I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You seem the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referundum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one of decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow some better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want the pesky reality to go away, to stick the fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Any chance of referring me to the statements I have made that fit in with your generic comments - highlighted - about those who voted Brexit?
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
I wasn't aiming this comment at you particularly, though as have others have said, the EU isn't fundamentally flawed by any definition of that term I know, it simply needs to develop and evolve to resolve the obvious issues it has.
As has been said on here quite a few times, you are easily the most coherent of the pro-brexit commentators, but even you must admit that isn't the case of many, if not the vast majority of brexit supporters. If you don't feel my characterisation above fits you at all (which it doesn't seem to) then you probably need to question why so many you share your political views with do fit that stereotype.
But @Stonemuse...would you say the concept of the NHS is 'fundamentally flawed'? I believe not. Hardly any normal Brits want to change it, conceptually.
Yet it has huge, some might say intractable problems. It's always been on the political agenda hasn't it? And all kinds of people have various prescriptions for fixing it. Meantime people working in the frontline of it despair of the inaction.
But, fundamentally flawed? I don't think so.
There is no evidence either that the majority of citizens of the EU 27 think the EU is "fundamentally flawed" either. Not in France, not in Sweden, not in Poland. They think it's got some big problems for sure. "Fundamentally flawed" means that the whole design of the thing dooms it to failure. It hasn't failed. I just need to look out of my office window to see the evidence of that.
You might be on slightly less dodgy grounds if you use that phrase in respect of the euro, but that is not what you are referring to.
Unfortunately all I can do here is bore you by repeating former statements.
I am of the opinion that, in its current state, it is fundamentally flawed and will fail. It is why I voted leave.
In order for the EU to work as it is currently structured, it needs to move towards federality ... as much as I dislike him, Verhofstadt is correct about this.
It is why I support a multi track approach which, I believe, will solve the problems. But this requires treaty change ... which, in my humble opinion, supports the fact that the existing treaty is flawed.
Ultimately it all depends on whether or not you think the EU can continue as it is and achieve what it needs to do.
I just don’t believe that ... but I believe it can if it changes.
Would all 28 nations be better off if it never existed?
Nope ... but that doesn’t mean it should be resistant to the change which is required.
Below are not my words but they reflect my thoughts:
“If the European Union carries on with business as usual, there is little hope for an improvement. That is why the European Union needs to be radically reinvented. The top-down initiative started by Jean Monnet had carried the process of integration a long way, but it has lost its momentum. Now we need a collaborative effort that combines the top-down approach of the European institutions with the bottom-up initiatives that are necessary to engage the electorate.”
Just came across the below comments from George Soros - not that he is someone I particularly admire but he is no fool.
“The European Union must resist temptation to punish Britain and approach the negotiations in a constructive spirit. It should use Brexit as a catalyst for introducing far-reaching reforms. The divorce will be a long process taking as long as five years. Five years seems like eternity in politics, especially in revolutionary times like the present. During that time, the European Union could transform itself into an organization that other countries like Britain would want to join. If that happened, the two sides may want to be reunited even before the divorce is completed. That would be a wonderful outcome, worth striving for. This seems practically inconceivable right now, but in reality it is quite attainable. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Within five years it has to hold another general election and the next parliament may vote to be reunited with Europe. Such a Europe would differ from the current arrangements in two key respects. First, it would clearly distinguish between the European Union and the Eurozone. Second, it would recognize that the euro has many unsolved problems and they must not be allowed to destroy the European Union.”
Before I do my thing, I see that by coincidence Gideon Rachman in the FT has decided to write an excellent article about the CL Brexit thread. As its behind a paywall, I paste the whole thing.
Brexit has had the unfortunate effect of turning British political analysts into football fans. The issue is so divisive that the two camps — Leave and Remain — are no longer capable of dispassionate analysis. Instead, they react to news from Europe like football supporters; cheering anything that seems to confirm their prejudices — and dismissing any discordant information, with the partisan certainty of a fan disputing an offside call against his team.
The truth is more nuanced and more interesting. After a lousy half decade, the EU has had a very good year. Fears of a populist surge were beaten back in France and the Netherlands in 2017.
In Emmanuel Macron, the French president, the EU has found a new and charismatic champion. Economic growth is reviving — undermining the Leavers’ claim that being a member of the EU is liked “being shackled to a corpse”.
Leavers are so desperate for confirmation that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe
But it is also true that the long-term questions facing the European project have not been answered. The pro-EU centre is shrinking and political developments that would once have seemed shocking are now greeted with a shrug.
A decade ago, the powers-that-be in Brussels regarded Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, as a dangerous populist and Eurosceptic. But the rise of more radical populists is now so pronounced that the EU is left hoping that Mr Berlusconi will emerge as the kingmaker, after next month’s Italian election. In 2000, the presence of the nationalist Freedom party in the Austrian government was shocking enough to provoke the rest of the EU to shun the country. But when the Freedom party rejoined the government in Vienna a few months ago, there was little reaction from Brussels.
This lack of comment reflects the fact that the EU now faces even more troubling political challenges in central Europe — where both the Hungarian and Polish governments have moved in an increasingly illiberal direction. And even if the “grand coalition” goes through in Germany, the political centre is likely to continue to shrink — as the venerable, centre-left Social Democrat party loses support to the far-right and the far-left.
The danger for Britain’s Remainers, (and I am one of them), is that they are so determined to prove the idiocy of leaving the EU, that they endorse a one-sided narrative, in which everything is rosy in the Brussels garden. When bad news from Europe comes along — and there will be plenty — Remainers will be in danger of looking loftily out of touch.
