Brexit for taffers

[lowenz]

I'll be glad to read some lucid logic-driven opinions from the best minds over here ('cause we got the best Internet minds on TDM forums, it's a fact )

 

For the common, expected, obvious (and obviously politically/ideologically biased) opinions/interpretations about this event I got all the normal forums and sources ( some of them really childish ).....so post only wickedly brilliant intuitions, thanks

Edited June 25, 2016 by lowenz

[Melan]

Eh. It was Britain that kept some of the crazy stuff from Brussels at bay, and vice versa. Now they both have the chance to go full-out crazy. At least Cameron had the decency to step down; Juncker and his team are so deluded they probably don't even realise they have screwed up. Mutti knows it, but will throw Europe to the dogs before she would admit being wrong.

 

This is from my own selfish perspective. I fully understand Britain has legitimate reasons to leave, even if it will have to face some economic damage in the short and medium term.

[Sotha]

I don't know about brilliant intuitions, but the thing is scary.

 

Nobody knows what is gonna happen now. People have voted for more instability in a situation, where EU countries are already in an unbalanced state due to multiple simultaneous crisis. I guess the voting result is so narrow that there is room for political maneuverings.

 

The voting result is also scary because it shows how people vote on big thing with emotion rather than reason. Brexit will have a price tag the brits must pay and nobody knows how costly it will be.

 

A chain reaction may start where people want to throw the cake out the window just to say "fuck you" to the ruling elite. Perhaps it would be better to be wise and share the cake so everyone gets a little bit.

 

In my opinion, in the globalized world, smaller countries need to stick together and work things out in a larger scale, rather than break down into smaller, bickering, isolated units.

 

One of the biggest winners in the whole Brexit endeavor is Putin's Russia, and that is quite telling, isn't it?

[Spooks]

To preempt this, I really don't care for (British) politics as I'm nowhere near the country and I am completely, willfully, uninformed. With that out of the way, I find the entire ordeal extremely funny. Scottish independence is basically guaranteed with these results, making the term "United Kingdom" redundant. Turkey will finally be able to join the EU as the UK has been constantly vetoing it. As Sotha said, Putin must be the happiest little totalitarian leader right now. The funniest thing is you know a large part of the "leave" voters basically did it because

focking pakis, mate.

The economic repercussions are going to bite them in the ass hard.

[Sotha]

Heh, the thing is getting interesting. Now there is a petition with 1.5 million signatures that asks for a new vote on Brexit.

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

 

People woke up?

[grayman]

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have a group of Texas politicians seriously discussing leaving the US.

 

They're calling it "Texit".

 

Haven't you already tried that, folks?

[Oldjim]

The way that petition is worded there would almost certainly be an infinite number of referendums

Of course if the vote had gone the other way would the leavers have demanded another vote just because they didn't win

[Anderson]

The referendum is not binding as I understand. That might give them reasons not to activate Article 50 but just to use the results of the referendum to simply commence more talks. We'll see.

In general referendums aren't a good thing. Imho they're totally undemocratic because of how primitive the arguments get - in the end just pushing for an emotional result as some sort of a marketing campaign gone wrong where the most succesful ads guarantee a winner. Referendums are populist moves that help the same politicians who initiate them. Enough to look at the history of referendums in Nazi Germany to see how much manipulation there is over an illusion of direct democracy. That's exactly why they never hold them anymore in Germany and why Switzerland only makes these locally (like what colour flowers in our city will be) or nationally only on social issues (like a basic social fund for those not working recently).

 

Maybe I'll be frowned upon but nothing better was conceived by man other than representative democracy. Elect a person who has views similar to yours to push things forward from your delegation. Sure it's full of fraud, unfair thresholds, lying, deceiving - but that's the nature of politics. Referendums are far worse.

 

Atm looks like some hard negotiating is ahead. Both sides were terribly exaggerating but in the end I think some middle way will be sought out. Even if UK leaves it won't be as dramatic as many overreact.

