Brexit Supporters What comes closer to your motivation?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd lie if I said option 6 didn't play a role. Rephrasing it a bit more pragmatically, I think the EU has potential to move in a better direction without corrosive British influence.

I'm rather surprised you're pro-Brexit, Antonio.

     As am I. Still, I also have heard others saying the same thing, albeit with less of a positive spin on the EU's future. While Britain lost a lot of control over its own affairs being in the European Union, it has had a lot of power over other countries.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     To answer this, though, I believe that the United Kingdom can and should act to protect its national sovereignty. Governments derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The actions of the European Union bureaucrats have indicated that they are not interested in a system where the governed have a voice in the system. The United Kingdom is doing the right thing by getting out while they still can, to ensure that the voting public of the nation can continue to control their own destiny.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The irony is, of course, is that the edgy anti-Semites who hate "globalists" are actually useful idiots for the true megarich elite. Because they prefer the murky world of quasi Nationalism, where they can hide behind shadows and squirrel their fortunes away from the public eye. The EU, for all its flaws, is an attempt to control the forces of globalisation and put it in control of the people and avoid the rush to the bottom. It didn't always work out the way (because - you guessed it "anti-globalists" eroded the ability of its democratic structures to regulate the nationalistic attributes of the Commission) but it is an effort. But no, even that is too much for the economically illiterate protectionists of this world who prefer to hide away in their safe space nation state pretending that they somehow have axhieved a victory over anybody. Sad!

This. Brilliant post.

The "sovereignty" argument annoys me so much, because globalisationis actually a thing; and if we want to retain a genuine democracy; not capitulation to the markets and angry posturing; then it will take a genuine supranational level of government.

     It's no accident that the multinationals were firmly in the Remain camp. If your goal is to control the forces of globalization then it is high-time to kill the EU and return to the drawing board, because it will never succeed in that goal. On the other hand, it is very likely to succeed in undermining democracy in Europe.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The irony is, of course, is that the edgy anti-Semites who hate "globalists" are actually useful idiots for the true megarich elite. Because they prefer the murky world of quasi Nationalism, where they can hide behind shadows and squirrel their fortunes away from the public eye. The EU, for all its flaws, is an attempt to control the forces of globalisation and put it in control of the people and avoid the rush to the bottom. It didn't always work out the way (because - you guessed it "anti-globalists" eroded the ability of its democratic structures to regulate the nationalistic attributes of the Commission) but it is an effort. But no, even that is too much for the economically illiterate protectionists of this world who prefer to hide away in their safe space nation state pretending that they somehow have axhieved a victory over anybody. Sad!

This. Brilliant post.

The "sovereignty" argument annoys me so much, because globalisationis actually a thing; and if we want to retain a genuine democracy; not capitulation to the markets and angry posturing; then it will take a genuine supranational level of government.

     It's no accident that the multinationals were firmly in the Remain camp. If your goal is to control the forces of globalization then it is high-time to kill the EU and return to the drawing board, because it will never succeed in that goal. On the other hand, it is very likely to succeed in undermining democracy in Europe.

In the EU, we have a set of institutions that at least have the capacity to take on things like low wages, job insecurity, market manipulation or whatever; and the EU was taking steps towards becoming more democratic. It is always going to be far, far easier for EU member states to redirect the EU than it would be to set up a whole new institution.

In any case, the EU was already doing more to tackle the worst excesses of big business than any  one nation state could ever be capable of. It was putting pressure on the monopolistic forces of firms like Google for a start, and despite being late to the party, it was largely the EU that was forcing Switzerland to clean up its banking secrecy laws and Luxembourg and the Channel Islands to increase their levels of financial transparency.

So yes, it was doing something to control the forces of globalisation, and would have had more so if it wasn't for the consistent and blatant obstructionism of the British.

Multinationals, by and large, supported the EU in part because they don't want to pay tariffs, and also because it was pretty convenient for them to have one continent wide regulatory framework to deal with. Because even fairly stringent regulations can be easier to deal with than having to deal with 27 sets of more lax ones.

     Take on low wages and job insecurity by...flooding Europe with migrants? If anything, it seems like it was playing a role in creating low wages and job insecurity. There was also the posturing over the specter of Greece leaving the Euro. There is also the issue of the system whereby richer countries are forced into subsidizing poorer countries. I get the sense that that might be what you are referring to, though.