Leavers have the opposite problem. Their difficulty is being the “boy who cries wolf” — forever proclaiming the imminent collapse of the EU, and then looking petulant and dishonest when the much-anticipated crisis fizzles
The Brexit process is also underlining another important point — the extent to which the EU underpins what businesses and ordinary citizens now regard as normal life in Europe. Breaking up the EU — by reimposing border controls and tariffs and restrictions on freedom of movement — would have a disastrous effect on the operations of businesses and a hugely disruptive impact on the lives of millions of people.
Ideology aside, Brexit is illustrating that the EU now provides the framework of laws and regulations that keep goods and people moving. The EU undoubtedly faces serious problems and — after a good patch — these may worsen again. But as long as the single market exists and the EU hangs together, the UK will still clearly suffer economically from leaving.
And then there is a moral question, as well as a practical one. Britain’s Leavers are so desperate for confirmation of their view that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe; tacitly supporting every nationalist movement, from Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France to Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in Hungary.
In that sense, the current problems of the EU actually support the case for remaining — not leaving. When faced with problems such as supporting liberal values in Hungary, dealing with the refugee crisis or preserving financial stability in Europe, there is no substitute for the EU. For all its flaws, it is the only real mechanism for trying to find solutions to pan-European problems that are legal, humane and equitable, and that prevent Europe sliding backwards into beggar-thy-neighbour nationalistic antagonisms. Britain should be part of the effort to find those solutions. Instead, through Brexit, it has become part of the problem.
You might want to read the two articles above and below it in the paper edition, by Janan Ganesh and John Thornhill, which both broadly make the point, from a Remain point of view by the way, that economic solutions are insufficient to satisfy people. The EU's future does not depend on its economic successes, but on its ability to solve what one of the writers refers to as the existential question. The revolt against the EU, across Europe, is broadly based on a sense that the European elites have lost the ability to maintain the existential security that people crave. This is as much a cultural as an economic question which the bureaucratic, technocratic elite seems incapable of addressing.
Macron is 100% aware of it, as he made clear in the recent interview he gave. You didn't notice because you fastened in on his remark that a referendum in a France might produce the same result as ours, ignoring both the context of what he said ( in a second language) and the rest of his interview.
Quite patently, my own humbly presented prescriptions for change in the EU are not solely economic. And however much you may wish it, there is no sign of a broad based movement in Europe that says "look at those plucky Brits, we should do that too" . There are unsavoury gatherings of extreme right wing groups from across Europe, often involving Farage or "Tommy Robinson", which rail against the EU, Muslims, gays and quinoa, but you don't have anything in common with them, do you? ( pace the penultimate para. of Rachmann's article)
In Germany the far right AFD are in the point of overtaking the Europhile SPD and in Italy the EU is hoping Berlusconi of all people can keep out the anti-EU parties. You do not have to agree with any of these guys to recognise, as Rachman does, that pro EU forces are shrinking-not expanding. The technocratic appeal of the EU is waning, god knows what will take its place but it cannot recover its momentum by denying what is happening across Europe or by name calling its opponents-Hillary did that in the US and look how that turned out.
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
Not just me that thinks that. I can give numerous references but will rely on the below, included in the excellent ‘Relaunching the EU’ paper that has been mentioned previously.
“The EU needs to become more flexible, so that its members need not sign up to all the same policies. The EU’s institutions have long opposed this principle, on the grounds that too much ‘variable geometry’ could boost ‘inter-governmentalism’ and undermine their own position. They have subscribed to the orthodoxy that almost all EU members will ultimately join the euro and the Schengen area. However, Britain’s vote to leave has helped some policy-makers to recognise that in an EU of 27 members, which have very different objectives, not everybody will be willing to sign up to everything. Indeed, some projects – such as co-operation on defence or a European Public Prosecutor – may work better with a smaller number of committed countries involved."
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The institions you name are inter-governmental, the EU is supranational and exists to take away national sovereignty-that is one big difference.
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The institions you name are inter-governmental, the EU is supranational and exists to take away national sovereignty-that is one big difference.
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The institions you name are inter-governmental, the EU is supranational and exists to take away national sovereignty-that is one big difference.
No it doesn't, stop talking utter shit.
So you think it will delegate its powers back to the nation states at some point?
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The institions you name are inter-governmental, the EU is supranational and exists to take away national sovereignty-that is one big difference.
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The institions you name are inter-governmental, the EU is supranational and exists to take away national sovereignty-that is one big difference.
No it doesn't, stop talking utter shit.
So you think it will delegate its powers back to the nation states at some point?
Nations have always retained sovereignty and if they don't like the rules they can always leave. What you're suggesting is that powers have irrevocably been forced away from nations without their consent, which is absolutely false and much like your bilge about elites and democracy is yet more cretinous nonsense.
I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You seem the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referundum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one of decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow some better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want the pesky reality to go away, to stick the fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Any chance of referring me to the statements I have made that fit in with your generic comments - highlighted - about those who voted Brexit?
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
I wasn't aiming this comment at you particularly, though as have others have said, the EU isn't fundamentally flawed by any definition of that term I know, it simply needs to develop and evolve to resolve the obvious issues it has.
As has been said on here quite a few times, you are easily the most coherent of the pro-brexit commentators, but even you must admit that isn't the case of many, if not the vast majority of brexit supporters. If you don't feel my characterisation above fits you at all (which it doesn't seem to) then you probably need to question why so many you share your political views with do fit that stereotype.