Russia can't do that much except use the moment to apply pressure on non-NATO members. Just another test of endurance for our failed post soviet countries. Even if EU would have disintegrated tomorrow there's still NATO, so you're safe, don't worry.

 

What kind of worried me is using very odd arguments, like invoking that the European Commisioner, who, allegedly isn't elected directly and isn't binded to anyone, so the EU is a huge dictatorship USSR. He IS chosen however by the European Parliament and the European Council. It's a complex process and the EU actually is goverened not just by these 3 but also has other important contributions such as the European Court of Justice. Saying that only the Commisioners have real power only prooves again how much politicians like to simplify things for another vote on the referendum.

TL:DR yes it's quite complex and hard to explain but that doesn't mean the system is disfuncuntional. I mean the House of Lords isn't exactly elected either in Britain but they were exercising the rold of a Supreme Court until recently. So that was definately way too exagerated.

Other crticisms were probably quite fair. But again, that's not forever considering elections soon in Germany and a change in the US leadership definately brings winds of change. It's too early to say anything until the end of this year, I think.

Life goes on.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Anderson

[lowenz]

Even if EU would have disintegrated tomorrow there's still NATO, so you're safe, don't worry.

Sarcasm?

[Anderson]

Sarcasm?

Kind of the reality. From 2013 it was painful to realize how temporary some borders are. 21'st century dreams. C'est la vie.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Anderson

[lowenz]

I mean the ones who are against EU are more against NATO (and some against NATO are NOT against EU).

Edited June 25, 2016 by lowenz

[Goldwell]

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have a group of Texas politicians seriously discussing leaving the US.

 

They're calling it "Texit".

 

Haven't you already tried that, folks?

 

Why does Texas have such a hardon for trying to succeed from the union?

 

I don't know much about UK politics but isn't it too early to say if this move was good or bad? It seems like the sky is falling group are trying to make the sky fall by their own hysteria but really nothing has changed yet. From what i've read the UK hasn't even made plans moving forward so it's impossible to say if it's good or bad yet as all they've done is said they're leaving the EU.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Goldwell

[stumpy]

well that's a 200 foot high, 40 feet thick concrete wall between Scotland and England, plus north sea oil runs out soon, that's why they've been fracking in England. Scotland were basically conned from being annex from England, by some dodgy politicians they shouldn't have listened too.

 

article 50 might take some time as the person who started the referendum has resigned because it didn't go their way.

 

the second referendum wont happen cause the first one cannot be revoked. as far as what's been said on the news here. (bbc news)

 

it takes a minimum of 2 years to uncouple a country from the EU and 10 years max if people drag their feet.

Edited June 25, 2016 by stumpy

[Spooks]

 

Why does Texas have such a hardon for trying to succeed from the union?

 

I don't know much about UK politics but isn't it too early to say if this move was good or bad? It seems like the sky is falling group are trying to make the sky fall by their own hysteria but really nothing has changed yet. From what i've read the UK hasn't even made plans moving forward so it's impossible to say if it's good or bad yet as all they've done is said they're leaving the EU.

 

The state of California could, at any moment, become its own country and survive on its own. They've got Hollywood and they've got the Sillicon Valley. My question is, what exactly does Texas have?

 

"Welcome to the sovereign country of Texas, we export belt buckles and Paula Deen's shitty recipes!" Really though, this is where Texas' exports go to. Quite funny.

[Anderson]

I mean the ones who are against EU are more against NATO (and some against NATO are NOT against EU).

The success of euroscepticism is owed to a clever dodging of the Russian interest in it. An anti-NATO debate would be much harder to maintain. Maybe before 2013 ? But not now. They argue well on the economic side of things, while NATO in spite of all criticism is primarily a geopolitical argument.

The two structures try not to have duplicate functions either, so I guess we won't see that soon. If the ideas of Europol and/or an european army were to be promoted - yes, things would commence change here somewhat.

