Brexit

[krbe 193]

David Cameron is right now meeting with EU and EU country leaders in order to 'figure out' whether Britain is to remain in the EU or not. The referendum is to take place sometime before the end of 2017; apparently likely to be in June or September this year.

While probably not the top topic around the world, and certainly not as entertaining as the American election (at least not before Boris Johnson makes his made up and joins the fry), before the election I'd like to hear some thoughts about sovereignty, international cooperation and similar issues -- and how far we can allow 'outsiders' to decide such issues? Not least because outside political unions -- the EU, ASEAN, GCC -- the trend is actually that the same politicians that rally against 'Brussels' seems to have no qualms against striking free trade deals completely without any democratic mechanisms built-in.

The BBC on the referendum:

• Q&A: What Britain wants from Europe
• EU referendum: Guide to the 'In' campaign
• EU referendum: Who's who guide to the UK exit campaigns

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If there is a referendum, and it seems there must be one, the result will be emotional.  Although the UK has been in the EU and the ECM for quite some time, the idea of adopting the Euro and other steps will not sell well to the average Brit.

I seem to remember an island nation standing alone, denigrated by the European leaders as a chicken that would soon have its neck wrong.  The British PM (WSC) at that time said, in our House of Commons, "Some chicken.  Some neck!".

Old feelings like this will not go away in the UK despite the short memories on the continent.

I think the feeling in the Commonwealth is that the EU is an upstart outfit that hasn't proven itself worthy.  Too much shilly-shallying, to much divided control, and generally just a bit of a client of Germany.  Also, far too polyglot.  Nice to visit, but many would not want to live there.

[LexusInfernus 908]

My view is that it might be better if they just sod off. They have been given (along with Denmark and Ireland) all kinds of exceptions and opt outs, they can literally pick in most cases what rules to follow and which one to ignore, and still they keep complaining about how Brussel is dictating stuff to them. They are obstructionists, unwilling to get with the program, needlessly complicating matters, and even with this 'even better' deal that they are going to pass off as barely acceptable, they will keep playing that role. They gain more exceptions, the EU gains nothing and the UK will remain complaining and in 10 years time they will try the same trick again. Worse, it may open up the road for more blackmail from other member states that also want special treatment and threaten to leave the EU if they aren't given any, and before we know it the EU has shred itself to pieces. 

But lets be clear here, the EU does not need the UK. If they leave, sure the GDP drops a bit and we lose 65 million people. Big deal, we still would have 440 million people left, that still makes us one of the largest internal markets on the planet, and still an economic and political player to be reckoned with. And we would lose an uncooperative member, allowing for easier compromises and a more effective EU. No, the EU does not need the UK, the UK needs the EU. Because the EU provides them an open market to those other 440 million people and that open market is the reason the city is the home of so many big banks and businesses. The EU is one way for the UK to keep the Scottish on board, because the Scottish do see the benefit of the EU and would probably secede just so they could stay within the EU. The EU is one of the reasons the UK is still as relevant of an international player as it is today. Sure, they have the commonwealth, and a security council seat and nuclear weapons. But really, their economic and military power is not big enough to be a really meaningful player on its own. 

So, lets drop them. The British only want access to the internal market but nothing else? Fine, lets give them the same status that Norway and Switzerland have, they can access our market, but at our terms. They have to follow all the rules Brussels set only they don't get a say in it. They get what they always wanted, and the EU benefits from keeping the economic power of the UK only without their obstructionist attitude. Or keep them out of the market, let them pay import duties and tank their economy as suddenly every major office located in the City moves to Germany, and crash their delusional ideas about their own power and relevance in todays world. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

As an English citizen I shall naturally take part in the upcoming referendum.

At work they have copies of the Daily Mail, a stupid populist emotional paper, or if you prefer, the Sun's father. A trifle more thoughtful but still rather stupid.

As I work for Asda which is owned by Walmart I technically work for a US company. But naturally things like the minimum wage etc will affect Asda as much as Sainsburys etc.

From what I do know or hear should we say my own situation is unlikely to get better or worse from Brexit.

As a working class man I have no property, no wives, no cars etc. I have no power or weapons. I am just a slave working for his daily beer.

So my vote will likely be one of idealism not practicality. Do I prefer the vision of a united Euroreich? Or a independent English Empire? Really I couldn't care less either way.

