Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Thanks for the article. I don't know enough of the details and context on both sides of this matter to have a reliable opinion. However, it seems to me that many more direct and implied threats about the Brexit process and the likely outcome have emerged from the officials in the EU, than from UK PM May. They admittedly didn't come in an official letter from Mr. Tusk. However I believe PM May's point about the mutual vital interests of both parties in their emerging economic and security relationships was meaningful and appropriate. The two are related and both are of paramount importance to both parties. Both should be considered throughout the negotiations.

Certainly the resentments being expressed now on the continent are no more than a just counterpart to the rhetoric within the UK in the lead up to the Brexit vote. Both are understandable in the situation.

From the distant perspective of an outsider it appears that the EU would be wise to act more as a Federal government, standardizing only the essential policies, leaving as much discretion to national governments as possible. The phrase, "... ever closer union" is itself a bit of hyperbole - unbounded and conceivably leading to an anthill.

In historical terms the United States has faced a much simpler problem in this area. However , we too have disturbed the Federal state balance, accumulating too much power and discretion in a remote Central government. As all can see, a result is a great deal of largely unnecessary political tumult.

If you say "from the officials in the EU" and "UK PM May" - why don't you mention the various Brexit-related cabinet ministers? Former and actual MP's?

OK, consider I said it.

I don't think the score keeping helps either party.

Well, it isn't a federal government.
The process outlined in the text [of article 50]is, he noted, “about divorce … about paying the bills, settling one’s commitments, dealing with acquired rights, thinking about the pensions. It’s not an article about the future relationship.” More here.

Then what is it? It appears the essence of the current, fairly widespread issues among EU states centers precisely on that question.

It's a kind of hybrid, defined in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992: intergovernmental elements together with more federal system characteristics.

The EU is primarily a common market, with weak veleities of becoming a "power". In order to get there it will need a common foreign policy and a joint army. Maybe in 50 years, or sooner if NATO collapses.

Roma was at it for a thousand years (if you start counting at their conquest of other Italian people) and once it fell to the barbarians, the eastern Roman Empire kept going on for another thousand years.... Not to shabby.

The extent of the Roman Empire.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png/1280px-Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png
I remember on one of my visits to London seeing a section of the Roman wall from the window of a museum.
Also, between Scotland and England, the Hadrian Wall. Walked a short distance along the wall.
http://www.hillwalktours.com/hiking-england/hadrians-wall-path-overview?gclid=CLXe68veg9MCFUpNfgodSekLKQ
Also visited Hadrian's Gate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antalya

Have visited most of the cities on the west coast of Turkey and Antalya.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinationRedirector?openMap=true&ethylCobjId=3592

It certainly started out that way, and was extraordinarily successful at it. However the advocates of "ever close union" have since accumulated a record of overlooking inconvenient outcomes of elections and plebiscites in member nations, replacing them with treaties; bypassed fundamental political issues of sovereignty, and expanded the breadth and depth of its rule largely through judicial and bureaucratic processes. The political contradictions here with several member national governments are becoming evident.

The EU bas been extraordinarily successful ( amazingly so in historical terms) in addressing the problems of European national rivalries and conflicts that largely motivated its creation. However some of the old, underlying cultural and economic factors persist, as evidenced by the North-South economic divide, and something somewhat similar between East and West. As with most highly developed and Western nations, the EU faces a serious demographic challenge, which, combined with its own cultural constraints on assimilation and the hostility of Islamic emigrating populations from the South, has created a very serious set of problems for it.

History hasn't ended, and, in many ways, contemporary Europe still resembles the mid 19th century. There's an ambitious, resentful autocratic reincarnation of Nicholas I running Russia: Germany (writ large) and France dominate the continent; Italy is still restive; and England part of, but not really connected to, it all. To top it off, the Muslim world to the south is (still) in political chaos, restive and largely hostile.

The EU may not have the quiet 50 years you indicated to work out the challenges of internal cohesion and external threats to develop the pan European security and defense capabilities that may be required. Further, the fundamental challenges that have inhibited NATO, namely the economic cost of the social welfare systems in Europe and the resulting unwillingness of EU government to actually meet the military spending goals targeted by themselves, will still operate in any such development.