 

It's impossible to nag in a sofist rhetoric like that how NATO members always are a few steps superior to their would be opponents. It's everywhere: the better uniforms, better gear, better training, the value of a human life at the end of the day. No reliance on zerg rushes.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Anderson

[lowenz]

No reliance on zerg rushes.

LOL

[demagogue]

When Brexit happened, I quoted from an article by my old EU Law professor Joe Weiler that I thought captured at least the spiritual meaning of it -- to the extent anything EU can approach something deserving the label of "spiritual" -- and at the end you can see my blurb interpreting its application here & my opinion on it. So that's what I can offer here if you want to know my take on it.

 

Edit: I'll add it here in a spoiler tag too:

 

 

Re: Brexit

Joseph HH Weiler, European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, pp 18 ff.

"European integration has been, historically, one of the principal means by which to consolidate democracy within and among several of the Member States, both old and new, with less than perfect historical democratic credentials. For many, thus, democracy is the objective, the end, of the European construct. This is fallacious.

Democracy is not the end. Democracy, too, is a means, even if an indispensable means. The end is to try, and try again, to live a life of decency, to honour our creation in the image of God, or the secular equivalent. A democracy, when all is said and done, is as good or bad as the people who belong to it. The problem of Haider’s Austria is not an absence of democracy. The problem is that Austria is a democracy, that Haider was elected democratically, and that even the people who did not vote for him are content to see him and his party share in government. A democracy of vile persons will be vile.

Europe was built on the ashes of the Second World War, which witnessed the most horrific alienation of those thought of as aliens, an alienation which became annihilation. What we should be thinking about is not simply the prevention of another such carnage: that is the easy part and it is unlikely ever to happen again in Western Europe, though events in the Balkans remind us that those demons are still within the continent. More difficult is dealing at a deeper level with the source of these attitudes. In the realm of the social, in the public square, the relationship to the alien is at the core of such decency. It is difficult to imagine something normatively more important to the human condition and to our multicultural societies.

There are, it seems to me, two basic human strategies for dealing with the alien and these two strategies have played a decisive role in Western civilization. One strategy is to remove the boundaries. It is the spirit of ‘come, be one of us’. It is noble since it involves, of course, elimination of prejudice, of the notion that there are boundaries that cannot be eradicated. But the ‘be one of us’, however well intentioned, is often an invitation to the alien to be one of us, by being us. Vis-à-vis the alien, it risks robbing him of his identity. Vis-à-vis oneself, it may be a subtle manifestation of both arrogance and belief in my superiority as well as intolerance. If I cannot tolerate the alien, one way of resolving the dilemma is to make him like me, no longer an alien. This is, of course, infinitely better than the opposite: exclusion, repression, and worse. But it is still a form of dangerous internal and external intolerance.

The alternative strategy of dealing with the alien is to acknowledge the validity of certain forms of non-ethnic bounded identity but simultaneously to reach across boundaries. We acknowledge and respect difference, and what is special and unique about ourselves as individuals and groups; and yet we reach across differences in recognition of our essential humanity. What is significant in this are the two elements I have mentioned. On the one hand, the identity of the alien, as such, is maintained. One is not invited to go out and, say, ‘save him’ by inviting him to be one of us. One is not invited to recast the boundary. On the other hand, despite the boundaries which are maintained, and constitute the I and the Alien, one is commanded to reach over the boundary and accept him, in his alienship, as oneself. The alien is accorded human dignity. The soul of the I is tended to not by eliminating the temptation to oppress but by learning humility and overcoming it.

The European current constitutional architecture represents this alternative, civilizing strategy of dealing with the ‘other’. Constitutional Tolerance is encapsulated in that most basic articulation of its meta-political objective in the preamble to the EC Treaty mentioned earlier in this chapter: ‘Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.’ No matter how close the Union, it is to remain a union among distinct peoples, distinct political identities, distinct political communities. An ever closer union could be achieved by an amalgam of distinct peoples into one which is both the ideal and/or the de facto experience of most federal and non-federal states. The rejection by Europe of that One Nation ideal or destiny is, as indicated above, usually understood as intended to preserve the rich diversity, cultural and other, of the distinct European peoples as well as to respect their political self-determination. But the European choice has an even deeper spiritual meaning.

