Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Check your sources.

That ^ is a cheap piece of advice.

Britain vowed today (Sep 27) to oppose any attempt to create an "EU army" following the Brexit vote, although the head of NATO denied that European defence cooperation would undermine the transatlantic alliance.

"I welcome discussions about the strengthening of European defense and safety, since there is no contradiction between a strong European defense and strong NATO, rather it strengthens the two institutions," said Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of NATO, at today's informal session of EU defense ministers in Bratislava.
However, there is a need to avoid duplicating services, he added.

There has been already an EU-NATO agreement,signed in July in Warsaw (see
>here<)

Back to Brexit and the UK ... but in the USA, where former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told Bloomberg News:
‘People in Britain took part in a huge democratic exercise – more people voted in the referendum than vote in a general election and they were clear, they wanted to leave the EU.
‘But of course, that was the only question on the ballot paper.
‘What we didn’t put to the British people and what we now need to determine is exactly what now is the trading relationship with Europe.
‘How do we make sure London is going to remain a major financial centre in the world? How do we make sure that Britons can go and live and study in Europe, just like European citizens can come to Britain that have answers to some of the concerns that the British public have about that.’
‘These are all crucial decisions; no one at the moment has perfect answers to all of those things.

There are now reports that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU could also force it to exit Euratom and the Euratom treaty on nuclear energy. Seems that will be discussed at a meeting of the European Nuclear Energy Forum, which will be attended by EU member states and European institutions in Bratislava on 3-4 October.
Brexit ‘could trigger’ UK departure from nuclear energy treaty


[In pre-Brexit times, it had been said that the UK won't be required to leave the ESA, the European space agency. Now I wonder, if this is still a fact. "Brexit means Brexit".]

It's going to get more complicated as time goes by. Many issues not foreseen will come to the fore when least expected.

Not foreseen, because not many were interested in the various features.

The question really was only "in" or "out", black or white, nothing in between


And the result is known:


But even many politicians haven't thought about Europol, Euratom, Frontex, the European Anti-Fraud Office, the European Police College, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security ... they are just called bureaucrats or Eurocrats.

However I suspect they are part of the unresolved problem of sovereignty and resistance to the increasing reach of EU bureaucratic rule that does indeed appear in various forms among a fairly large number of EU nations.

I am a fan of the EU and recognize its many achievements. However, I also recognize the challenges of demographic trends, chronic slow economic growth and external pressures that the EU ( and my country as well) faces. There are disruptive forces emerging within the EU and trends, both demographic and economic, that threaten to exacerbate them. Mere rigidity is not likely to be a successful approach.

The majority of voters in that referendum voted to leave the EU. And the HM's government agreed to fulfill this vote.
So they can get rid of all this ballast now - but they really should cross the t's and dot the i's some time soon.

I agree with that, and the Brits will have to work that one out on their own - and the result appears (to me at least) still a bit uncertain.

I can understand the sting of apparent rejection. However I believe this is not the moment for a vindictive reaction to it by the EU. There are issues to be dealt with. The proponents of European Union have in the past shown a remarkable ability to be flexible, pragmatic and cautious in approaching ytheir goals. It's good time for more of that in my view.

I'm still convinced that this brexit thing was always on the cards.... The UK never embraced the Euro, and there was no indication that the pound stirling was ever going to be replaced.

The pound sterling does not participate in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the UK is no Schengen-member, and the UK-rebate is in effect since 1985.

So why was the Euro not embraced in the UK?

If a nation is a part of a union, it's either all in, or not at all.

Is there another EU member that held on to their original currency, Walter?

The other EU-members wanted the UK to become a member resp. wanted them to stay in the union - so the UK got all these concessions.

The "eurozone" is the monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union member states which have adopted the Euro is their currency.

Denmark and the UK are left out due their 'opt-outs' from joining the euro: the UK didn't join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism already in 1979 but entered the ERM in October 1990, left it in 1992. (Denmark is still part of it: there's just one currency in the ERM II, the Danish krone.)

Actually, the Euro (or the common currency, before it was the Ecu) is dealt with in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with just one out of 24 titels (Articles 119 to 144 concern economic and monetary policy, including articles on the Euro, see >here< )

Sweden voted against the Euro 2003.
The government decided the election should be in the fall, as the Swedes going on vacation during the summer on the continent would then see how good the Euro was. The government was sure a great majority would be for the Euro
For the Swedish tourists things had gone up between 10 - 300%
After this experience over 50% voted against the Euro
As now 2016 75% of the Swedes are against getting the Euro.

Sweden maintained (and still maintains) that joining the ERM II (a requirement for euro adoption) is voluntary.

Thankyou both for the info.

I'm personally against amalgamation of economies.

To date, the process hasn't been to the advantage of the smaller players at all.

Not from where I'm viewing the process.

Sweden has not fullfilled the conditions which a country has to, the so called
Euro convergence criteria.
EU test regularly the countries which has not Euro yet

Sverige uppfyller inte EU:s krav för euro
För att införa euro som valuta måste ett land uppfylla vissa krav, de så kallade konvergenskriterierna. EU prövar regelbundet de länder som inte har infört valutan ännu.
http://www.eu-upplysningen.se/Sverige-i-EU/Sverige-sa-nej-till-euron/

The EU isn't just about "amalgamation of economies" - even that would be less than had been behind the European Coal and Steel Community. In 1951.

It's also about breaking boundaries?

What does it mean to you, Walter?

There have been and still are hundreds of territorial and non-territorial regions, most of those had had boundaries.

I like it when I can cross from one country to the other without really noticing the boundary = without my papers being controlled.

You can't abolish century old boundaries. And too often new walls are being build in the heads of some.