I will probably vote for Brexit simply because I hate Cameron and he wants In to win. If Azula was PM and was backing In I would be an Inman.

[krbe 193]

On 2/18/2016 at 11:53 PM, LexusInfernus said:

My view is that it might be better if they just sod off. They have been given (along with Denmark and Ireland) all kinds of exceptions and opt outs, they can literally pick in most cases what rules to follow and which one to ignore, and still they keep complaining about how Brussel is dictating stuff to them.

So, lets drop them. The British only want access to the internal market but nothing else? Fine, lets give them the same status that Norway and Switzerland have, they can access our market, but at our terms.

Which is exactly what they are complaining about -- the (E)EC was something completely else when they joined. The problem is not the business side -- few are complaining about that.

Especially the integration of the Eastern European economies have upset the dynamics of the community in a way that could not be predicted forty years ago, and British politicians allegiance should be to their own constituents first. While the balance between North and South was not perfect, it was completely different than is between East and West -- something the EU has seemingly acknowledged.

On 2/18/2016 at 11:53 PM, LexusInfernus said:

suddenly every major office located in the City moves to Germany

You're based in the City because of lax / favourable regulation. Germany is an unlikely destination; Luxembourg is the place to be. Remember, Canary Wharf started out as data warehouse land and is increasingly becoming that again.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, krbe said:

Which is exactly what they are complaining about -- the (E)EC was something completely else when they joined. The problem is not the business side -- few are complaining about that.

Especially the integration of the Eastern European economies have upset the dynamics of the community in a way that could not be predicted forty years ago, and British politicians allegiance should be to their own constituents first. While the balance between North and South was not perfect, it was completely different than is between East and West -- something the EU has seemingly acknowledged.

Oh no, even back then they weren't happy with the EU. Again, they were given special status right from the start. And sure, businesses aren't complaining about the EU because of the free market. But really, businesses aren't complaining about the EU period. It are politicians that are complaining. And through their complaining, coupled with lie after lie after lie about the supposed 'dictates' from Brussels, they have convinced a good portion of UK citizens that the EU is a terrible deal for them. 

As for the integration of Eastern Europeans into the European economy, well again the British politicians have been lying their teeth off. What they are complaining about is their own, British set policy. They don't like all those Eastern Europeans coming to the UK, supposedly for the free healthcare? Well, that is their own fault. While the rest of the EU set up a waiting period of 7 years before any newly joined Eastern European citizen could legally come to the older member states for work, the UK generously opened its borders right from the start. Only Sweden did something similar. And now they are complaining? And why are they complaining? Economic research has shown that the British GDP has expanded with a few billion because they opened up their borders right from the start, while Germany, which didn't do that, did not benefit at all for 7 years from the expanded EU. Indeed, it was more troublesome for them because their set up meant that Eastern European workers mostly could only compete with the low wage workers.

And as for them making use of their social security, European law already states that migrants must have insurance and not be a burden to the social security of their host country, or their access can be denied. If the UK chooses not to do any of these things that are legal under EU law, they also don't have the right to complain that Brussels is the cause of this. They are. And any politician who claims otherwise is a liar. Its just a shame that the British press doesn't bother to call their politicians out on their lies.  

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This whole issue comes down to sovereignty and patriotism.  As long as the EU exists as a pseudo-country there can be no loyalty to it.  None of the little satraps that are part of the EU will give up one iota of their autonomy and sovereignty.  The whole business should fall apart before the end of this century.

[Belfastsocrates 1,753]

I'm sorry but time and time again you have demonstrated your woeful comprehension of both the United Kingdom and the European Union Nonny, no offence

The opposition to the EU is a narrow minded and nationalistic standpoint of a minority within the UK. Survey after survey show that educated British nationals and those involved in business are overwhelmingly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU and the vote in June will confirm that. Most of the noise in regard to the EU comes from to the anti-camp because most people within that section of society do not consider the UK's membership of the EU as a major issue and thus do not devote much intellectual time to the debate, the media loves them however.

Come June the result will be a vote in favour and we can then all move on.