An ever closer union is altogether more easy if differences between the components are eliminated, if they come to resemble each other, if they aspire to become one. The more identical the ‘Other’s’ identity is to my own, the easier it is for me to identify with him and accept him. It demands less of me to accept another if he is very much like me. It is altogether more difficult to attain an ever closer Union if the components of that Union preserve their distinct identities, if they retain their ‘otherness’ vis-à-vis each other, if they do not become one flesh, politically speaking. Herein resides the Principle of Tolerance. Inevitably I define my distinct identity by a boundary which differentiates me from those who are unlike me. My continued existence as a distinct identity depends, ontologically, on that boundary and, psychologically and sociologically, on preserving that sentiment of otherness. The call to bond with those very others in an ever closer union demands an internalization – individual and societal – of a very high degree of tolerance. Living the Kantian categorical imperative is most meaningful when it is extended to those who are unlike me. In political terms, this Principle of Tolerance finds a remarkable expression in the political organization of the Community."

 

Here’s the TL;DR short version & punchline: The core of European Integration was internalizing tolerance to difference and the sovereignty of others as its founding principle. Its rejection flaunts just that principle. The Leave campaign claimed “respect for UK sovereignty” as its goal, but the UK will probably find it commanded more respect for its Britishness & its sovereignty within the EU than it can expect to find outside to a dog-eat-dog world that doesn’t care about UK sovereignty any further than it can throw it. But the deeper point is that the Leave Campaign’s demand for “respect from others” was premised on a deep disrespect and intolerance of others. This is a position that sets fire to its own moral foundations and rots it from the inside. (We’ll get to this paradox in the current GOP’s demand for respect in a later installment.)

 

 

As a Texan, I guess I could explain that as well. Texas is unique among states by being its own country for 9 years before it joined the union, the right of succession is built into its constitution, it's the only state allowed to fly its flag at the same height as the US flag, etc, etc. So it's always had that separatist kind of ethos as a kind of nation to itself. But politically speaking, they're just turning that old sentiment into a bland and pointless political gambit for more batshit rightist policies like gun and immigration control or whatever. Sad really. I think even an independent Texas should have liberal progressive policies just like the US, if not more so. So I really don't see the point of it to suffer all that economic harm for nothing, proud Texan though I am.

[lowenz]

Demons are still here in Europe, I can confirm, as a distortion of some "barbaric"-aristocratic approach to existence of frustrated revanchist people full of payback need vs the "the evil modernity" (yes, in 2016.....)

And some of these men are wickedly intelligent and cunning, not "trumpiefied" goons.

They're really the equivalent (and proud to be) of iranian '79 revolutionaries and they're constantly in search of an ethic (and ethnic) state organization.

 

They consider the democracy a devil's work and they try to appeal the masses with the obvious populism you can imagine ("Democracy is the Oligarchy of Lobbies who want you weak and poor, intoxicated with modernity to control you better" so it's a mixed bag of socialism for stupids/desperates and religious traditionalism).

Edited June 27, 2016 by lowenz

[lowenz]

Democracy is the Oligarchy of Lobbies who want you weak and poor, intoxicated with modernity to control you better

Addendum.

 

And the real problem *ISN'T* strictly the quoted thesis (maybe in some aspects the sentence is true), it's the human passive-aggressive behaviour and psychology behind those words: these self-proclaimed "fascists saviours of civilisation" are always totally lacking of social skills, they are simply unsuited elitists: kind of "noble misfits" who want to play the "eternal Good vs Evil for the Truth" battle (beeing adults.....) and they fascinate poor/desperate people sensible to that mythology.