Do you like everything about the EU and support all the bureaucrats that work there?
Probably not - but you are happy to vote remain and attempt to effect change from within.
I most definitely do not like a number of those in prominent leave positions ... however I will not relinquish my beliefs because of that.
There is a way forward ... which I have outlined ... so I will put up with the nasty smells around me in order to push for that aim.
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The institions you name are inter-governmental, the EU is supranational and exists to take away national sovereignty-that is one big difference.
No it doesn't, stop talking utter shit.
So you think it will delegate its powers back to the nation states at some point?
Nations have always retained sovereignty and if they don't like the rules they can always leave. What you're suggesting is that powers have irrevocably been forced away from nations without their consent, which is absolutely false and much like your bilge about elites and democracy is yet more cretinous nonsense.
It does not seem to be that easy to leave. Keep the insults coming tho, nothing like insults to win an argument.
I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You seem the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referundum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one of decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow some better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want the pesky reality to go away, to stick the fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Any chance of referring me to the statements I have made that fit in with your generic comments - highlighted - about those who voted Brexit?
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
The EU has changed loads, both since 1993 (its inception) and since 2007 (the global financial crisis). I don't think it is fair to say it is resistant to change, at least that it is any more resistant to change than any country is or any multi-country organisation such as the UN, NATO, the IMF etc.
The institions you name are inter-governmental, the EU is supranational and exists to take away national sovereignty-that is one big difference.
No it doesn't, stop talking utter shit.
So you think it will delegate its powers back to the nation states at some point?
Nations have always retained sovereignty and if they don't like the rules they can always leave. What you're suggesting is that powers have irrevocably been forced away from nations without their consent, which is absolutely false and much like your bilge about elites and democracy is yet more cretinous nonsense.
It does not seem to be that easy to leave. Keep the insults coming tho, nothing like insults to win an argument.
We are leaving and the only thing stopping us is our own government. Come March 2019 there is nothing stopping us from leaving in entirety.
It's not insults if it's accurate. Time and time again you post the same lies about elites, democracy and sovereignty and time and time again people have called it out for what it is: utter nonsense.
I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You seem the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referundum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one of decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow some better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want the pesky reality to go away, to stick the fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Any chance of referring me to the statements I have made that fit in with your generic comments - highlighted - about those who voted Brexit?
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You seem the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referundum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one of decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow some better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want the pesky reality to go away, to stick the fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Any chance of referring me to the statements I have made that fit in with your generic comments - highlighted - about those who voted Brexit?
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
I wasn't aiming this comment at you particularly, though as have others have said, the EU isn't fundamentally flawed by any definition of that term I know, it simply needs to develop and evolve to resolve the obvious issues it has.
As has been said on here quite a few times, you are easily the most coherent of the pro-brexit commentators, but even you must admit that isn't the case of many, if not the vast majority of brexit supporters. If you don't feel my characterisation above fits you at all (which it doesn't seem to) then you probably need to question why so many you share your political views with do fit that stereotype.
Do you like everything about the EU and support all the bureaucrats that work there?
Probably not - but you are happy to vote remain and attempt to effect change from within.
I most definitely do not like a number of those in prominent leave positions ... however I will not relinquish my beliefs because of that.
There is a way forward ... which I have outlined ... so I will put up with the nasty smells around me in order to push for that aim.
I'd agree that that pretty much sums up my position. Obviously the EU can be improved and as with any large organisation, bureaucratic cruft has built up over time and is in need of removal. I can see a shorter route to getting the EU to where I think many would like it to be, than to get our own government to where it should be, so leaving the EU to be exclusively led by our own inept leaders is scary. A vital protection is being removed to be filled by Rees-Mogg wanting to return me to the serfdom of our ancestors unopposed.
The weird thing is, from what you have written on here, I think you can see a way the EU can reform itself and that sort of EU is one you'd be content, if not happy, for the UK to be a member of. But rather than help in the reformation to create the EU we want, you'd rather walk away. You suggest that maybe Brexit is the catalyst the EU needs to kick-start that reform, and I can certainly see that point of view, but it would be a reformed EU that doesn't contain us.
So whilst that is very nice for the remaining EU citizens, it does us no good whatsoever. That is why Brexit feels like cutting off our noses to spite our face, and the feeling is only exasperated if the end result is everybody else being better off whilst we slowly suffer from our own actions.
UK in The 1970s - the sick man of Europe UK joins the EEC UK - 1973-2016 gets better, becomes leading economic power UK - 2016 "Haha the medicine is bollocks! Back to the snake oil" Everyone else - "We don't think that's a good idea." UK - (slowly getting ill again) Nonsense! Go whistle Remainers! GSTQ.
I hate the way the brexit supporters are twisting the way things are perceived;
Warnings (no matter how well justified or likely to happen) becomes "project fear" Something that isn't perfect right now is "fundamentally flawed"
You seem the same elsewhere, so I guess it's the modern way. If somebody disagrees with you then they're a "hater". All these people whinging about VAR because it isn't perfect for day one, so we should just abandon it, like it won't develop and improve over time, and the best way to accelerate those improvements is through real world usage.
It smacks of intellectual laziness. The world is complicated place, not everything can be defined in absolutes. The worst of this absolutism is the desire to make the referundum some moment frozen in time. To ignore hundreds of years of democracy with it's to and fro, give and take, and most importantly the ability to self correct over time, and redefine a one of decision, irrevocable no matter how the world changes, as somehow some better and purer form of democracy.
