
2017 will be filled more votes on the EU - mike_hearn
https://medium.com/@octskyward/ok-what-now-e3f64d38f7#.ufcl2twn3
======
TimonKnigge
As someone living in the Netherlands, let me place a few sidenotes next to the
section about it:

\- The 88% poll appears to be conducted amongst (online) Telegraaf readers
(here is an online version:
[http://www.telegraaf.nl/watuzegt/25920298/__Britten_moeten_i...](http://www.telegraaf.nl/watuzegt/25920298/__Britten_moeten_in_EU_blijven__.html))
which is a bit comparable to the British 'Daily Mail'.. It's very anti-EU, and
while it definitely has a large number of readers, the 88% is not at all
representative of the Dutch population.

\- The Ukraine referendum is mentioned, specifically: " _The agreement itself
is not that critical but the vote was widely used as a vote on the EU itself.
It went against the EU by 61% to 32%, albeit on low turnout of only 32%._ ".
The low turnout is relevant, a lot of people decided to strategically not vote
in order to signal their dislike for the referendum itself. Although the
minimum turnout (30%) was barely reached, the fact that this turnout was so
low - combined with the fact that the anti-EU parties implicitly marketed it
as an anti-EU vote - signals to me that much fewer people would vote against
the EU in a referendum similar to the British one.

There is certainly a lot of anti-EU sentiment, but this article does appear to
cherry pick its sources.

~~~
solidangle
Dutchie here. More sidenotes:

> It makes a bit more sense when you realise that the man doesn’t actually
> like democracy

Why does this mean he doesn't like democracy? He doesn't like direct
democracy, but he loves our indirect democracy. I don't see the need for a
referendum in the Netherlands, the next parliamentary election is coming up
soon and if people want to leave the EU they can vote for the Socialist Party
or the Party for Freedom, both want to leave the EU.

> The Dutch have a lot to lose from Brussels forcing a UK/NL trade war on
> them.

We have a lot more to lose from Brussels forcing a NL/DE trade war, if we
decide to leave the EU. Economically we're practically the 17th Bundesland of
Germany.

> He’s also survived a prosecution for “inciting hatred” (he was found not
> guilty).

Geert Wilders is facing more prosecution for asking his followers whether they
wanted more or less Moroccans in The Netherlands, after which they chanted
"Less! Less! Less!".

~~~
mike_hearn
Thanks to both of you for your insights. It is always difficult to interpret
foreign politics.

The basic assumption of democracy is that people can make good decisions. It
must be so even in indirect democracy because otherwise how are voters meant
to judge the track record of their existing politicians or the manifestos of
new ones?

You can't argue on one hand that people are too dumb to understand the issues
and on the other that people should select representatives that do because
those representatives (a) come from the existing population and (b) aren't
supposed to be elected on the quality of their smile but rather their
policies.

I'm sure Mark Rutte believes he is a democrat, whilst simultaneously ignoring
referendums and pretending nobody wants them. I think that's a nonsensical
position.

The second Wilders prosecution is interesting. Whether one likes his position
or not is irrelevant, it was political speech. If the Dutch courts decide to
jail (?) the countries most popular politician for talking politics, well, I
would not be in .NL when that happens ... sounds like the kind of thing that
can spark civil unrest.

 _> We have a lot more to lose from Brussels forcing a NL/DE trade war, if we
decide to leave the EU_

Yeah, but at that point Brussels would be fighting a trade war on two fronts.
How much tolerance for conscription into a fight for the power of the EU
elites do the ordinary people in Europe have?

The Czech Republic is already calling for the resignation of Juncker, I see.
Things look volatile.

------
hacknat
I think a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment can explain the strong political
push to varying western members' desire to break out of the EU. People are
rightly concerned about the break up of an important institution. However,
ever since the constitution was signed in 2004, I think many people have
justifiable concerns about sovereignty violations, incompetence, and grift.
The EU constitution is an 80 page document, and the people were given an up or
down vote on it; that is not effective democracy! When the US passed the bill
of rights it did so one by one. There was a vote for every single amendment,
and the US constitution is a brief document.

I think immigration is a great thing, but I would have voted to leave. The EU
is a great idea, but it should be limited to trade deals and trade
enforcement. The single currency and the unifying political body are a bridge
to far.

I don't think the Brexit is a referendum on Globalization or the Post War
Order, I think it was a referendum on the limits of sovereign unity on a
continent divided by many languages and cultures. The US is much less diverse
and has, effectively, one language and it has trouble doing anything at the
Federal level. Was there really any real hope that the EU could accomplish
something an order of magnitude more grand?