 

 

 

 

[_Michael 2,681]

7 hours ago, Belfastsocrates said:

The opposition to the EU is a narrow minded and nationalistic standpoint of a minority within the UK. Survey after survey show that educated British nationals and those involved in business are overwhelmingly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU and the vote in June will confirm that. Most of the noise in regard to the EU comes from to the anti-camp because most people within that section of society do not consider the UK's membership of the EU as a major issue and thus do not devote much intellectual time to the debate, the media loves them however.

Come June the result will be a vote in favour and we can then all move on.

I'm not sure it will be that simple. You may have missed it, but a couple of days ago, a poll suggested that 39% of voters want to leave the EU, compared to 36% that wan to stay. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12165127/New-poll-puts-Brexit-in-the-lead-as-David-Cameron-battles-to-secure-renegotiation-deal.html; https://www.rt.com/uk/332981-poll-eu-exit-majority/)

The vote will be close, no matter what way it turns, and just like the Scottish Referendum, there will be a significant proportion of the British public who don't not get their way.

[LexusInfernus 908]

52 minutes ago, michae95l said:

I'm not sure it will be that simple. You may have missed it, but a couple of days ago, a poll suggested that 39% of voters want to leave the EU, compared to 36% that wan to stay. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12165127/New-poll-puts-Brexit-in-the-lead-as-David-Cameron-battles-to-secure-renegotiation-deal.html; https://www.rt.com/uk/332981-poll-eu-exit-majority/)

The vote will be close, no matter what way it turns, and just like the Scottish Referendum, there will be a significant proportion of the British public who don't not get their way.

Eh, I have to question those sources. The Telegraph is unreliable at best after it came out advertisers had control over their editorial policy as well as their conservative boot licking and RT is basically Putin's personal news channel. We'll have to see. 

[_Michael 2,681]

20 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

Eh, I have to question those sources. The Telegraph is unreliable at best after it came out advertisers had control over their editorial policy as well as their conservative boot licking and RT is basically Putin's personal news channel. We'll have to see. 

These are just the web links that had the content. These poll results are all over the media. 

[krbe 193]

And the Daily Mail reports 48% in favour of remaining in the EU, 33% in favour of leaving and 20% undecided, but I guess the source is wrong on that as well.

As for Boris Johnson's endorsement of the leave campaign, he is right: The concessions do not change the EU in any fundamental way. The destination for the current EU train is an ever closer union, and that means that the UK cannot keep their oddities.

[Belfastsocrates 1,753]

1 hour ago, krbe said:

As for Boris Johnson's endorsement of the leave campaign, he is right: The concessions do not change the EU in any fundamental way. The destination for the current EU train is an ever closer union, and that means that the UK cannot keep their oddities.

The aim was not to change the EU though. 

The aim was to secure some concessions for the UK not to fundamentally change the EU.

[krbe 193]

8 hours ago, Belfastsocrates said:

The aim was not to change the EU though. 

The aim was to secure some concessions for the UK not to fundamentally change the EU.

So the allegations that the EU today is something else than the (E)EC the UK joined back in the day is just hot air?

It is an important issue -- not only for the UK, but also other Northern European states. Denmark is famously obstructive, but not even some minor legislative changes and a second-class participation in Europol could convince voters to ditch their exceptions (replacing it with a UK-style opt-out system). Others are supportive of Cameron, even if they don't talk too much.

Business is presented as the thing the EU is about; in case problems such as the free movement of welfare is acknowledged, it is usually diminished. Understandably -- it's inconceivable for me to ever move to the UK because of welfare benefits, childcare, children benefits, the NHS, etc.; but then again, I'm not a poor Romanian who only need a few weeks in a low-paying part time job.

[Belfastsocrates 1,753]

Of course the EU has changed since the 70's. Those changes and new treaties have been negotiated and agreed by EU members, including the United Kingdom. If the UK didn't want to implement those changes then a referendum should have been called earlier. 

The only party in the UK with a history of obsession with the European Union is the Conservative Party, it divides the party and undermines it, yet they continue to have the same arguments and the internal bitterness is clear to see. We are having a referendum because David Cameron made it a manifesto promise in order to placate his rebellious anti-EU members and an attempt to take the wind out of UKIP's sails prior to the 2015 General Election. Anyone that thinks David Cameron has some grand ideal to revolutionise Europe and reform is deluded to the extreme, he's having this debate and vote purely because his party demanded it.