I don't subscribe to any of it, the world moves on, the information used to form decisions changes and the decisions must therefore adapt to reality, not vice-versa. So many on the brexit side seem to want the pesky reality to go away, to stick the fingers in their ears and shout "brexit means brexit". Reality will catch up eventually, it's just a case of how much damage is done before it does.
Any chance of referring me to the statements I have made that fit in with your generic comments - highlighted - about those who voted Brexit?
I accept I have referred to existing fundamental flaws with the EU, but this is also acknowledged by the political leaders of France and Germany.
I have certainly never referred to anyone as a 'hater'.
I have continually re-emphasised the circumstances under which I would adjust my decision. As such, I am far from 'frozen in time' and inflexible.
I wasn't aiming this comment at you particularly, though as have others have said, the EU isn't fundamentally flawed by any definition of that term I know, it simply needs to develop and evolve to resolve the obvious issues it has.
As has been said on here quite a few times, you are easily the most coherent of the pro-brexit commentators, but even you must admit that isn't the case of many, if not the vast majority of brexit supporters. If you don't feel my characterisation above fits you at all (which it doesn't seem to) then you probably need to question why so many you share your political views with do fit that stereotype.
Do you like everything about the EU and support all the bureaucrats that work there?
Probably not - but you are happy to vote remain and attempt to effect change from within.
I most definitely do not like a number of those in prominent leave positions ... however I will not relinquish my beliefs because of that.
There is a way forward ... which I have outlined ... so I will put up with the nasty smells around me in order to push for that aim.
I'd agree that that pretty much sums up my position. Obviously the EU can be improved and with any large organisation, bureaucratic cruft has built up over time and is in need of removal. I can see a shorter route to getting the EU to where I think many would like it to be, than to get our own government to where it should be, so leaving the EU to be exclusively led by our own inept leaders is scary. A vital protection is being removed to be filled by Rees-Mogg wanting a return me to the serfdom of our ancestors unopposed.
The weird thing is, from what you have written on here, I think you can see a way the EU can reform itself and that sort of EU is one you'd be content, if not happy, for the UK to be a member of. But rather than help in the reformation to create the EU we want, you'd rather walk away. You suggest that maybe Brexit is the catalyst the EU needs to kick-start that reform, and I can certainly see that point of view, but it would be a reformed EU that doesn't contain us. So whilst that is very nice for the remaining EU citizens, it does us no good whatsoever. That is why Brexit feels like cutting off our noses to spite our face, and the feeling is only exasperated if the end result is everybody else being better off whilst we slowly suffer from our own actions.
When I voted, I did not believe the change required by the EU would come from within. I was not happy to be part of that.
It needed, and still does, a kickstart, a catalyst.
I believe Brexit has pushed more people into looking at the problems within the EU.
As I mentioned a while back, the one thing I could not cater for at the time of my vote was the emergence of Macron.
Whilst I was initially unsure about him, I now recognise he could be another important catalyst for change.
If ... and it does require treaty change, so could take time ... Macron can push through a multi track solution, then I am all for it ... because that is what I wanted.
Does that then mean we are on the outside looking in? Not necessarily ... it depends on how canny our political ‘leaders’ can be over the coming months. Note: bearing in mind I am one of their constant castigators, I know it is a big problem - but let’s be optimistic for a moment.
Let me again repeat the comments from Soros:
“The European Union must resist temptation to punish Britain and approach the negotiations in a constructive spirit. It should use Brexit as a catalyst for introducing far-reaching reforms. The divorce will be a long process taking as long as five years. Five years seems like eternity in politics, especially in revolutionary times like the present. During that time, the European Union could transform itself into an organization that other countries like Britain would want to join. If that happened, the two sides may want to be reunited even before the divorce is completed. That would be a wonderful outcome, worth striving for. This seems practically inconceivable right now, but in reality it is quite attainable. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Within five years it has to hold another general election and the next parliament may vote to be reunited with Europe. Such a Europe would differ from the current arrangements in two key respects. First, it would clearly distinguish between the European Union and the Eurozone. Second, it would recognize that the euro has many unsolved problems and they must not be allowed to destroy the European Union.”
UK in The 1970s - the sick man of Europe UK joins the EEC UK - 1973-2016 gets better, becomes leading economic power UK - 2016 "Haha the medicine is bollocks! Back to the snake oil" Everyone else - "We don't think that's a good idea." UK - (slowly getting ill again) Nonsense! Go whistle Remainers! GSTQ.
The implication from your brief summary is that we joined the EEC and, because of that, we got better.
As you know, that is rather misleading. There is no doubt that membership helped but there were many other contributing factors.
Rather than spend ages in trying to make my memory more effective, I have been lazy and cribbed from the LSE. Pages 9 and 10 of the link will remind you. As it points out, EEC was one factor of many.
Respect for Stonemuse in keeping this thread interesting and representing the Brexit argument without resorting to cliches or recycling tabloid tropes. There is some high quality debate here which I enjoy reading to keep up to date with the British perspectives on Brexit and it is good to read as from here it is just portrayed as a needless self-inflicted injury.
The British government and their approach to the negotiations come across in the press here as being completely clueless and, despite the tension with the UK over Gibraltar, Spain actually need them as a strong partner and the unfolding calamity is worrying for Spain to see. Some Spanish would like to see fewer of the pensioner enclaves who don't integrate and use the medical system without speaking a word of Spanish but overall the response to Brexit here is more of surprise and sympathy for those affected by it.