     As for democratizing the EU, what steps might these have been? Given the bureaucratic nature of the European Union, it is far too easy to strip away democracy with limited input from the citizens of its member states. A proposal only has to pass a vote once to become effectively irrevocable, and they will push to get the "correct" answer. The UK could have done more to save their continental brethren, but I am fine with their decision to cut bait and run all the same. The EU will have to take many more steps towards democratization before being a part of them begins to make sense again.

     Indeed, the one set of fairly stringent regulations is easier for them to deal with. Say what you will, the folks behind multinationals are pretty rational. They recognized a system that would be better for them than the alternative, and that made the choice an easy one.

     Besides, your comment about Swiss banking confidentiality laws reminded me: the European politicians have the art of bullying down pat. In their dealings with Switzerland, Norway, England, and Scotland, I have seen them consistently act like spoiled brats, ready to take their ball and go home. The Remain camp might have done better had it not come out swinging with transparent, empty threats of economic revanche.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Anyone who's tried to get a parking ticket changed will know that bureaucracy is not a EU invention

     Quite true, and honestly some bureaucracy is a good thing. If we allow the unfiltered will of the people to pour forth then we end up like ancient Athens, who abandoned allies on a whim. There does need to be some constraint on the ability of the voters to affect policy. Too much bureaucracy is where the problems arise.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Flooding Europe with migrants was not EU policy; free movement between EU member states and the controls various EU member states have over non-EU migration are completely different issues. If you want to complain about the effects of internal EU migration on wages in some of the receiving countries - well the North of England was suffering from de-industrialisation and job insecurity well before the accession countries joined. They have been suffering since the 1980s, when the UK actually had net out migration.

The EU, as has been pointed out, is no more bureaucratic than any government or pseudo-government. It is clearly far from perfect, but the last round of EU elections were attempting to beef uo the democratic deficit, what with each of the major EU party groupings having identifiable leaders, policy sets and even the debates between Martin Schultz and Jean Claude Juncker and the idea of an elected commission president.

And in all fairness, Switzerland deserved to be bullied on its banking secrecy laws, which have been a disgrace, and a national embarrassment, as a way to hide criminals and tax evaders money for centuries. Switzerland also benefits nicely from the EU regulatory structure, and the single market that it is part of.

I would also think the EU is entitled to push back against England as well, given how consistently obstructive the UK has been in blocking any sort of legislation that would actually democratise the EU; it has always been the UK kicking its heels, and stopping some of the better EU legislation from coming through. Case in point being Cameron managing to get private funds excluded from EU tax transparency laws.

I'm not saying it is perfect, not in a long shot, it is just that, in my perspective, it is the best shot we have got at countering the worst effects of globalisation.

     FYI, I will admit my understanding of the EU is imperfect and much of what I know is in relation to Brexit. I would appreciate clarification on any misunderstandings I might have.

     The thing is, if migrants are subject to the same freedom of movement, it becomes dangerous for a country to have free movement policies with another country that has different policies regarding movement. The UK has no real means to stop mass migration when migrants can simply enter through Germany and then come there.

     The main complaint I have seen with the EU's bureaucracy is that the European Parliament lacks the ability to issue proposals. There's a certain fatalism among Euroskeptics, because they see no way to gain back aspects of national sovereignty that are voted away, other than through exiting altogether. I would think that allowing all MEPs to propose major changes would effectively allay the fears of Euroskeptics.

     It's not just Swiss banking laws, but it's other things. This story of France making a rather ominous threat should Britain choose to leave got to me somewhat. Not everything has to be subject to diplomatic posturing.

     At any rate, and some of the other Europhiles have said this too, is that if your concern is UK obstructionism then Brexit is an excellent thing. To paraphrase a certain former President, you won't have ol' Dave Cameron to kick around anymore. I am torn because I'm not a fan of European integration, but the Brexiters have done much to speed up the process by removing their nation from the discussion.

     There is a saying, that "the perfect is forever the enemy of the good". If it is the case that the European Union does much good to combat globalization's ills, then that is worth mentioning. I noticed though that many of the arguments proffered by the Remain camp were of a purely pragmatic character. Even now, there is a lot of concern over the possible economic damage this would do to Britain. Nothing wrong with that, but I would think any principle arguments to give in favor of Remain should have been presented.

     As an aside: where are you from in Switzerland? I have family from Luzern.