Edited June 27, 2016 by lowenz

[MoroseTroll]

One of the biggest winners in the whole Brexit endeavor is Putin's Russia, and that is quite telling, isn't it?

How's that? About 10% of Russia's foreign-exchange reserves is in British pounds, and more than 41% is in euros. How and what Russia can win when both pound and euro are getting lower?

 

As Sotha said, Putin must be the happiest little totalitarian leader right now.

The same question: how's that? And who said that Putin is a totalitarian leader? I've participated almost in all presidential elections since 1992 as a member of the local election commission, and I can say that Putin has always been elected as the president by the vast majority of voters.

 

Guys, no offence, but I would recommend you to visit Russia and live here for a while, instead of saying the Russophobia mantra that your mass media is translating. Russian rouble is about three times lower than it should be ("thanks" to Saudis and USA shale oil industry for raising the oil war), so it would be very inexpensive for you to visit my country .

[lowenz]

How's that? About 10% of Russia's foreign-exchange reserves is in British pounds, and more than 41% is in euros. How and what Russia can win when both pound and euro are getting lower?

 

The same question: how's that? And who said that Putin is a totalitarian leader? I've participated almost in all presidential elections since 1992 as a member of the local election commission, and I can say that Putin has always been elected as the president by the vast majority of voters.

 

Guys, no offence, but I would recommend you to visit Russia and live here for a while, instead of saying the Russophobia mantra that your mass media is translating. Russian rouble is about three times lower than it should be ("thanks" to Saudis and USA shale oil industry for raising the oil war), so it would be very inexpensive for you to visit my country .

How about Nemtsov omicide?

 

It's not about Russia, it's about an ex-KGB man on top of the behemoth (and brace yourself, I'm totally devoted to old russian cosmists such as Fyodorov, Tsiolkovsky, Vernadsky, Chizhevsky, Bogdanov and others - and I'm a Tarkovsky fan I love so much russian late '800 culture, so much! Kind of "my" culture ).

Edited June 27, 2016 by lowenz

[esme]

Well this is very much a worst case scenario but there aren't many good ones I can think of at the moment and scarily there are signs of it starting to happen

 

The UK has put one foot on the slippery slope with the vote, if we invoke Article 50 that's the second one and the process becomes irreversible we then have two years to negotiate our exit terms which is basically a rulebook of "how do we trade with the EU as a non member".

 

This can be extended but requires all the other member states to agree, as we just gave them two fingers and pissed on their chips I doubt they are all going to be so disposed, so lets say two years is it.

 

Any trade deal we do make with the EU is going to allow free movement of labour from the EU but not to the EU, it will allow immigration though no one in their right mind will immigrate and will cost us a lot more than our membership of the EU ever did. This is because the EU will have us over a barrel, any trade deal will be of the "take it or leave it" variety, we need them a lot more than they need us no matter what that nice Mr Farage says.

 

After two years, whether we have a deal or not we cease being an EU member, all trade ceases and switches to what we've negotiated, we cease being EU citizens, free movement of labour to the EU ceases ... a lot of thing stop is the theme I'm going for here.

 

And then we're on our own free to trade with whoever we like.

 

Except for the minor detail that we'll have very little to trade by this time.

 

There are few UK resident businesses that are not either majority or wholly foreign owned, they are here because of relatively cheap labour and free and convenient access to the EU. Once they know for definite that the free and convenient access to a market of 500million people is going to stop they will leave. Some companies are already doing this or at least planning to, the big banks, who ironically caused the last recession, are drawing up plans to relocate to other countries to avoid this lack of access and the next recession. Tech companies are doing the same. The buyers for TATA steel which is an Indian owned company, have dropped out. Japanese car companies are weighing their options for having the UK as a base, Ford had said they would have to rethink their presence in the UK. Most of our major manufacturers, businesses & industries are drawing up plans to leave the UK if they can.

 

So a lot of our major manufacturers, the ones who make the goods we trade with, will leave, casting thousands, if not millions onto welfare, you may have thought Austerity was bad, this is going to be a hell of a lot worse.