UK in The 1970s - the sick man of Europe UK joins the EEC UK - 1973-2016 gets better, becomes leading economic power UK - 2016 "Haha the medicine is bollocks! Back to the snake oil" Everyone else - "We don't think that's a good idea." UK - (slowly getting ill again) Nonsense! Go whistle Remainers! GSTQ.
The implication from your brief summary is that we joined the EEC and, because of that, we got better.
As you know, that is rather misleading. There is no doubt that membership helped but there were many other contributing factors.
Rather than spend ages in trying to make my memory more effective, I have been lazy and cribbed from the LSE. Pages 9 and 10 of the link will remind you. As it points out, EEC was one factor of many.
I agree and I know you are far from the average Leave voter but a snapshot of the beliefs of Leave voters reveals the prevailing opinion amongst Leave voters (and again you are not the average Leave voter) is that the UK has gone backwards or gotten worse by joining the EU.
A better allegory for you might be this. The EU is a train and the members are passengers. The UK benefited by boarding the train at the beginning to get to its destination faster. But now Brexiters think the train is slowing down and that the UK would benefit from jumping off and running to the destination on its own. Remainers think that the train is moving quickly enough and if the UK jumps off not only will it not beat the EU to the destination, it will break a few limbs when it jumps out the door.
Just came across the below comments from George Soros - not that he is someone I particularly admire but he is no fool.
“The European Union must resist temptation to punish Britain and approach the negotiations in a constructive spirit. It should use Brexit as a catalyst for introducing far-reaching reforms. The divorce will be a long process taking as long as five years. Five years seems like eternity in politics, especially in revolutionary times like the present. During that time, the European Union could transform itself into an organization that other countries like Britain would want to join. If that happened, the two sides may want to be reunited even before the divorce is completed. That would be a wonderful outcome, worth striving for. This seems practically inconceivable right now, but in reality it is quite attainable. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Within five years it has to hold another general election and the next parliament may vote to be reunited with Europe. Such a Europe would differ from the current arrangements in two key respects. First, it would clearly distinguish between the European Union and the Eurozone. Second, it would recognize that the euro has many unsolved problems and they must not be allowed to destroy the European Union.”
I think if you did some proper research on George Soros you would find much more to admire than not.
He, as you state, is no fool. Particularly as he can see what self inflicted damage Brexit will do to not only the U.K. but to Europe as a whole. The world is becoming a very dangerous place both economically and militarily and we need to keep our friends close.
UK in The 1970s - the sick man of Europe UK joins the EEC UK - 1973-2016 gets better, becomes leading economic power UK - 2016 "Haha the medicine is bollocks! Back to the snake oil" Everyone else - "We don't think that's a good idea." UK - (slowly getting ill again) Nonsense! Go whistle Remainers! GSTQ.
The implication from your brief summary is that we joined the EEC and, because of that, we got better.
As you know, that is rather misleading. There is no doubt that membership helped but there were many other contributing factors.
Rather than spend ages in trying to make my memory more effective, I have been lazy and cribbed from the LSE. Pages 9 and 10 of the link will remind you. As it points out, EEC was one factor of many.
I agree and I know you are far from the average Leave voter but a snapshot of the beliefs of Leave voters reveals the prevailing opinion amongst Leave voters (and again you are not the average Leave voter) is that the UK has gone backwards or gotten worse by joining the EU.
A better allegory for you might be this. The EU is a train and the members are passengers. The UK benefited by boarding the train at the beginning to get to its destination faster. But now Brexiters think the train is slowing down and that the UK would benefit from jumping off and running to the destination on its own. Remainers think that the train is moving quickly enough and if the UK jumps off not only will it not beat the EU to the destination, it will break a few limbs when it jumps out the door.
Much better allegory ... but I am sure you are aware from my comments that, in my opinion, if it stays on the same track as now, the EU train will crash.
However, if it can find the railway points, it will suddenly find so many wonderful new tracks open to it.
The EU needs to continue to be improved. That does not mean it's significantly flawed as it is. It merely reflects the fact that the EU works to improve the opportunities and rights of EU citizens. And as the requirements of the citizens of the EU change, so the EU needs to adapt to reflect those changes.
All of us in the EU benefit directly and indirectly from the rights and opportunities that are protected and promoted by the EU. And, if nothing changes in future, membership of the EU does more for UK citizens' rights and opportunities than anything the Brexit clusterf*ck can hope to offer. The worst EU model available (ie the current version of the EU, without any further reform or improvement) does more for UK citizens than the wildest estimate as to what Brexit might be able to deliver.
I get the point that Brexit offers us the opportunity to negotiate trade deals with many, far-flung countries. (Although, I think the words "urgent and desperate need" in that sentence, as opposed to "opportunity"). But I cannot see how UK citizens rights and opportunities could be protected and promoted better by Brexit than by the EU.
Brexit offers British people less opportunity, fewer rights, likely lower growth and significantly less say on how the EU is run, moving forward. But I am sure that, at some point, Johnson, Gove, Davis or May will come out with something to show that it might be worth while. Surely..?
I disagree and believe that Macron has it right in his book, wherein he states that: The EU is suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. He further states that the EU is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
Take a deep breath and re-read the first two sentences of my post. The one you highlighted (for some reason) and the one immediately before it, to which it refers.
If something requires continual improvement, it does not necessarily mean that it is fundamentally flawed.
