
As an English European, this is the biggest defeat of my political life - mercer
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/lifelong-english-european-the-biggest-defeat-of-my-political-life-timothy-garton-ash-brexit
======
rbanffy
Among those who voted for leaving there must be someone able to articulate a
valid and reasonable justification for that vote. I'm genuinely curious to
hear that.

~~~
ghayes
Not a Brit, but for one, it means Britian can control influx of immigrants and
refugees. I'm sure that played into many people's votes.

~~~
Aeolos
Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market.

The refugee situation is unlikely to change from the current status quo.
Britain is already hosting fewer refugees than almost any other country in
central or southern Europe.

~~~
internaut
> Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market.

That's what is going to change. That is the primary motive for exit.

Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right
typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are
probably right in my view.

Thinking otherwise is like believing that other people are able to move into
your house without asking but you know, it's 'your' house on paper. That's
something only an intellectual of the worse kind could believe.

~~~
jacquesm
> That's what is going to change.

It will? Enlighten me, how will this take place?

> That is the primary motive for exit.

No, that was the primary motive for voters to vote for 'exit', unfortunately
that is also the one thing that most likely will remain just as it is today.

What _will_ change is that the UK (or England, or whatever will be left of it)
will be further marginalized, both on the European and the world stage.

> Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right
> typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are
> probably right in my view.

Sad.

~~~
rbanffy
> No, that was the primary motive for voters to vote for 'exit', unfortunately
> that is also the one thing that most likely will remain just as it is today.

We should not this is the best possible outcome. It can get much, much worse.

~~~
jacquesm
Already there are reports of violence against Muslims and Poles in some parts
of the UK. The best of human nature at work.

------
nabla9
It's political defeat, sure. Otherwice I don't see how anything changes.

Britain gets similar deal as Norway has. Not in a EU, but member of EEA
(European Economic Area ) and EFTA (European Free Trade Association). There
will be free travel, Britain will still pay for EU. Britain can even be
participatory member in many EU institutions.

The only difference is that Britain has no vote. Since Britain has always been
the one to rebel against and drag it's feet in EU, this might actually speed
up decision making in EU.

~~~
dc2447
It's very dangerous to assume the UK will get the same sort of deal as Norway.
Norway has some unique cultural and exononomic attributes that are very
different from the UK.

Whilst it is in the interest of the EU to have a trade agreement with UK, the
UK does not have a strong negotiating position.

Why would EU member states do anything to help a country that is destabilising
the entire EU project.

~~~
achamayou
Britain is quite unlikely to keep their rebate if they go this route, so
they'll end up spending more on the EU than they currently do.

~~~
Aeolos
The UK was paying 0.3% of their budget for control of 9% of the European
Parliament. Following the Norway model, they will keep paying a similar amount
of money but control 0% of the parliament.

Excellent choice, my dear Britons, excellent choice.

~~~
NetTechM
Hardly a majority at 9% though, in most cases 9% is just as good as 0%. lol

------
nojvek
As an outsider trying to summarize the pros and cons:

Remain: Pros: Free trade with Eu, cheap flights, move around Europe for jobs.

Cons: no control on immigration, cheap labor stealing jobs, shitty eu rules.

Leave: Pros: Control over pound. Control on immigration. Control on
governance.

Cons: taxes on eu trade, can't move freely for jobs.

But the Uk was kind of special. They didn't have the euro. They weren't part
of schengen zone. Apart from influx of immigrants they had a good deal right?

Is the biggest leave argument the proposal to control who enters the border
and not pay EU fees? That is a legit argument.

------
user_rob
The EU is in a massive panic and stands to loose a lot more than the UK in
money and structure than the UK if exit negotiations go badly. Therefore the
UK is in a much stronger position and should just patiently refuse all
proposals that involve paying the EU or allowing free movement; the EU will
then need to agree quickly to stop the EU descending into chaos.

~~~
gonvaled
Not so fast. The EU has already accepted that the UK is gone. They are
pressuring for negotiations to start, and refusing to do any kind of informal
negotiation. It does not look like they are afraid of negotiating at all,
which suggests they have a good position.

The UK, on the other hand, ... I don't even know what the UK is doing. Are
they even going to follow through?

My impression is that the UK is going to drag its feet for years to come and
not activate article 50 in a long time, until your internal political climate
either forces a new referendum or general elections [1]:

> Some, however, have warned Britain “may never” trigger the formal divorce
> process because the tight deadline for talks puts the leaver in a weak
> position. “I personally believe they will never notify,” one diplomat said.
> “The moment you push the button you’re in a stupid negotiating position.”

In the meantime, the UK's role in the EU has been permanently damaged, and
some important decisions are being taken [2]:

> As shockwaves from the Brexit vote continued to spread, EU officials also
> said on Sunday the bloc was preparing to move its European Banking Authority
> from London, setting up a race led by Paris and Frankfurt to host the
> regulator.

[1], [2] [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-
leade...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders-
crunch-talks-brexit-fallout)

~~~
user_rob
Interesting, but wanting a fast negotiation is a result of panic and the
prospect of an economic downturn for the EU. Germany does not want a weak
pound as it will badly hit their exports to the UK. The EU's best strategy is
to quickly agree to free trade after Brexit and then re-structure the EU so
that other countries don't quit. Alternatively non-EU European countries like
Iceland, Norway, Switzerland etc could conceivably set up a more practical
alternative trading union. In any event the currency and stock trading frenzy
is over the top and mainly fuelled by the hyper-reality presented by the
media, as in the end it is still likely that not much will change economically
short or long term - for the UK! The UK will take its time - and it should -
it will take time for the major European countries to understand their and the
EU's fundamental ineffectiveness in solving major problems.

