Comment by cisstrd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cisstrd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No, not the time to relax. This is is the time to worry, to worry big. Nigel Farage (UKIP - United Kingdom Independence Party) said that he hopes this will be the first brick removed from the wall that is the EU, and the rest will follow and crumble because of it. He hopes this will be the end of the EU (paraphrased from memory, saw it on TV during the live coverage). Only his opinion, but not unthinkable. United Kingdom might break up too - Scotland preparing legislation for a second referendum whether to be part of the United Kingdom already.

Front National congratulated, Geert Wilders (PVV, Netherlands) thinks the Netherlands should have such a referendum too, and the PVV was elected 3rd strongest party in the elections 2012 and is currently ahead in many polls (next election before April 2017).

Just a thought: ISIS is not stupid, if they are able to strategically make another terrorist attack months ahead of the French elections, what party will that help? The Front National does have a chance of winning, even if for now it seems unlikely, but hey, who would have thought Trump could win the the Republican nomination half a year ago?!

Anti-Islam sentiment will result in more people fighting for ISIS, re-nationalisation will make the War on Terror less organized, focus will shift from fighting smart and doing so heads on to isolation and protectionism.

Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in Germany, anti-EU sentiment from the CSU (sister party of the CDU (Merkel's party) in Bavaria), Austria came close to electing an anti-European right-wing president... The PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid - Party for Freedom) in the Netherlands, and in countries where the EU-hate is not coming from the right side, it often comes from the left.

The sentiment for Re-nationalisation is a widespread phenomenon.

We can discuss all we want about how the EU failed, but to say Britain in this case is not an important example of what can happen in other European countries is naive... I don't want to paint the devil onto the wall, but look in history how often times "we stumbled into war"[1] - I don't think we are there yet, just to make my point - never underestimate what can happen and looking at all the facts, we have all the reasons in the world to (at the very least) worry.

[1] To stay in Europe: Also consider the Nato/Europe-Russia conflict, East Ukraine...

> but hey, who would have thought Trump could win the the Republican nomination half a year ago?!

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) did, and has been blogging about the reasons why for quite some time (http://blog.dilbert.com). Based on those same reasons, he also predicts a win for Trump in the general election.

Whether you agree with his points or not, he definitely provides some interesting food for thought (beyond just rah, rah, Trump, Make America Great Again, etc).

It is very hard for a country to leave the EU.

Britain is yet to leave the EU, and we will probably end up with a leave in name only.

Why is it difficult? Think about a US state secession.

What if North Carolina decided to leave the US, imposed border controls, restricted the entry of US citizens, started drawing up its own regulations (totally different from the regulation from other states). The US would them impose tariffs.

Hard to see how NC's economy would thrive. (Not due to US malice, but just due to the various barriers that have been introduced.)

The UK is not as entangled with the EU as other countries and it is possible, "Supremacy of the Parliament" + "Lisbon Treaty Article 50", the latter of which is not detailed, but certainly provides for the possibility of exit.

Leaving a political union like the EU compared to a state of the USA leaving the USA, apples and oranges! A state in the USA does not have a central bank, its own currency, such an independent (meaning the variety of businesses and services[1]) economy, its own military, its own intelligence agency, I could go on and on and on... you really can't compare that. The UK is a permanent member of the UN security council(!), among many other things.

[1] The UK has agriculture, technology companies, a well developed banking sector, car industry, steel industry, all kinds of services, its own telephone and broadband companies, and and and...

Edit: Your comparison is closer to possible Scottish Independence, though even here the circumstances are different in some crucial areas, for example the EU could be willing to have Scotland as a member state, Scotland could adopt the Euro, Scotland was part of the EU (so it's not like starting from scratch, Scotland basically follows some crucial EU regulations already), what would be the equivalent of such a path for a state in the USA that wants to leave the country? There is none.

Your analogy is completely inappropriate. Was NC ever independent?

The UK was completely independent 50 years ago -- that is, some people still working got their first job out of school when that was still the case. And it's not like it integrated with Europe overnight - or going to leave it overnight.

European's complete freedom of movement as we know it today is about 20 years old, not 50. I still had to go through border checkpoints in Europe less than 30 years ago. It was more of a formality even then, but the checkpoints were still there and operated. Half of today's Germany (the east) was, for most economical purposes, nonexistent at the time.

Only about 50% of the UK's export and import is with the rest of Europe. How much of NC's export/import balances are with the rest of the US?

(Bonus: Texas was, in fact, independent for a short while two centuries ago -- but otherwise you'll find NC is as (in)dependent as Texas on the rest of the US, in the ways that UK is not dependent on the EU.

I don't want to say you are wrong, I just want to clarify further:

Not only was the UK "completely independent 50 years ago", the UK (for the moment let's not care if the UK is a country or a political union) is a completely separate and independent(!)[1] country already and always has been. Parliament can do and undo any(!) law (the principle of "Supremacy of Parliament"), including all the laws that made UK a member of the EU to begin with and all further laws that tangled up the UK closer with the EU. The difficulty is in negotiating a viable exit strategy (because of economic and political consequences), but there is no dispute in the slightest, that the UK is (easily) able and has a full right to simply leave.

The UK always during the last 50 years was sovereign, with every new EU regulation that was "imposed upon them" (they were and are represented in EU parliament, it's not like they had not a say, democracy means compromise) they could choose. Of course having advantages means also accepting decisions of other states in some cases, but they always weighed pro and contra and never ever were obliged to stay. I am not exactly sure how the legal framework in the USA is (I understand it's a heavily federal system), but I doubt it's anyway near the situation of UK sovereignty.

The referendum was not needed, it's not even legally binding. Members of Parliament could have simply made the decision to leave at any given point in time.

[1] It's only not independent in the sense that it of course depends on surrounding countries regarding economic stability, so if one says the UK wasn't independent, then the same is true for any country that has any import/export to other countries and some trade agreements. And in that sense of course UK never was nor will be independent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com