A doctor isn't flawed simply because she continues to learn and develop her skills. A cake that needs twenty more minutes of cooking isn't flawed. Scientists aren't flawed simply because there are still more discoveries to be made.
You may *think* that the EU is fundamentally flawed. But you can't disagree with the sentence you have highlighted, because that sentence doesn't state that the EU is fundamentally flawed. It merely explains that the previous sentence doesn't demonstrate that it's flawed.
Maybe you didn't really want to address the topic of my post and, instead wanted to introduce some "quotes" from another EU Head of State. If so, fill your boots. But it would be interesting to see whether you disagree with the fundamental point I made in my post. If you can see it.
Not sure if I am missing something here - it could be my misunderstanding - if so, I apologise.
To recap, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed in its current state ... as does Macron, Merkel and many others in positions of power.
It is not just me (and them) that believes that - many other commentators do (e.g. also refer to the report that @PragueAddick provided).
And why do you refer to the comments from Macron as 'quotes' - do you think I have provided an incorrect reflection of his statements? Read his book and you will see that they are exactly his thoughts.
Thanks for recapping the part of your post that wasn't relevant to mine.
Now to the bit that *is* relevant. The rights and opportunities of citizens are better protected by the EU (even if the EU requires improvement) than they are by any reasonable definition of what Brexit might be. To put it another way, British citizens' rights and opportunities are better protected and better promoted while we are in the EU than they can be if we were ever to leave.
I am waiting to see if any of the group of Brexiteers leading us away from the EU are able to demonstrate why losing these rights and opportunities will be, in the round, worth while. It's not apparent yet.
UK in The 1970s - the sick man of Europe UK joins the EEC UK - 1973-2016 gets better, becomes leading economic power UK - 2016 "Haha the medicine is bollocks! Back to the snake oil" Everyone else - "We don't think that's a good idea." UK - (slowly getting ill again) Nonsense! Go whistle Remainers! GSTQ.
The implication from your brief summary is that we joined the EEC and, because of that, we got better.
As you know, that is rather misleading. There is no doubt that membership helped but there were many other contributing factors.
Rather than spend ages in trying to make my memory more effective, I have been lazy and cribbed from the LSE. Pages 9 and 10 of the link will remind you. As it points out, EEC was one factor of many.
I agree and I know you are far from the average Leave voter but a snapshot of the beliefs of Leave voters reveals the prevailing opinion amongst Leave voters (and again you are not the average Leave voter) is that the UK has gone backwards or gotten worse by joining the EU.
A better allegory for you might be this. The EU is a train and the members are passengers. The UK benefited by boarding the train at the beginning to get to its destination faster. But now Brexiters think the train is slowing down and that the UK would benefit from jumping off and running to the destination on its own. Remainers think that the train is moving quickly enough and if the UK jumps off not only will it not beat the EU to the destination, it will break a few limbs when it jumps out the door.
Much better allegory ... but I am sure you are aware from my comments that, in my opinion, if it stays on the same track as now, the EU train will crash.
However, if it can find the railway points, it will suddenly find so many wonderful new tracks open to it.
If the EU crashes I fail to see how we, as they are our biggest trading partners, would escape from the fallout anyway.
I also unfortunately do not share the view that the EU is ultimately destined to catastrophically fail, largely due to the lack of evidence that it will.
UK in The 1970s - the sick man of Europe UK joins the EEC UK - 1973-2016 gets better, becomes leading economic power UK - 2016 "Haha the medicine is bollocks! Back to the snake oil" Everyone else - "We don't think that's a good idea." UK - (slowly getting ill again) Nonsense! Go whistle Remainers! GSTQ.
The implication from your brief summary is that we joined the EEC and, because of that, we got better.
As you know, that is rather misleading. There is no doubt that membership helped but there were many other contributing factors.
Rather than spend ages in trying to make my memory more effective, I have been lazy and cribbed from the LSE. Pages 9 and 10 of the link will remind you. As it points out, EEC was one factor of many.
I agree and I know you are far from the average Leave voter but a snapshot of the beliefs of Leave voters reveals the prevailing opinion amongst Leave voters (and again you are not the average Leave voter) is that the UK has gone backwards or gotten worse by joining the EU.
A better allegory for you might be this. The EU is a train and the members are passengers. The UK benefited by boarding the train at the beginning to get to its destination faster. But now Brexiters think the train is slowing down and that the UK would benefit from jumping off and running to the destination on its own. Remainers think that the train is moving quickly enough and if the UK jumps off not only will it not beat the EU to the destination, it will break a few limbs when it jumps out the door.
Much better allegory ... but I am sure you are aware from my comments that, in my opinion, if it stays on the same track as now, the EU train will crash.
However, if it can find the railway points, it will suddenly find so many wonderful new tracks open to it.
If the EU crashes I fail to see how we, as they are our biggest trading partners, would escape from the fallout anyway.
I also unfortunately do not share the view that the EU is ultimately destined to catastrophically fail, largely due to the lack of evidence that it will.
If it crashes, yes we will also suffer.
But I am hoping that the new fat controller, Mr. Macron, will safely guide it through.
The EU needs to continue to be improved. That does not mean it's significantly flawed as it is. It merely reflects the fact that the EU works to improve the opportunities and rights of EU citizens. And as the requirements of the citizens of the EU change, so the EU needs to adapt to reflect those changes.
