Comment by YeGoblynQueenne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by YeGoblynQueenne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

YeGoblynQueenne

This article reinforces my suspicion that the British, even the ones who supported the Remain vote in the referendum, simply have no idea what the EU is about. For the author, for example, it is a matter of "identity". For the Remain campaign, the argument was that Brexit would be bad for business and industry.

The British can just not comprehend the need for a united Europe in the modern world, where European countries are beset on all sides by many times more powerful rivals (Russia, China and now even the US is turning against us). To think that the little nation-states of Europe can survive and prosper on their own like they did back in the days of Napoleon and Queen Victoria ignores reality for the warm fuzzy feeling of epic fantasy.

The EU's goal is to promote peace an the well-being of its people (Treaty of the European Union, article 3, par. 1). The British either ignore this, or, if they know it, they don't believe it. Therefore, the public conversation about the EU revolves either around irrelevancies, like bendy bananas and fast-track airport lanes, or around issues that most people cannot really connnect with, like the benefits to industry (as if there is anyone left in the UK who believes that what is good for industry is good for everyone).

No wonder the Leave side carried the referendum vote. Their message was simple and to the point: "us versus them" (all of them - the EU, those krauts and frogs and those PIGS countires, Poles, Romanians... everyone). You cannot argue against nationalistic slogans and battle buses with "Brexit is bad for business". Nor with "I want my kids to be able to travel to the EU cheaply and without a visa". A powerful message is needed and it needs to make it clear to everyone what awaits us if we divide up and withdraw each in our little borders.

But, nobody has done that for the British- so, it's all identity, bendy bananas and travel privileges.

>To think that the little nation-states of Europe can survive and prosper on their own... fantasy...

I'm a remainer but I think little nation states that are non EU like Switzerland or Singapore survive and prosper quite well.

I admit I don't know that much about the EU - I think of it mostly as an admin for free trade and travel between the countries mostly. Which I quite like.

One of the troubles with the 2016 leave/remain referendum was remain is clear enough but no one really knew what leave would consist of. When you clarify it none of the options are very popular for instance the polls on remain/May's deal are about 60:40 to remain. Even remain/no deal polls about 56-44 towards remain so to leave politicians will have to force it through against the wishes of the majority of the people and of their parliament. Which is kind of a mess.

> I admit I don't know that much about the EU - I think of it mostly as an admin for free trade and travel between the countries mostly. Which I quite like.

That has not been true since the Lisbon treaty. Now, it’s an EU-wide government supreme over the EU national governments. In key respects, the EU is even more powerful compared to the EU national governments than the US federal government is compared to the US state governments. For example, the federal government cannot pass laws then force the state governments to enforce them. The EU can.

If the EU stayed on its pre-Brexit track, all the stuff that renders US politics intractable would be coming to the EU faster than anyone would think. You’re already seeing it—for example, with Sweden and Finland having to strengthen gun control to accommodate the sensibilities of the rest of Europe.

The us federal government via Congress can certainly pass laws that supersede state laws. That's the purpose of the 9th amendment and the commerce Clause in the us Constitution.

Under the Supremacy Clause, the federal government can pass laws that preempt state laws. What it cannot do is coerce states into enforcing federal laws. (That's the whole premise behind sanctuary cities--states cannot be compelled to enforce federal immigration laws.) The EU can do both--it can pass laws that override national laws, and it can enforce member states to enforce EU laws, or to pass national laws to comply with EU directives.

> The us federal government via Congress can certainly pass laws that supersede state laws

But it cannot force the states, specifically, to enforce them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

Switzerland is surrounded by EU countries that have no appetite for war and are its trade partners and allies. The EU is basically its big, fluffy safety buffer.

I don't know enough about Singapore.

Switzerland has its own safety buffer. Every grown up man has army duty and has weapons at home and they are surrounded by mountains.

Even Hitler didn't dare to invade Switzerland because of these very reasons, while annexing most of the rest of Europe and adding them to the Third Reich, or making them puppet states for Nazi Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com