Edit:

I would like to add that any democratic institution that has the power that
the EU does, but the incredibly low turn out (EU turnout makes the American
midterms look positively Athenian) and the high number of backlash candidates
(a good number of EU MPs are actually anti-EU) that it does is doomed to be
voted down by its body politic. The EU might not die, but it will for sure get
scaled back.

~~~
iofj
I think that anyone who's seen what the EU/Eurozone/ECB/Comission/Eurogroup
did to Greece knows that staying in the EU is not in their interest at all.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZOAroRgIbY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZOAroRgIbY)

~~~
ThePhysicist
I'm not sure about this, so far it seems that the Greek government is (mostly)
of the opinion that their situation would probably considerably worsen should
they decide to leave the EU or the Euro zone, as the (significant) financial
aid they currently receive from the EU would cease and the new currency that
they would be forced to introduce would probably get completely devalued from
the Euro (which is not, as many people say, a blessing for Greece). Also,
their credit ranking would be such that they would not be able to borrow money
on the free market except at a forbiddingly high interest rate, so effectively
they would again end up at the mercy of the IWF, only this time they would not
be able to count on the help of the EU.

Sure, the Troika and the EU (especially Germany and France) chose a path that
created a lot of suffering for the Greek people in the short run, but bear in
mind that Greece brought itself into this position by agreeing to become a
part of the Euro zone and doing so using highly "creative" ways to mask their
bad metrics to fulfill the stability criteria. If anyone is to blame here it's
the EU for taking Greece into the Eurozone and the Greek government back then
for eagerly grabbing that opportunity while ignoring (or not knowing) the
risks. What we should learn from this is that strong political will alone is
not sufficient if the underlying fundamental economic values are wrong.

~~~
iofj
As widely reported, Greece has no access to the financial aid for Greece.
Those amounts are deposited directly to EU banks which bought Greek debt
because of the ECB guarantee.

No more than 5-15% ever passes through Greek hands.

------
drinchev
Yep. Sadly the question is boiled down to "In or out of EU" instead of "How to
make EU better".

IMHO, Europeans need to act together on a personal level. If people forget
about "French", "German", "Italian", "Greek", etc. in their minds for a while,
this union will be a huge benefit for everyone. This will probably give a
better european parliament which should realize the problems and act as one.

At this point most of the countries think for themselves, because of the
pressure of populist ( actually that's why Cameron did this referendum, right?
).

~~~
tomp
> Sadly the question is boiled down to "In or out of EU" instead of "How to
> make EU better".

We've been trying to get an answer to the second question, "How to make EU
better", for almost 10 years now. Unfortunately, every time the EU has an
opportunity to change, the answer the Eurocrats give is the same: "Let's keep
pretending everything is fine." I'm guessing it was last summer that they
managed to convince the EU cannot change (from within) with their
(mis-)treatment of Greece.

~~~
pfg
> Unfortunately, every time the EU has an opportunity to change, the answer
> the Eurocrats give is the same: "Let's keep pretending everything is fine."

But is it really the Eurocrats who are blocking progress? It seems to me like
most of the blame should go to the European Council. Whenever I see the
Parliament (or really anyone) push for meaningful reform, it gets blocked by
the Council.

Instead of blaming our national politicians for their failure to push for (or
even allow) reform in the Council, we keep electing them and blame the EU for
their failure.

~~~
mike_hearn
I agree with that analysis. It appears that people like Schulz and Juncker who
make so many outrageous statements in recent days are in reality reflective of
the thinking of the political elites in general, hence the difficulty of
bringing about real change.

If the issue is that they're suffering from a kind of groupthink (and I
strongly suspect they are) then having one of their members tossed out and
replaced by someone who is actually against the group might be sufficient to
break it.

------
woodpanel
There seems to be a mini cold-war brewing with regards to interpreting the
outcomes of the Brexit vote: It's either the EU or the UK that's dissolving.
One side must be wrong and it'll pay dearly for its wrong doings. Look, the
author is even comparing the EU's dusk to that of the Soviet Union. So much
for subtlety.

What about: It's 2025 and the EU and the UK will still exist, still trade with
each other?

Britain's Anti-EU stance had a completely broader base than in any other
country and for a much, much longer time anyway.

~~~
eatmyshorts
There is another option than either EU or UK dissolving. What about both? N.
Ireland could vote to leave the UK and rejoin the rest of Ireland. Scotland
could vote to leave the UK and remain in the EU. Meanwhile, Spain, Portugal,
France, and the Netherlands could vote to leave the EU like the UK did.
Switzerland's participation in EU treaties could get revoked. Belgium and
Spain could vote to break apart based on their long-running internal divides.
In the end, you might end up with a denuded UK and a denuded EU and a
completely different map in Europe.

~~~
throwaway987611
I don't know why a lot of people are saying this.

N. Ireland just isn't going anywhere.

Scotland, most likely yes. But there will be a huge exodus of business from
there to England. Not the other way around.

Also wales, again not going anywhere.

What you and many other commenters need to understand is that the
populous/economies of the other countries in the UK are tiny compared to
England.

If they were to leave, they would almost certainly get bullied in the EU.

The Scots who think they will be independent whilst being in the EU? I don't
think so. They would get slapped down harder than a Red Headed Step Child!