My perspective here is mostly historical. I've travelled a lot in Europe; like it very much; and have many friends in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. I believe Americans have much more in Common with the French than the British ( we both think we are the center of the world, and that everyone should speak as we do). I don't really have any political animosities (though I suspect Walter thinks I do).

Rome did indeed last a long time, as you said. However that is mostly because they were able to survive successive recreations from the Tarquins to the republic and later to empire. The Empire was vibrant for just three plus centuries. ( The Byzantines lasted a lot longer.)

I don't think we need "quiet times" to make progress. Quiet, peaceful times do not provide incentive for change. The more aggressive Putin is, and the more the anglo-saxons pull their own way towards their exclusive, ultra-capitalist five eyes club, the faster Germany will rearm and the more Europe will tend to unite strategically behind a Franco-German axis. At least, IF the French and Germans can keep it together.

To simplify a bit, quite a few Europeans have long trusted the US to defend them, in exchange for a vassal posture towards their suzerain. A break in this feodal contract is now a possibility.

The French (or rather Charles de Gaulle) never trusted you guys as much, as you might remember, and never adopted this "vassal-suzerain" relationship with the US.

I agree that Americans and French have a lot in common, including perhaps a bit too much pride and snide for their own good, a sense of national destiny, and a dislike for féodal / monarchist / aristocratic modes of rule.

Fully agree.

What you write is possible, though I think unlikely. The EU countries were better armed during the Cold War, though even then they fell short of targeted spending by large margins . The supposed "U,S. Suzerainty" ended eight years ago and the threat from Russia is now two decades old : nothing like what you suggest has yet occurred, even despite the invasion of Ukraine, and overt threats to the Baltic States and others. Significantly increased aggression from Putin could change all that, but it might then be too late given what appears to be growing mistrust within the EU itself.

The constraints on more military spending in the EU are growing, given the demands of the social welfare systems and the ageing ( now declining) populations, Moreover the EU has recently acceded to yet another Russian pipeline, bypassing Ukraine, facilitating continued dependence on Russian sources of petroleum and gas, a dependence exacerbated by Germany's shutdown of its older Nuclear plants. Russia is relatively weak economically, but fairly well armed (though perhaps not sustainably so).

I fear the still unstable Middle East (and parts of North Africa) remains the greater threat, and, so far, the EU ( or the U.S for that matter) has not begun to come to grips with it.

I suspect the mistrust with respect to de Gaulle was mutual, and had its roots in WWII. Despite that he was indeed admired here. France pursued an independent course and remained outside of the NATO military command. However, after 1972 we routinely conducted extensive military and naval operations with French forces on a very cordial and cooperative basis - more so than with the British. The difference was we didn't talk about it, or issue the press releases the Brits loved so much. I served on aircraft carriers in those years in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean . We regularly conducted joint air and naval operations with the French carriers operating out of Toulon and Djibouti. In the Indian Ocean I got aviation fuel for my ship weekly from a very modern French tanker, and operated frequently with Foch & Clemenceau (both now replaced with smaller versions of the Nimitz class ships). Lunch at sea in the CO's mess on Clemenceau was always a pleasure.

Just remember that May isn't Trump, so don't lump the Anglophone world in together . You've got more Trump clones in the EU than Britain has anywhere near 10 Downing Street. Britain and *western* Europe are still united by a core set of liberal democratic values. Britain may no longer be part of the same superstate as you, but it is your natural ally.

You will have to earn that back again. You've kickstarted EU demise out of the special snowflake treatment you've got all these years. Special snowflake no more now.

What are your feelings on Hungary? Do you see them as model EU partner?

Hell, at this point in time I would even consider Turkey to jump on the wagon...
Europe needs to change from within not implode.
Enough of self-defeating Tribalism...

Perhaps, but is a bureaucratic anthill a good replacement ?

Thank you for making my point.

No one who picks Erdogan over May as an ally is a friend of democracy.