 

If we don't produce anything we obviously can't trade it, which means our imports will dry up, which could be a problem as we import around 46% of our food, we don't produce enough or enough variety to adequately feed our own population and the farms can't ramp up production overnight it takes time to grow food, during which time people will go hungry.

 

Oh and fuel, we import a lot of that too, does anyone know how to guarantee a mild winter ? ... for the next decade or more ?, oh yeah global warming, no worries on fuel then, phew.

 

I'm glad I mentioned the farms, every one of them is heavily subsidised by the EU, without that funding they have to charge the full production cost of the food they produce.

 

So without the EU there will be a lot less food, and what there is will be a lot more expensive and all the people who will be out of work by this time won't be able to afford it anyway, so we can probably expect rationing to start if not, outright famine.

 

And then there are all the EU funded things that will also stop, all our universities receive substantial funding from the EU, as do a lot of our social welfare programmes including the NHS. The EU funding will stop & all these things will collapse. Our children will not be able to go to universities unless they are from rich families & without the NHS we can expect diseases of epidemic proportion to rise, which will at least help with the food problem.

 

Then there are the racists and the far right. I don't know if anyone noticed over the weekend but these arseholes have been crawling out from under their rocks and attacking people. If you are reading this and count yourself among their number may I take this opportunity to wish you an extremely protracted and painful death you gibbering fucktrumpet. Now I accept that not every leave voter is a racist and a lot of you had what you considered to be good reasons for voting to leave, but every racist took your vote as a vindication, you effectively said "hey guys you're OK, now go and kick some immigrant heads in you little scamps". And of course since the far right are such a tolerant group we can expect them to broaden their attacks to include their old traditional targets like "LGBT folk", "women who dress provocatively" (translates as wearing clothes) and the old favourite "people who look a bit different". Also they are going to be hungry too and they aren't above taking what they need by force. You've just legitimised them, well done.

 

Now as I say this is very much a worst case scenario and it relies on Article 50 being triggered, but parts of it are happening now.

 

Not triggering Article 50 might stop the rot, and there are signs that the government isn't going to trigger it, in which case we can count on a recession for the next maybe 5 years if we're lucky, every other person in the world hating and despising us for the rest of our lives, oh and we'll have changed one group of our ruling elite for another group of ruling elite.

 

But whatever happens it's going to be a lot worse than most people think.

 

-EDIT-

 

And while the EU cannot force us to invoke Article 50, unless a decision is taken publicly to either invoke it or take it off the table the markets will not stabilise, the pound will remain in free fall and there is a danger of the same hyperinflation that Germany suffered occurring here.

 

So we need a statement one way or the other and we need it soon, end of this week may be too late

Edited June 27, 2016 by esme

[MoroseTroll]

How about Nemtsov omicide?

How about Jo Cox homicide? I guess you can tell me that Nemtsov was killed because of his anti-corruption affairs, etc. Well, I can tell that Jo Cox was killed especially by MI5 or MI6 just to make British people more "Remain" and less "Leave." I guess you'll say to me, "Bullshit!" Well, I can say the same.

My point is, don't trust anyone who's saying that Russia is Mordor. Some NATO higher-ups want you to believe in this, but why? The reason is simple: as soon as you know that Russia is not your enemy, you'll understand that that higher-ups were lying to you all the way.

Edited June 27, 2016 by MoroseTroll

[Anderson]

When Brexit happened, I quoted from an article by my old EU Law professor Joe Weiler that I thought captured at least the spiritual meaning of it -- to the extent anything EU can approach something deserving the label of "spiritual" -- and at the end you can see my blurb interpreting its application here & my opinion on it. So that's what I can offer here if you want to know my take on it.

 

Edit: I'll add it here in a spoiler tag too:

 

 

Re: Brexit

Joseph HH Weiler, European Constitutionalism Beyond the State, pp 18 ff.

