Originally Posted by vindico

I voted Leave and would do so again as my reasoning has not changed, irrespective of the last 3 years. My reasons for voting Leave were about the future issues relating to the necessities of Eurozone integration (the need for a European treasury, taxes, fiscal transfers) and the problems and tensions this would create within the EU, as much as about other aspects like structure, democratic accountability, customs union, precautionary regulatory philosophy (which is not necessarily bad but often overreaches IMHO), and the tendancy towards centralisation and harmonisation rather than leaving many issues to the nation state level.

Regardless of the political mess of the last 3 years, nothing about my reasoning has changed and my judgement is the same. There are benefits of membership, of the single market and customs union, but also costs - not only financial but democratically and in terms of policy flexibility. My judgement remains that the UK is a somewhat square peg in a round hole, and that the UK's exit was inevitable, if not now then it would have come sooner or later.

In the UK the EU has always been talked of, and sold on, transactional terms. It has always been about trade/economics, with the political "tackling greater issues" a somewhat secondary overlay. Whereas across Europe it is spoken of as the European Project, as a fundamentally and primarily political initiative to build a confederation, if not federation, of states. Ultimately I just think a comprehensive free trade agreement, coupled with cooperation on certain things like scientific research, environment, or whatever, on a bi-lateral basis would be a far better and happier arrangement for both UK and the EU.

Originally Posted by robtuck

This is where I agree with you fully, the UK is a very big square in the round hole, always has been, seems likely it always will have been, so getting out is probably best for all concerned in the long run. It would only have ended in tears eventually.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Previous Euorpean political reunions have not ended very well, no reason to believe there would be any change.

Originally Posted by GeneralPowerpoint

There's also no reason to believe that the EU would follow the path of the "political reunions" you refer to. Which are they by the way?

Originally Posted by GeneralPowerpoint

In what respect is it best for all concerned in the long run. It's certainly not best for those of us who want to remain part of the EU.

"it would have ended in tears eventually" is nonsensical speculation.

Originally Posted by robtuck

To be a part of it, you have to at least agree with it's broad goals.

Originally Posted by Boiler

That is their dilemma, once they went beyond the free trade area, it is their version of BREXIT, in a limbo land which logically can not survive but extremely difficult to go back and disastrous to go forward.

Might be easier to list who has not had a go at one time or another, for some reason the Austro Hungarian Empire seems the most comparable but obviously different times different issues.

Some have lasted longer than others but does beg the question how long the EU can last, nobody seems to want to talk about that forgetting the UK involvement. Nothing lasts forever after all. My impression is that things now happen much quicker, look at the rise and fall of the US Empire, would have lasted much longer in prior periods.

Originally Posted by robtuck

Because a majority of the population do not truly believe in the EU Project. There are a large number who like the benefits of being a member as it stands, I fully accept that. The ultimate end goal of the EU though is not shared - I just personally believe that not having that faith allows it to be constantly sniped at and undermined. This is why I think it will end in tears - it's never really had sufficient backing, and as soon as controversial policies are pushed for by the EU, the UK will cry foul - things like moving away from Veto based voting, or single currency (an absolute must for it to succeed in it's stated goals).

Don't get me wrong, I am very pro-EU. I absolutely see that you can't come to any other conclusion than a short-medium term negative economic impact by leaving, that leaving takes away opportunities from people (or at least makes them more difficult, just like moving to the USA) and so on. I think in a generation the landscape may have changed a little, but I still wouldn't hold out hope of people voting to return to the EU if joining was explained fully. To be a part of it, you have to at least agree with it's broad goals. You can make a case to reform and improve, but you have to be on-board with where it has to head. The UK has always believed it could change both, it can;t and it shouldn't.

Originally Posted by GeneralPowerpoint

Honestly if the Austro-Hungarian empire is the closest example of a comparable union you can find then we don't have comparable unions with which we can draw conclusions applicable to the EU.

I'm not sure why "nothing lasts forever" is a justification for leaving the EU. Why not remain part of it until it evolves or changes?

Originally Posted by vindico

In the UK the EU has always been talked of, and sold on, transactional terms. It has always been about trade/economics, with the political "tackling greater issues" a somewhat secondary overlay. Whereas across Europe it is spoken of as the European Project, as a fundamentally and primarily political initiative to build a confederation, if not federation, of states. Ultimately I just think a comprehensive free trade agreement, coupled with cooperation on certain things like scientific research, environment, or whatever, on a bi-lateral basis would be a far better and happier arrangement for both UK and the EU.