Business is a major element of the EU but it's not the only thing the EU is good for. Issues such as welfare are important, it's wise to remember the massive amount of British nationals living in places like France and Spain and using local services. That issue seems to have been forgotten by those advocating an exit.

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

That's a good point about the ex-pats.  Sunny Spain does beat the daylights out of foggy London, but is anyone asking what the effect of a brexit would have on them?  Might be rather a lot of people suddenly being forced home who are rather unhappy.

[Belfastsocrates 1,753]

9 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

That's a good point about the ex-pats.  Sunny Spain does beat the daylights out of foggy London, but is anyone asking what the effect of a brexit would have on them?  Might be rather a lot of people suddenly being forced home who are rather unhappy.

They also get to vote in the referendum if they have lived outside the UK for less than 15 years, as do the citizens of Gibraltar. 

 

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, Belfastsocrates said:

 Anyone that thinks David Cameron has some grand ideal to revolutionise Europe and reform is deluded to the extreme, he's having this debate and vote purely because his party demanded it.

Ah the wonders of democracy. Of course Mr Cameron need not revolutionise Europe; but if that what a sufficiently large proportion of his constituents expect so, he is bound to deliver lest he wishes to retire. I guess there are many policy area in which he doesn't take too much of an interest but is forced to front.

As for the number of British immigrants -- interesting to note that there is about a million fewer Brits in the EU than there are EU citizens in Britain. However, the number of working EU citizens in Britain is roughly comparable to the number of Brits in the EU.

[LexusInfernus 908]

What Cameron has done is basically changing the part of the treaty that says the EU is striving for an ever closer union and make sure the UK is exempted from that. In other words, they can point to that every time they feel the EU is overstepping its bounds. Is this useful? Nah, not really. The EU is still mostly an economic union. The EU only has exclusive competence in a few policy areas and all those areas relate to business or the internal market. Those are I think incidentally, also the only policy areas in which the UK doesn't have any opt outs, and this doesn't change. Then there are a bunch of areas in which the EU has shared competence with the Member States. These policy areas are more of a mix between business and politics. The UK has opt outs here, so this new deal Cameron has negotiated won't change much either. The last area is where the EU basically has no competences by itself. These are the really politicized policy areas, such as foreign policy and defense. If something in these policy fields happens, its because the individual member states decided by themselves that its best if the thing gets done on an European level. Cameron's deal mostly applies to this field, because now the UK can claim its exempted from the expectation that working together with the rest of Europe is either expected and needs to continually increase. But the thing here is that this deal doesn't do that much either, because in these fields unanimity was always a requirement, the UK could have vetoed or constructively abstained anyways. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

The issues of economic separation and EU legal/political separation seem to get really conflated. So if Brexit happens does that mean, or imply, that Britain cuts all trade agreements with the EU nations? Or is Brexit about ensuring certain EU laws don't overrule British ones in various areas: product safety, trade quotas.

It just gets annoying because when the BBC posts articles like G20 finance ministers warn of global economic shock if Brexit happens, there is never a real why or a proper explanation of what is at stake. I mean why would they say such a thing? I don't believe for one moment they are talking about trade, this isn't about cutting trade ties. Perhaps the global economic shock is reference to the EU bonds Britain holds or financial derivative products which banks hold, things which could potentially lose a whole ton of value and create EU debt crisis 4.0 (5.0? 6.0? I have honestly lost track).

[LexusInfernus 908]

13 hours ago, Ln X said:

The issues of economic separation and EU legal/political separation seem to get really conflated. So if Brexit happens does that mean, or imply, that Britain cuts all trade agreements with the EU nations? Or is Brexit about ensuring certain EU laws don't overrule British ones in various areas: product safety, trade quotas.

It just gets annoying because when the BBC posts articles like G20 finance ministers warn of global economic shock if Brexit happens, there is never a real why or a proper explanation of what is at stake. I mean why would they say such a thing? I don't believe for one moment they are talking about trade, this isn't about cutting trade ties. Perhaps the global economic shock is reference to the EU bonds Britain holds or financial derivative products which banks hold, things which could potentially lose a whole ton of value and create EU debt crisis 4.0 (5.0? 6.0? I have honestly lost track).