All of us in the EU benefit directly and indirectly from the rights and opportunities that are protected and promoted by the EU. And, if nothing changes in future, membership of the EU does more for UK citizens' rights and opportunities than anything the Brexit clusterf*ck can hope to offer. The worst EU model available (ie the current version of the EU, without any further reform or improvement) does more for UK citizens than the wildest estimate as to what Brexit might be able to deliver.
I get the point that Brexit offers us the opportunity to negotiate trade deals with many, far-flung countries. (Although, I think the words "urgent and desperate need" in that sentence, as opposed to "opportunity"). But I cannot see how UK citizens rights and opportunities could be protected and promoted better by Brexit than by the EU.
Brexit offers British people less opportunity, fewer rights, likely lower growth and significantly less say on how the EU is run, moving forward. But I am sure that, at some point, Johnson, Gove, Davis or May will come out with something to show that it might be worth while. Surely..?
I disagree and believe that Macron has it right in his book, wherein he states that: The EU is suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. He further states that the EU is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
Take a deep breath and re-read the first two sentences of my post. The one you highlighted (for some reason) and the one immediately before it, to which it refers.
If something requires continual improvement, it does not necessarily mean that it is fundamentally flawed.
A doctor isn't flawed simply because she continues to learn and develop her skills. A cake that needs twenty more minutes of cooking isn't flawed. Scientists aren't flawed simply because there are still more discoveries to be made.
You may *think* that the EU is fundamentally flawed. But you can't disagree with the sentence you have highlighted, because that sentence doesn't state that the EU is fundamentally flawed. It merely explains that the previous sentence doesn't demonstrate that it's flawed.
Maybe you didn't really want to address the topic of my post and, instead wanted to introduce some "quotes" from another EU Head of State. If so, fill your boots. But it would be interesting to see whether you disagree with the fundamental point I made in my post. If you can see it.
Not sure if I am missing something here - it could be my misunderstanding - if so, I apologise.
To recap, I believe the EU is fundamentally flawed in its current state ... as does Macron, Merkel and many others in positions of power.
It is not just me (and them) that believes that - many other commentators do (e.g. also refer to the report that @PragueAddick provided).
And why do you refer to the comments from Macron as 'quotes' - do you think I have provided an incorrect reflection of his statements? Read his book and you will see that they are exactly his thoughts.
Thanks for recapping the part of your post that wasn't relevant to mine.
Now to the bit that *is* relevant. The rights and opportunities of citizens are better protected by the EU (even if the EU requires improvement) than they are by any reasonable definition of what Brexit might be. To put it another way, British citizens' rights and opportunities are better protected and better promoted while we are in the EU than they can be if we were ever to leave.
I am waiting to see if any of the group of Brexiteers leading us away from the EU are able to demonstrate why losing these rights and opportunities will be, in the round, worth while. It's not apparent yet.
At this stage, we have not lost any rights and opportunities ... and if you have been reading my posts, you will see that I believe there is a route through this by which we will not do so.
Just to clarify, to which rights and opportunities are you actually referring?
My assumption is freedom of movement is one? Which others?
Comments
As has been said on here quite a few times, you are easily the most coherent of the pro-brexit commentators, but even you must admit that isn't the case of many, if not the vast majority of brexit supporters. If you don't feel my characterisation above fits you at all (which it doesn't seem to) then you probably need to question why so many you share your political views with do fit that stereotype.
I am of the opinion that, in its current state, it is fundamentally flawed and will fail. It is why I voted leave.
In order for the EU to work as it is currently structured, it needs to move towards federality ... as much as I dislike him, Verhofstadt is correct about this.
It is why I support a multi track approach which, I believe, will solve the problems. But this requires treaty change ... which, in my humble opinion, supports the fact that the existing treaty is flawed.
Ultimately it all depends on whether or not you think the EU can continue as it is and achieve what it needs to do.
I just don’t believe that ... but I believe it can if it changes.
Would all 28 nations be better off if it never existed?
Below are not my words but they reflect my thoughts:
“If the European Union carries on with business as usual, there is little hope for an improvement. That is why the European Union needs to be radically reinvented. The top-down initiative started by Jean Monnet had carried the process of integration a long way, but it has lost its momentum. Now we need a collaborative effort that combines the top-down approach of the European institutions with the bottom-up initiatives that are necessary to engage the electorate.”
“The European Union must resist temptation to punish Britain and approach the negotiations in a constructive spirit. It should use Brexit as a catalyst for introducing far-reaching reforms. The divorce will be a long process taking as long as five years. Five years seems like eternity in politics, especially in revolutionary times like the present. During that time, the European Union could transform itself into an organization that other countries like Britain would want to join. If that happened, the two sides may want to be reunited even before the divorce is completed. That would be a wonderful outcome, worth striving for. This seems practically inconceivable right now, but in reality it is quite attainable. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Within five years it has to hold another general election and the next parliament may vote to be reunited with Europe.
Such a Europe would differ from the current arrangements in two key respects. First, it would clearly distinguish between the European Union and the Eurozone. Second, it would recognize that the euro has many unsolved problems and they must not be allowed to destroy the European Union.”
The technocratic appeal of the EU is waning, god knows what will take its place but it cannot recover its momentum by denying what is happening across Europe or by name calling its opponents-Hillary did that in the US and look how that turned out.
