The majority of EU citizens did not vote in the Brexit referendum. They shouldn't have to suffer the consequences [edit to clarify] of a war resulting from this vote.
The overwhelming majority of EU citizens did not vote to join the EU, nor did they vote in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon upon which the authority of the EU currently resides.
Nor do any of the citizens of the EU get to vote for the EU executive, or anyone who has any material influence over legislation (their MEP's can't introduce legislation).
In fact, majorities of several EU nations voted against the Treaty of Lisbon after which it was 'passed anyways' (I'm looking at you France), and after which the other referendums were cancelled because the elites knew it would would fail.
And of course UK citizens never voted to join the EU, they voted to join the EEC.
Most EU citizens want something like the EEC, with some nice freedom of movement. They don't want a hard or ideological political union.
Have a look at Pew historical polling, it's interesting [1] - it shows the majority of even very large EU nations actually wary of the EU - up until the 'Brexit scare'. After Brexit, this will continue to languish downward.
The EU has so many existential issues that it's facing, and it doesn't seem to want to suggest anything other than 'more political union' as an answer, which is clearly not it. (See the recent 'twinning' agreement signed by Macron and Merkel last week as an example of trying to get some political momentum going on the pro-EU side).
The EU needs to reform, but it can't unfortunately for a variety of reasons, and I don't see any meaningful path forward.
[1] http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-mo...
I believe the EEA is just that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area#Rights_...
Another option is EFTA and bilateral agreements like Switzerland. However, the May government decided not to pursue EFTA membership and Norway isn't that keen since thay're afraid it would impact future EFTA/EU negotiations and they could use some of their current rights.
Of course, the "UK Citizens" are not citizens, but subjects. Of a monarch. Whom they also did not vote for.
This is demonstrably false.
+ The UK (like other European nations) has a fairly vibrant democracy, with representatives who make legislation.
+ People know who their reps are, and vote on the basis of party ideals.
+ Governments live and die (i.e. they fall) on votes made by reps.
+ Governments are hugely responsive on many issues, and have no choice but to bend given popular demand.
+ There are popular plebiscites on major issues such as Scottish independence and Brexit.
Contrast that with the EU:
+ Nobody related to creating legislation, or providing strategic or material guidance is elected. Nobody speaking on behalf of the EU is elected.
+ MEP's cannot introduce or amend legislation.
+ Pragmatically, there are very low voter turnouts, and people have generally little knowledge as to who their MPs are, or what the platforms are.
+ There are no popular plebiscites, but worse, due to the above, the EU Executive is notoriously tone deaf to the will of the people. (They just don't care, because they think they are 'right' - which is a natural thing frankly in any body that doesn't have to worry about the status of their power)
+ The legal foundation of the EU, based on various treaties, most notably the Treaty of Lisbon, is on shaky ground. French voters literally voted against the Treaty, and it was enacted anyhow. This is not a 'trade agreement' - this is about devolution of major constitutional powers, so this is a problem. Referendums were cancelled in other nations because they would have been lost.
...
Summary: the UK, much like most other European nations, is considerably 'more democratic' than the EU.
If you're going to take a boldly contrarian stance, the onus is on you to provide the evidence.
The UK has a web site that attempts to help people figure out what they are and what they could transition to. It's insanely complicated.
In 1649 Charles I of England was executed by order of Parliament. Parliament drew a distinction between the Crown and the person wearing it. Their loyalty was to the Crown. Having killed the King they decided to try being a republic.
Parliament is sovereign. But elected Heads of State are trouble - parliament eventually figured this out and got a new King instead.
For the same reason Scotland cannot leave the UK without a referendum, for the same reason Quebec cannot leave Canada.
The Treaty of Lisbon represented enough change that it was to be ratified by referendum. But guess what? It was voted down too often among the first to hold referendums, so the elite just kiboshed the whole thing. And skipped the referendums knowing they would lose.
Now consider that the French population roundly rejected the treaty [1], and then their government simply changed a few items and passed it anyhow, without again deferring to the people.
Is the 5th Republic even legally legitimate now?
The French Government, acted directly against the will of the the people to devolve signifiant sovereign powers.
It's an appalling and brutal transgression of democracy, and there should be consequences.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut...
Should that be fixed too ?
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitu... (see "ratification")
The EU has a long history of ignoring democratic elections. That, to me, does not seem like a good thing at all, and yet it's becoming ever more clear that if you want the EU to exist at all, ignoring elections will be the cost: Both the current Greek and the current Italian government made promises of leaving the EU to get elected. Both have reneged, but of course other parties are springing up with more forceful leave rhetoric. Now French and German extreme-right parties promise to kill the EU if they get elected, and the more mainstream is forced to also take a more anti-EU stance in each country.
If either France or Germany decides to leave, then the EU experiment is over.
It's quite late for that, since unlike the Brits they also joined the EMU and thus ceded sovereignity to the EU. This is exactly what Margaret Tatcher warned against: a federal Europe by the back door. Also, organizing a referendum on the topic of exiting from the Eurozone is a violation of EU treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_withdrawal_from_the_eu...
Other EU exits could be less disastrous if coordinated. For instance if Greece and Italy would leave at the same time and negotiate together. For this they would first need to form an aliance like the Visegrad group. Regardless, everyone would have to suffer in such an event due to lack of credibility in the EU project, lack of confidence in national currencies and the Euro.