"European integration has been, historically, one of the principal means by which to consolidate democracy within and among several of the Member States, both old and new, with less than perfect historical democratic credentials. For many, thus, democracy is the objective, the end, of the European construct. This is fallacious.

Democracy is not the end. Democracy, too, is a means, even if an indispensable means. The end is to try, and try again, to live a life of decency, to honour our creation in the image of God, or the secular equivalent. A democracy, when all is said and done, is as good or bad as the people who belong to it. The problem of Haider’s Austria is not an absence of democracy. The problem is that Austria is a democracy, that Haider was elected democratically, and that even the people who did not vote for him are content to see him and his party share in government. A democracy of vile persons will be vile.

Europe was built on the ashes of the Second World War, which witnessed the most horrific alienation of those thought of as aliens, an alienation which became annihilation. What we should be thinking about is not simply the prevention of another such carnage: that is the easy part and it is unlikely ever to happen again in Western Europe, though events in the Balkans remind us that those demons are still within the continent. More difficult is dealing at a deeper level with the source of these attitudes. In the realm of the social, in the public square, the relationship to the alien is at the core of such decency. It is difficult to imagine something normatively more important to the human condition and to our multicultural societies.

There are, it seems to me, two basic human strategies for dealing with the alien and these two strategies have played a decisive role in Western civilization. One strategy is to remove the boundaries. It is the spirit of ‘come, be one of us’. It is noble since it involves, of course, elimination of prejudice, of the notion that there are boundaries that cannot be eradicated. But the ‘be one of us’, however well intentioned, is often an invitation to the alien to be one of us, by being us. Vis-à-vis the alien, it risks robbing him of his identity. Vis-à-vis oneself, it may be a subtle manifestation of both arrogance and belief in my superiority as well as intolerance. If I cannot tolerate the alien, one way of resolving the dilemma is to make him like me, no longer an alien. This is, of course, infinitely better than the opposite: exclusion, repression, and worse. But it is still a form of dangerous internal and external intolerance.

The alternative strategy of dealing with the alien is to acknowledge the validity of certain forms of non-ethnic bounded identity but simultaneously to reach across boundaries. We acknowledge and respect difference, and what is special and unique about ourselves as individuals and groups; and yet we reach across differences in recognition of our essential humanity. What is significant in this are the two elements I have mentioned. On the one hand, the identity of the alien, as such, is maintained. One is not invited to go out and, say, ‘save him’ by inviting him to be one of us. One is not invited to recast the boundary. On the other hand, despite the boundaries which are maintained, and constitute the I and the Alien, one is commanded to reach over the boundary and accept him, in his alienship, as oneself. The alien is accorded human dignity. The soul of the I is tended to not by eliminating the temptation to oppress but by learning humility and overcoming it.

The European current constitutional architecture represents this alternative, civilizing strategy of dealing with the ‘other’. Constitutional Tolerance is encapsulated in that most basic articulation of its meta-political objective in the preamble to the EC Treaty mentioned earlier in this chapter: ‘Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.’ No matter how close the Union, it is to remain a union among distinct peoples, distinct political identities, distinct political communities. An ever closer union could be achieved by an amalgam of distinct peoples into one which is both the ideal and/or the de facto experience of most federal and non-federal states. The rejection by Europe of that One Nation ideal or destiny is, as indicated above, usually understood as intended to preserve the rich diversity, cultural and other, of the distinct European peoples as well as to respect their political self-determination. But the European choice has an even deeper spiritual meaning.

