Hacker News Reader

Comment by ubernostrum | Hacker News Reader

I can't help wondering if there's an effect here like the one that produces anti-vaccination attitudes. We're running out of people who have direct experience of a world before routine vaccination for childhood illnesses, and so the downside of taking the anti-vaccine stance simply isn't apparent to people until their own children die of preventable illness, at which point it's too late to help.

Similarly, I wonder if it's simply been long enough -- when the UK joined the European common market, today's pensioners were too young to have much if any experience of the business/labor world -- that the people of the UK are in a similar situation of not realizing just what a risk they're taking, or how bad the consequences can be, since they have no direct experience.

View on HN

> when the UK joined the European common market

The problem is that the EU should have remained the Common Market, instead of growing into a largely unaccountable, largely undemocratic, largely technocratic, ungainly nightmare.

I think that a United States of Europe is inevitable, and even a good idea, but it should have been done slowly, gradually and with respect for the differing peoples of Britain and the Continent. Instead, what took about 150 year for America was rammed through in about 30.

> for the differing peoples of Britain and the Continent

So you on the islands are special but we monkeys on the continent are all the same? The UK has been half-in/half-out of the EU for the last 40 years, always wanting extra on all the benefits and never taking a downside in return.

I'm glad you've finally made up your mind, as one way or the other this shitshow will finally end.

> > for the differing peoples of Britain and the Continent

So you on the islands are special but we monkeys on the continent are all the same?

No — a Brit and a Frenchman almost certainly have more in common than a Frenchman and a Czech. This is part of why the EU process should have taken centuries instead of being accelerated. Trying to fake one artificial common culture across an entire continent was a mistake: it would have happened organically, given time.

> This is part of why the EU process should have taken centuries instead of being accelerated

This process would have been reset between each war for those many centuries. After all, the reason the EU was founded was to prevent yet another European war. What could possibly go wrong if you replaced the EU with nationalist independent states with a web of treaties between them?

> I think that a United States of Europe is inevitable, and even a good idea, but it should have been done slowly, gradually and with respect for the differing peoples of Britain and the Continent.

It has been done slowly and gradually, and Britain for a long time has been pretty clear that they don't want to go in that direction at all.

> Instead, what took about 150 year for America was rammed through in about 30.

Which 150 year period in US history are you comparing to which 30 year period in EU history? Because the US went from winning the war for independence from England to integration into a single national government with a common military, a prohibition on the members making any international agreements (or agreements between each other) without approval from the central authority in less than 10 years. The progress of the european integration has been substantially slower, not faster.

> Which 150 year period in US history are you comparing to which 30 year period in EU history?

The destruction of the states as meaningful sovereign entities and the rise of the central government, which accelerated in the late 1860s (prior to which most Americans would have considered themselves citizens of their states more than of America), got worse in the teens, got worse in the 30s and 40s, and has gotten progressively worse every decade since.

The difference is that the United States of America were a deliberate, intentional, open attempt to form a federal government, while the European Union was a slow-motion, back-door, sneaky attempt to form a centralised continental state.

The U.S. Constitution very explicitly limits the power of the central government: it restricts the government it establishes to very little more than what you mention (a navy, international treaties and interstate commerce). The proposed, rejected and then adopted anyway European Constitution, OTOH, rejected ironclad separation of powers in favour of fuzzy, undecidable things like the 'principle of subsidiarity,' which is of course in the eye of the beholder. What makes this particularly crazy is that America was a far more culturally homogeneous place in 1788 than Europe is in 2016: they should have taken things extremely slowly, imposing only the absolute bare minimum required and then stopping for decades before increasing centralisation.

Rather than learn from and avoid repeating America's death of federalism, the EU decided to just jump right in and annihilate its member states as meaningful entities.

Like I said, I think that a United States of Europe is inevitable. Heck, I think that a more-centralised America was also inevitable and in many respects desirable. But there's no need to accelerate the process. Take it slowly, take it soberly and take it judiciously.

The destruction of the states as meaningful sovereign entities and the rise of the central government

First, there's an awful lot of historical revisionism in your comment; we had a system of incredibly limited central government, in which states were the "meaningful" sovereigns and the union into a single nation could almost pass without noticing. And that was the system the Constitution was written to replace.

Second, in light of the historical evidence regarding the failure of the first system (the Articles of Confederation), do you believe the United States would be better operating under such a system again?

> And that was the system the Constitution was written to replace.

Compared to what we have today, the Constitutional system is one of 'incredibly limited central government.'

> do you believe the United States would be better operating under such a system again?

I believe that the United States would be better operating under the Constitution than under the unconstitutional mess it is now.

> The problem is that the EU should have remained the Common Market, instead of growing into a largely unaccountable, largely undemocratic, largely technocratic, ungainly nightmare.

Sure if you want to sell coal and steel to each other, then the original common market works. If you want to freely trade food, then the lack of product equivalence means it requires far more work and yes burocracy. The next level up is services which requires incredible effort and reams of regulation; ironically the UK has benefited from this more than most EU countries as it is a service oriented economy. The last WTO talks collapsed for a reason - trade deals for stuff that isn't a simple commodity are complex and difficult.

> Instead, what took about 150 year for America was rammed through in about 30.

you do realise the treaty of rome was signed 60 years ago right? The current EU has a ton of problems, but it's the continuation of a process that goes on since the end of WW2.

> Similarly, I wonder if it's simply been long enough -- when the UK joined the European common market, today's pensioners were too young to have much if any experience of the business/labor world -- that the people of the UK are in a similar situation of not realizing just what a risk they're taking, or how bad the consequences can be, since they have no direct experience.

Actually the graph in the mentioned article clearly shows that younger people were in favor of staying in EU. It was the old population which wanted to leave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com