UK Brexit, questions from an American

[The Grand Nudger]

Sugar Beet is associated with Eastern Europe and is a joke if other sources are available.

In steps the EU and imposes tarrifs and import restrictions on non-EU produce whilst shoveling grants and benefits onto EU farmers.

Result; Jamaican sugar cane is no longer imported, Sugar beet is taking up a huge slice of valuable farmland in Norfolk for one of the largest sugar companies (Silver Spoon) and other sugar companies (eg. Tate & Lyle) have to import Sugar Cane from French colonies (eg. Guadeloupe, Reunion) as these are counted as being EU territory.

Semi off-topic, but if the EU wasn't so terrified of GMO those sugar beets would be crushing it.  We here in the US source the majority of our sugar from the GTSSE BNYVV/BCLV cultivar that was developed for your(EU) use.  Those taxes, tariffs, and restrictions you were mentioning cut into the bottom line, and a few years back a bunch of producers were -mistakenly- shut down because EU officials -thought- they were unprofitable.  Turns out they were wrong in their assessment and it cost the EU billions...but most likely it was just a form of backhanded trade protectionism. Mind you, they weren't even using the gmo cultivar (because it wasn't authorized until 2014 despite there being no way to identify where sugar came from after processing), then...but the writing was on the wall. Cane and palm import/exporters can't compete with gmo sugarbeets, the only way to maintain the status quo is to smother the competing model in it's crib, before they assume best current practices.

[Dystopia]

So, what is the deal with wanting to leave the EU? I get that it has imposed laws and regulations on you that you might not like, and I get that you don't like that the EU forces immigration on you. I mean hell, some of the governors of our states hate the federal government for some of its decisions on things that are similar. Considering that the EU has brought a lot of prosperity and security to Europe where before hand you were all waging war with each other, I just don't get the problem. It'd be like if Texas tried to secede today because of a few taxes, regulations, and civil rights mandates that Obama has made. So, my question is, why oppose a United States of Europe? Great Britain is a small and vulnerable island. Could it survive today's global economy without the EU?

I haven't studied this in any great detail, so I can't give you a full answer but I can give you a perspective.

The reason why people thought the EU was a great idea is because it opened trade, it enabled free passage between EU countries, it helped to build a political environment where member states were less likely to be at each other's throats (e.g. France and Germany). The problem with the EU is that it's a quasi Nation State. To put it into ways you can relate to, imagine a North-American Union - NAU. The member States include: Canada, USA, Greenland, Mexico, Bahamas, Cuba, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Panama, and Nicaragua. There are a few other nation states that decide they don't to join the NAU. NAU laws and regulations can be voted on by all member states, but they are supreme to all Nation State laws. So for example, in the EU there are laws pertaining to migrants that the UK disagrees with. NAU also guarantees free travel throughout its member-states: you can enter or leave any country you want, find work, retire, etc. But there's one asshole country opposed to this claiming their Nation State is special and refusing to give those provisions whilst "vehemently securing their borders". In the EU that State is the UK.

Anyway, without going into excruciating detail, the whole problem with the EU the way that I see it is that it's a quasi Nation State which imposes regulations on its Nation State members - and sometimes those regulations piss off Member States. Let's give a hypothetical example of what might happen in the hypothetical NAU: the NAU passes a regulation limiting patent rights to a consistent standard. This pisses off the USA because they have the largest number of pharmaceutical companies, and they want them to exploit more profit through tougher IP laws that are in their interest, but not NAU interests.

Ultimately, good or bad, the EU is anti-democratic. Some people say this is fine because the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/(insert country here) was never a proper democracy anyway, and functions more like a democracy under the EU anyway. That is a valid argument in many ways, I'm not saying that it isn't, but doesn't solve the democratic process within Member States, it only makes it worse because policy & law making takes place out of their hands. Yes they still get to vote and have a say, but for many regulations it won't matter because a bloc of other EU States already decided to support a certain idea.

This is probably the best reply here.

The problem with the EU is that it's almost a State, except it isn't, and sometimes when it tries to pass universal laws it doesn't work well.

As mentioned, imagine how a state with countries mentioned by @Aractus would work out.

[Ben Davis]

This is probably the best reply here.

Hey!

The problem with the EU is that it's almost a State, except it isn't, and sometimes when it tries to pass universal laws it doesn't work well.

Then how come so many of the laws have been implemented successfully with positive outcomes?

As mentioned, imagine how a state with countries mentioned by @Aractus would work out.

If it's anywhere near as successfully as the EU, those nations would benefit considerably.

[Dystopia]

@Ben Davis

How do you measure if a law has been implemented with a positive outcome? Do you directly ask the people of each EU's member state to provide their opinion? How large of a sample? And if a measure has both benefits and cons, how do we know which is more relevant? I will provide an easy example, I live in Portugal and with the € as currency coming in circa 2001 most people thought it would be entirely positive - While there are benefits for a single currency, an example of a negative aspect I can instantly think of (that I remember well despite being a kid back then) is that the prices for almost everything rose due to the € being a more "powerful" coin than our previous currency. Obviously, this is something seriously troubling for lower class people.


Would those nations benefit considerably, or would the USA and Canada benefit the most?

Again, this is a problem of corruption. If politicians are corrupt and represent interests of outsiders and do not follow the will of the people, the supra organizations formed by states will be, by definition, corrupt.

While you mentioned a world government I actually believe the opposite will happen - regionalization. We are already seeing a perfect example with the situation of Catalonia in Spain. Catalonia wants its independence and a significant part of the population doesn't consider themselves Spanish. How does this scenario fit in a world government when a minuscule piece of land (compared to the size of the entire planet) has trouble keeping itself "attached" to a slightly larger institution?

[Iroscato]

Noteable Brexiters include Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and my step-grandfather. Based on this, I will be putting a cross in the Remain box so hard it'll turn to diamond under the pen.

[Minimalist]

Yep.  You can tell a lot about a proposal by seeing who salutes it as it is run up a flagpole.

[robvalue]

Keep calm and don't fuck everything up.

[robvalue]

Hey can anyone answer this:

Say the leavers win the vote. Does that mean we will leave, for definite? Or is the decision still in the hands of the government ultimately?

[FatAndFaithless]

A little point I heard one of my (English) cousins raise. If Britain votes to leave in order to avoid the regulations that the EU puts on goods, won't Britain still have to comply with those regulations if they want to trade with EU countries, which is the vast majority of Britain's European exports?

[account_inactive]

Hey can anyone answer this:

Say the leavers win the vote. Does that mean we will leave, for definite? Or is the decision still in the hands of the government ultimately?

There wouldn't be any point of having a referendum if the government got to decide.

So I'm assuming we'd be leaving for definite.