An ever closer union is altogether more easy if differences between the components are eliminated, if they come to resemble each other, if they aspire to become one. The more identical the ‘Other’s’ identity is to my own, the easier it is for me to identify with him and accept him. It demands less of me to accept another if he is very much like me. It is altogether more difficult to attain an ever closer Union if the components of that Union preserve their distinct identities, if they retain their ‘otherness’ vis-à-vis each other, if they do not become one flesh, politically speaking. Herein resides the Principle of Tolerance. Inevitably I define my distinct identity by a boundary which differentiates me from those who are unlike me. My continued existence as a distinct identity depends, ontologically, on that boundary and, psychologically and sociologically, on preserving that sentiment of otherness. The call to bond with those very others in an ever closer union demands an internalization – individual and societal – of a very high degree of tolerance. Living the Kantian categorical imperative is most meaningful when it is extended to those who are unlike me. In political terms, this Principle of Tolerance finds a remarkable expression in the political organization of the Community."

 

Here’s the TL;DR short version & punchline: The core of European Integration was internalizing tolerance to difference and the sovereignty of others as its founding principle. Its rejection flaunts just that principle. The Leave campaign claimed “respect for UK sovereignty” as its goal, but the UK will probably find it commanded more respect for its Britishness & its sovereignty within the EU than it can expect to find outside to a dog-eat-dog world that doesn’t care about UK sovereignty any further than it can throw it. But the deeper point is that the Leave Campaign’s demand for “respect from others” was premised on a deep disrespect and intolerance of others. This is a position that sets fire to its own moral foundations and rots it from the inside. (We’ll get to this paradox in the current GOP’s demand for respect in a later installment.)

 

 

As a Texan, I guess I could explain that as well. Texas is unique among states by being its own country for 9 years before it joined the union, the right of succession is built into its constitution, it's the only state allowed to fly its flag at the same height as the US flag, etc, etc. So it's always had that separatist kind of ethos as a kind of nation to itself. But politically speaking, they're just turning that old sentiment into a bland and pointless political gambit for more batshit rightist policies like gun and immigration control or whatever. Sad really. I think even an independent Texas should have liberal progressive policies just like the US, if not more so. So I really don't see the point of it to suffer all that economic harm for nothing, proud Texan though I am.

Very good arguments, you had a wise professor.

The most remarkable argument was that relating to how the "founding father" countries of the EU seem to be on some degree of superiority in comparison to other nations. I guess it will take many good years to allow us and hope that the equality discrepancy will wither away. Imho that's a lot due to the economical gap between the west and east that built up through years of different economical systems. The EU funds go a long way to help remove that. Some even believe that thanks to EU and NATO the revanchist current won't take place again as it did in the 1930's.

The larger cultural, spiritual dimension is of course an awesome topic to take an incursion into. Pragmatically it seems that the economical factor just stands there being a wall against it. To a degree it's also why the Russian idea is wrong. We can't reinvent the bicycle. Eastern Europe and Southern needs of course to make huge leaps to catch up with the developed world but in a way the "supremacy of Germany, France, Britain and some Nordic countries over rest of Europe is quite justified. Those who have money, order the music (even if it has nothing in common with principles) but that's how the world works.

It will take long years before other countries can be fully independent and set their own tunes and echo their policies in bringing civilization around them.

There are many theories regarding the role of the state in that process. Continuing in this post just as some subjective speculation on Thomas Hobbes's concept - probably we should be fearful and expect the worse in our society. It's pessimistic but what the rest of Europe was doing is improvising from the English model of separated branches of power and combining it with the French revolutionary romantic vision of a free state based on an abstract concept of sovereignty of each nation. I'm skeptical obviously in the value of such a sovereignty as a value in and of its own. Not to blame Britain for much by the way. I'm just against the extreme scenario of the EU not existing (because without it rest of Europe will be as wild and ugly as Russia).

 

It seems the perfect situation makes itself clear with Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden. But not everyone can pay the price for neutrality to afford staying away from the EU. It's imperfect. But it works much better than anything these countries had before in USSR or the CIS alternative in the east. It's not what eurosceptics exaggerate it to be.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Anderson

[lowenz]

It's not what eurosceptics exaggerate it to be.

Yes, they *really* exaggerate using stupid communist stereotypes (-> Troika) to summon an hatred-based form of McCarthyism.

Edited June 27, 2016 by lowenz