Well the thing is more that no one exactly knows what would happen. Technically if the UK leaves the EU, it means all treaties and all laws no longer apply to the UK, and that includes all trade agreements. Now I doubt that would happen, I assume that if the UK opts for leaving the EU they will negotiate an exit and that probably includes the idea that the UK will remain a member of the EEC. They would probably try to achieve the same kind of status like Switzerland and Norway. Still, this is all speculation, no one knows for sure and thats whats bothering people. 

But its not just the fact that the treaties would no longer apply to the UK that could cause an economic shock. It would also be a blow for the self esteem of the EU, as well as the worlds trust that the EU remains a viable political and economic entity. That could cause a global shock as well. 

Finally, keep in mind that the Conservatives have been railing against the EU for a while now, and now that they got a deal they are sort of happy with, they suddenly have to turn around and tell people that its important the UK remains a member of the EU. So this is also partly just scaremongering, warning voters to please vote on staying in the EU on the coming referendum or else it could cause a disaster. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Disaster?  If there is a vote to exit the EU, surely this involves considerable negotiations, almost on a clause by clause basis.

If Quebec voted to leave Canada, it would be a similar situation.  We have managed to avert this by the skin of our teeth, and I hope never to see such an exercise in terror again.  Brinkmanship sucks.

"Treaties are like sausages.  You don't want to see them being made"  -- Bismark.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Ah yeah the whole ambiguity. Maybe the EU should create provisions for countries leaving the EU, these crisis (plural) would be less of a crisis if there was actually a clear-cut mechanism in place. This all-or-nothing approach is probably why there is so much hyperbole coming from all sides of the Brexit issue.

[krbe 193]

16 hours ago, Ln X said:

It just gets annoying because when the BBC posts articles like G20 finance ministers warn of global economic shock if Brexit happens, there is never a real why or a proper explanation of what is at stake. I mean why would they say such a thing?

Better the devil you know -- that's why you won't ever get an explanation from these people. There might be a global economic shock if Britain leaves, or it might not. Or that shock might come regardless of Britain staying in the Union. Or it might happen because of Britain staying in the Union.

As for leaving the Union, that is regulated by Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union. Basically a withdrawal agreement will be negotiated; absent that, an withdrawal becomes effective two years after the country in question files its intention to leave.

There didn't use to be any exit clause in the (E)EC treaties; the arrangements were thought to be perpetual. However, there has been a number of challenges or oppositions to the Union: British referendum in 1975, British, Danish and Irish opt-outs or exclusions from the Maastricht treaty, the Irish, Dutch and French nays to the Constitution of Europe... Generally the people are not acting as the sheep they are intended to under certain democratic systems -- see former FM's answer to the Irish who thought the Constitution was a bad idea.

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

It would also be a blow for the self esteem of the EU, as well as the worlds trust that the EU remains a viable political and economic entity.

What would happen to other (mainly northern European) countries where the feelings towards Brussels are ambiguous? Will they start creating their own block (again)? What about the pro-western Eastern European countries? Will the UK tie itself closer to the US instead? Does Ireland think it is a great idea to stay in a rump EU after a while (even though they generally are thought of the ones that get the most out of the Union)? And what about Russia? Really, a lot could happen in an awful short span of time here. That is not necessarily a bad idea.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Predicting economic events is like predicting the weather.  This whole business could be overshadowed by some other event that makes this seem like a tea party.

[Belfastsocrates 1,753]

On 28/02/2016 at 5:48 PM, krbe said:

Will the UK tie itself closer to the US instead? 

The US came out a couple of days ago and said it was not interested in a seeking a separate bi-lateral trade agreement with the UK if they left the EU

China doesn't seem particularly interested in a separate agreement either, there's the two largest economies stating they aren't interested in a bi-lateral trade treaty. You can understand why, it makes more sense to have an agreement with what is currently the largest and wealthiest free market in the world. 

Can someone please explain the sense in the UK leaving the EU to then come to an agreement with the EU similar to that offered to Norway or Switzerland. Two non-EU nations that have to contribute to the EU budget, abide by trading regulations, allow free movement of people, capital and goods and yet have no say whatsoever in how all of those rules are determined and reformed? 

Quote

 

The Norwegian Model: Norway is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Economic Area (EEA). This provides the country full-access to the single market, including access for financial services. However, the country has been required to accept freedom of movement and must implement EU directives. Norway is the tenth highest contributor, per head to the EU budget (the UK is ninth), but has no influence over EU regulations and is unable to independently agree free trade agreements with third countries.

