Euro. But I would have done so in spite of many of the aspirations to create a European super-state that many in Brussels share.

[madaxe_again]

Sorry, it just pissed me off almightily that I got downmodded for asking a question, so went for plan b: bait.

Those "ancient nations" are mostly less than a century old. Europe has been a superstate several times previously, although it admittedly hasn't lasted under political or religious hegemony.

[pjc50]

The age of nations is quite a key difference in how things are seen from the UK (300 years old, with England claiming 800 years of constitutional monarchy with only one interruption) vs the rest of Europe, much of which wasn't in its current form or system of government in 1950.

To Europe, the EU represents stability. To the UK, it represents change.

[madaxe_again]

Only one interruption? I assume you refer to the interregnum - but there were plenty of violent successions, imports of royalty from overseas to continue the crown, and changes in governance so fundamental it's hard to view it as the same state.

I mean, you don't consider yourself French, do you? If you view yourself as being a member of that "continuous" state, you should, for by that measure we are Normans.

[pjc50]

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, it's tradition :) This kind of objection is like pointing out that the Royal family are German in origin and Prince Philip is an immigrant by marriage; it's true, but not in any way relevant to the kind of people who regard the monarchy as important.

All nations have a chunk of mythos holding them together. Brexit seems to be popular among people who think that Churchill's History of the English-Speaking Peoples is good history.