[mdekkers]

It is totally unrestricted immigration of low-skilled individuals that the government (and it's fair to say the British population) are opposed to.

This may be the case. Brexit is the dumbest solution to that particular problem though.

[jerf]

Had any other solutions been made available, Brexit probably wouldn't be happening.

The EU chose to not make solutions available and stuck it into a "take it or leave it" basket. It seems to me to be a recurring pattern with over-centralized government that they start using more and more of their power this way; you can see it in the US now too, for instance in the way the Trump administration is continuing to saber rattle about either enforcing immigration laws as they choose or cutting off as much Federal funding as they can from cities and states that refuse to comply with their interpretation. It's a very tempting way to exert power, but it makes the system increasingly fragile as you do it, because you eventually get to the point where people start seriously considering and/or triggering the "leave it" option (see also Calexit, for instance; still not very serious but certainly more serious now than it was a year ago).

[jacquesm]

Jerf, you're a smart fellow, this comment is not at your usual level. The EU exists solely to reduce the chances of war, further commerce and to reduce the profile of nation states.

The 'take it or leave it' attitude has to do with the founding principles of the EU, if a club has a founding principle and you do not wish to subscribe to it then by definition you can't be part of the club. Putting the founding principles of the EU on the chopping block to deal with the internals of a single country is not acceptable.

In such a situation the single country then has the option to either resolve their internal conflict or to leave the union.

This has nothing to do with over-centralized government or the Trump administration, it's simply the reason why the EU exists in the first place.

The UK already has a special position within that EU, amplified by virtue of being an island. The illusion that the UK can 'go it alone' is still very strong but I suspect that when the rubber meets the road there will be some pretty harsh and quick realizations that the promised utopia is not going to arrive. The brunt of the impact will land squarely in the demographic that voted 'brexit' so at least there is some justice but it will also be felt elsewhere in the country.

The UK's days as an independent world power were counted in the 60's. Being part of the EU was good for the UK and good for the EU. A UK that will be further diminished when and if the Scots leave the union.

All in all this is a very bad decision made by the UK and the UK alone, to ask the EU to put their founding principles on hold for the UK was going to have a very predictable outcome.

The irony of all this is that now the UK will go into a very uncertain phase the best exit of which is to rejoin the EU at a later date, but then it will be without any privileged position, likely without their own coin and likely with a much worse negotiation position than they had so far.

Please do not point your finger at the EU about this debacle, it belongs solely to the UK and specifically to BJ, Farage et al. If you wish to apportion blame they should be your primary targets, and May you secondary for going further down a road that need not be taken at all.

[CaptainZapp]

  The EU chose to not make solutions available and stuck it into a "take it or leave it" basket.

What do you suggest the EU should have done? Free movement is one of the cornerstones of the EU and pretty much not up for negootiation. This includes associated countries like Norway or Switzerland.

So I'm really curious: What, do you suggest, should the EU have offered?

[jerf]

"pretty much not up for negootiation."

You basically reiterate my point, that it is "take it all or leave it".

The first step to a solution is obvious right from your phrasing: Put it up for a negotiation. Stop viewing this as "take it all or leave it".

Or, alternatively, be ready to deal with "leave it" as an option. Which, I'd observe, the EU legally was, as this is a legal option that has always existed and is now occurring with no bloodshed, which as these things go is still a well-above-average accomplishment. But psychologically the EU was clearly not ready for this; the expectation is still clearly that, like the United States, members may join but not leave.

[kuschku]

> The first step to a solution is obvious right from your phrasing: Put it up for a negotiation. Stop viewing this as "take it all or leave it".

That’s like saying we should put the right to live up for negotiation, as humans don’t need to live anyway.

If you allow free trade without free movement, companies can move all jobs to another country, and your country might end up with no jobs, and all people poor and fucked.

The only way to guarantee fairness in trade is if your citizen can move to wherever the jobs are, too.

This is a constitutional cornerstone of the EU.

[jerf]

Then the EU apparently wrote into its constitutional cornerstone something that was not possible to manifest in the real world, and as a result it is breaking up, at least a little now and possibly still more in the future. Again, at least it is doing so without bloodshed.

The EU has no ontological right to exist. It is not an immutable fact of the universe. It is not rationally or logically valid to reason from "The EU requires this attribute for it to exist as I envision it" to "This attribute must be attainable at a reasonable price." or any variant on that.

I take a historical view on these things. Things are always changing. There exists no polity in history that only grew and never shrank, excepting only those polities that are new enough to not have shrunk yet.

I'm actually sort of becoming something of a secessionist. Not pro-Brexit or pro-Calexit or pro-any-particular-secession, but just generally in favor of the idea that since polities are inevitably going to shrink at some point in the future, it is preferable to make sure that such processes are as easy and as bloodless as possible. People shouldn't need to die by the thousands or millions for something so predictable. I am coming to believe it is a mistake to ever think that one can "permanently" bind a smaller polity into a larger one. And I believe the US has the much greater problem here! The US has no established mechanism for leaving (though a Constitutional amendment could make it possible), and a big ol' Civil War that says it's not possible in the bloodiest possible way. To the extent that we are having similar issues arise in the US, we have no peaceful mechanism for dealing with it.

[barrkel]

The EU is well short of breaking up; that's "fog in channel, continent cut off" territory. It's the UK that's breaking up, and I think you know it.

The north of my island, Ireland, is a particularly interesting question, independent of Scotland, pardon the pun. Certain breeds of criminals get very fat on smuggling.

[barrkel]

Britain didn't take advantage of the tools it had available. Britain could have kicked out people who stayed more than 6 months without a job, for example. But they didn't.

[aembleton]

What would be a better solution?