------
pi-err
This skips how Brexit is mostly about British politics and very little about
the EU. Of those countries, only France has a tradition of organizing
referendums. The politics there will not get cornered like Cameron (amazingly)
did.

There's also nowhere in Europe such a strange alliance between libertarians
buccaneers (Johnson) and hardcore reactionaries (Farage).

Protectionists and reactionaries on their own would not win a referendum
anywhere.

------
jokoon
> The current French President François Hollande is on track to be wiped out.

Well he doesn't have a lot of chances to be reelected, but I wouldn't say
Marine LePen would get elected.

------
the_mitsuhiko
I doubt many countries will want to leave after what is happening to the Uk
now.

~~~
UK-AL
Not much at all economically? The media has made big deal out of it. But the
ftse is still higher than 2 weeks ago.

Political parties are imploding, but that's their own fault for backing one
side so heavily.

My worry is the political turmoil will turn into economic troubles. If we
elect a solid out leader, who has sensible plan and lays out dates for the
plan then a lot of the economic distress will dispear.

The parties are shooting themselves in the foot ATM, by not accepting it and
just working out a decent plan. Economic pain at the moment is caused by
uncertainty of not knowing whats going on more than anything else.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Measure it in USD and the FTSE looks quite different.

~~~
UK-AL
The gbp went down, however it started going back before the market closed.

And a lower currency actually gives the economy a boost.

I fully expect everything to fall again because of the drama of over weekend.
That should have been completely avoidable

~~~
Scirra_Tom
A boost on businesses that export, which the UK doesn't do much of. Also,
isn't the definition of a strong economy basically a strong currency?

> The gbp went down, however it started going back before the market closed.

That's an interesting interpretation:
[http://i.imgur.com/XL2K38H.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/XL2K38H.jpg)

~~~
UK-AL
No I didnt. It wasn't that long ago that it was George Osbornes goal to try to
reduce gbp because of said benefits.

~~~
Scirra_Tom
Right sorry, misread second time

------
jmspring
It's funny how the interpretations of Pope Francis' comments on the issue are
taken. Some quote him as indicating too much immigration and Europe could lose
its culture, others indicate he's open to the immigration and Churches should
be at the vanguard in acceptance.

Personally, I think there is a place for limited acceptance of refugees, but
first priority should be keeping people in the region they are from, not
hundreds/thousands of miles away and expect different cultures to readily
accept a large influx of a group of individuals who may/may not accept the
culture they are being relocated to.

Maybe world powers should do more to settle down the unrest there. That said,
a couple hundred years of meddling is hard to undo.

------
allendoerfer
Good article until the end where he compared an empire that was created by
Russia invading other countries (yes, they freed them from the Nazis, but they
_forgot_ to leave afterwards) to the EU, which was created to prevent Germany
from doing exactly that every other year.

Yes the EU has economic problems in the South, but they are nowhere near
Soviet-level problems. Eastern Germany was one of the better doing (de facto)
Soviet states and is still far behind the West today after 25 years of
subsidies.

The EU has a problematic image, but it is not like mother Russia looking after
its child states. The commission has no direct elections, because the member
governments which negotiated the treaties (remember, this is just a union of
states) do not want elections. They want to send in their own guys. The image
is so bad, because nobody knows anything about it and local governments blame
it for everything. They abuse it to get laws passed and can later blame on the
EU.

Many of the standard the EU creates are quite good. Think of roaming or USB
chargers for example. Yes, they are regulating many things, but that's because
they cannot do anything else. What we really need is not less EU but more.
First of all better integration on the financial side of politics. We cannot
share a currency without a joined budget/tax system. After that we can work on
things like police, military, maybe even social systems (which would stop the
discussion what EU citizens should get from the state).

~~~
mike_hearn
The EU / USSR comparison is indeed not perfect, the EU is much better than the
Soviet Union ever was.

My point is that political unions are often painted as eternal, but the USSR
proves it's possible for a huge integrated trade bloc to disintegrate within
just a few years.

That said, I do not get the sense that the people running the EU actually care
about the prosperity of their citizens much, nor democracy, and they do have a
love of central planning ...

------
Yhippa
Mike brings up some interesting thoughts. Near the end be brings up the
concept of a European Trade Area. What if this somewhat allows the UK to (not
quite exactly) fork the concept of the EU and have their own laws. Maybe other
nations would join and then you'd have two unions growing in parallel which
could merge down the road taking the best ideas from both. I like the long-
term idea of that.

~~~
calgoo
I love the opensource community sometimes :) Be it for good or bad, we always
try to find a way around the issues.

------
rwmj
Can't the Swiss impose quotas, but put the quota numbers at > 720 million
people ie. larger than the total population of the EU, and therefore
impossible to reach?

~~~
DominikR
Yes they could, but Switzerland isn't one of the many democracies that ignores
the voice of its population. So something like this isn't going to happen
there.