The Swiss Model: Switzerland is a member of EFTA, but is not a member of the EEA. Its access to the Single Market is secured through bilateral agreements. This does not include access for financial services. Switzerland is required to accept EU regulation, notably economic regulation the free movement of people and employment regulation. It does not, however, play a role in shaping this legislation. According to the House of Commons Library, its contributions to the EU are approximately £420m per year in total, or £53 per capita (the UK’s gross contribution is £15,356m in total, or £243 per capita, its net contribution is £8,102m in total of £128 per capita).

World Trade Organisation: Britain Stronger in Europe argues that should the UK leave the EU without a free trade agreement in place and choose to trade on World Trade Organisation terms, it would be subject to ‘Most Favoured Nation’ (MFN) tariff rates. They argue that, based on the value of the UK’s exports of goods to the EU in 2014 (£220bn), the cost of MFN tariffs would be £11.3bn – equivalent to £176 per person, or £426 per household. The House of Commons library has noted that ‘MFN tariffs would be imposed on around 90% of the UK’s goods exports to the EU by value’, though the ‘implications of a move to an MFN trading arrangement for exporters and domestic consumers would vary considerably by sector’.

Free-trade agreement: the UK could enter into a bespoke free-trade agreement with the EU. Those on the Remain side question why the ‘remainder of the EU would be willing to give the UK a unique, generous deal, which has never before been offered to a country outside the EU’.

 

 

The economics is important but so are other issues. One just has to look at how the ability to travel across the continent, unhindered by visa restrictions, has allowed many millions of UK nationals to travel and appreciate the diverse and rich culture of European countries. We've embraced the varied diets and foods that travelling Brits have experienced across Europe, and European citizens have brought to the UK, and we're a culturally richer nation as a result. 

We have a more internationally outward looking higher education section with countless new research and university collaborations thanks to the various Framework programmes that have funded European wide research resulting in a technologically sophisticated and innovative continent. Research that has directly impacted on human and animal health for the better

Many of our young people have benefited from studying in European universities as part of the Erasmus programme and UK universities have benefited from welcoming visiting European students and researchers.

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, Belfastsocrates said:

Many of our young people have benefited from studying in European universities as part of the Erasmus programme and UK universities have benefited from welcoming visiting European students and researchers.

Actually, I found this interesting. I did do my Erasmus in the UK (and it was great!) but when I got there I noticed that the university I went to actually pushed studying abroad in places like Canada, the US and Australia (which all costs tens of thousands of dollars/euros). Some of the local students I talked to about this also said that the university basically kinda pretended that Erasmus wasn't a thing, that you'd have to push them to tell you about it. I found that rather surprising tbh. 

Still, with the UK raising its university admission fees, we do see more and more British students deciding they are simply much better off studying in some Dutch or German university. Especially since most of the courses are taught in English anyways. 

[krbe 193]

Donald Tusk does not like his organisation being likened to Hitler (obviously), and in response he echoes Hitlerite explanations of the importance of said organisation.

• Hitler election poster from 1932 ('Our Last Hope - HITLER')
• Ballot from an earlier European 'remain' referendum

[LexusInfernus 908]

It is such a sad and damning indictment of our politicians that they are unable to promote the EU through anything other than fear. There are to many to count positive argument why the UK would be better off staying within the EU, but all they come up with is 'don't do it or else it will cause chaos'. How obvious that they themselves loathe the EU if the best thing they can think about it is that 'things would be worse without it'. 

Geez people, how hard is it to bring a positive message in favor of Europe to convince people that they should want to stay with it? Well I guess the current political discourse is so boxed in the message of fear and distrust that no one knows any better at this point. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Perhaps the biggest problem with the EU is that it doesn't move fast enough.  It is like a giant amoeba, slowly slithering across the ground while allowing all sorts of objections and exceptions.  After all these years has any member given up one iota of sovereignty?  The only visible thing that seems to have happened is the Schengen agreement.

In North America, the latest nuisance is that Canadians now must carry a passport to cross the Canada/U.S. border.  The Ministry of State for Foreign Affairs is making money hand over fist by selling passports to the citizenry who want to go shopping in the next town.  Most of this was caused by the knee-jerk panic in the U.S. after 9/11.