“The EU needs to become more flexible, so that its members need not sign up to all the same policies. The EU’s institutions have long opposed this principle, on the grounds that too much ‘variable geometry’ could boost ‘inter-governmentalism’ and undermine their own position. They have subscribed to the orthodoxy that almost all EU members will ultimately join the euro and the Schengen area. However, Britain’s vote to leave has helped some policy-makers to recognise that in an EU of 27 members, which have very different objectives, not everybody will be willing to sign up to everything. Indeed, some projects – such as co-operation on defence or a European Public Prosecutor – may work better with a smaller number of committed countries involved."
Probably not - but you are happy to vote remain and attempt to effect change from within.
I most definitely do not like a number of those in prominent leave positions ... however I will not relinquish my beliefs because of that.
There is a way forward ... which I have outlined ... so I will put up with the nasty smells around me in order to push for that aim.
Keep the insults coming tho, nothing like insults to win an argument.
You are in danger of becoming a bit of a snowflake and that's obviously the preserve of us Remainers.
It's not insults if it's accurate. Time and time again you post the same lies about elites, democracy and sovereignty and time and time again people have called it out for what it is: utter nonsense.
The weird thing is, from what you have written on here, I think you can see a way the EU can reform itself and that sort of EU is one you'd be content, if not happy, for the UK to be a member of. But rather than help in the reformation to create the EU we want, you'd rather walk away. You suggest that maybe Brexit is the catalyst the EU needs to kick-start that reform, and I can certainly see that point of view, but it would be a reformed EU that doesn't contain us.
So whilst that is very nice for the remaining EU citizens, it does us no good whatsoever. That is why Brexit feels like cutting off our noses to spite our face, and the feeling is only exasperated if the end result is everybody else being better off whilst we slowly suffer from our own actions.
UK joins the EEC
UK - 1973-2016 gets better, becomes leading economic power
UK - 2016 "Haha the medicine is bollocks! Back to the snake oil"
Everyone else - "We don't think that's a good idea."
UK - (slowly getting ill again) Nonsense! Go whistle Remainers! GSTQ.
It needed, and still does, a kickstart, a catalyst.
I believe Brexit has pushed more people into looking at the problems within the EU.
As I mentioned a while back, the one thing I could not cater for at the time of my vote was the emergence of Macron.
Whilst I was initially unsure about him, I now recognise he could be another important catalyst for change.
If ... and it does require treaty change, so could take time ... Macron can push through a multi track solution, then I am all for it ... because that is what I wanted.
Does that then mean we are on the outside looking in? Not necessarily ... it depends on how canny our political ‘leaders’ can be over the coming months. Note: bearing in mind I am one of their constant castigators, I know it is a big problem - but let’s be optimistic for a moment.
Let me again repeat the comments from Soros:
“The European Union must resist temptation to punish Britain and approach the negotiations in a constructive spirit. It should use Brexit as a catalyst for introducing far-reaching reforms. The divorce will be a long process taking as long as five years. Five years seems like eternity in politics, especially in revolutionary times like the present. During that time, the European Union could transform itself into an organization that other countries like Britain would want to join. If that happened, the two sides may want to be reunited even before the divorce is completed. That would be a wonderful outcome, worth striving for. This seems practically inconceivable right now, but in reality it is quite attainable. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Within five years it has to hold another general election and the next parliament may vote to be reunited with Europe.
Such a Europe would differ from the current arrangements in two key respects. First, it would clearly distinguish between the European Union and the Eurozone. Second, it would recognize that the euro has many unsolved problems and they must not be allowed to destroy the European Union.”
As you know, that is rather misleading. There is no doubt that membership helped but there were many other contributing factors.
Rather than spend ages in trying to make my memory more effective, I have been lazy and cribbed from the LSE. Pages 9 and 10 of the link will remind you. As it points out, EEC was one factor of many.
lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/growthCommission/documents/pdf/lseGCrep-Chap1.pdf
The British government and their approach to the negotiations come across in the press here as being completely clueless and, despite the tension with the UK over Gibraltar, Spain actually need them as a strong partner and the unfolding calamity is worrying for Spain to see. Some Spanish would like to see fewer of the pensioner enclaves who don't integrate and use the medical system without speaking a word of Spanish but overall the response to Brexit here is more of surprise and sympathy for those affected by it.
A better allegory for you might be this. The EU is a train and the members are passengers. The UK benefited by boarding the train at the beginning to get to its destination faster. But now Brexiters think the train is slowing down and that the UK would benefit from jumping off and running to the destination on its own. Remainers think that the train is moving quickly enough and if the UK jumps off not only will it not beat the EU to the destination, it will break a few limbs when it jumps out the door.
He, as you state, is no fool. Particularly as he can see what self inflicted damage Brexit will do to not only the U.K. but to Europe as a whole. The world is becoming a very dangerous place both economically and militarily and we need to keep our friends close.
However, if it can find the railway points, it will suddenly find so many wonderful new tracks open to it.
Now to the bit that *is* relevant. The rights and opportunities of citizens are better protected by the EU (even if the EU requires improvement) than they are by any reasonable definition of what Brexit might be. To put it another way, British citizens' rights and opportunities are better protected and better promoted while we are in the EU than they can be if we were ever to leave.
I am waiting to see if any of the group of Brexiteers leading us away from the EU are able to demonstrate why losing these rights and opportunities will be, in the round, worth while. It's not apparent yet.
I also unfortunately do not share the view that the EU is ultimately destined to catastrophically fail, largely due to the lack of evidence that it will.
But I am hoping that the new fat controller, Mr. Macron, will safely guide it through.
Just to clarify, to which rights and opportunities are you actually referring?
My assumption is freedom of movement is one? Which others?