BREXIT - "LEAVE!"

The origins of the EU are based on the devastation caused by a continental history of bloodshed, underscored by WWI and WWII.

2) I don't really understand your point about the origins of the EU or why it is relevant.

Your rant isn't very coherent, Finn. Let me try to answer all the points that I think you are making.

1) Yes, people voting to leave the EU is an example of democracy. Had the majority of citizens of the UK voted to stay in the EU, that would have also been an example of democracy. To say that one vote would be democratic and another vote would be undemocratic is ridiculous.

I don't know how you missed the point that this vote is an example of democracy overcoming the undemocratic nature of the EU. Obviously the Brits could have democratically decided to put up with undemocratic governance.

2) I don't really understand your point about the origins of the EU or why it is relevant.

Then you don't understand the EU. Walter will agree with me that the origins are relevant even if we disagree why. The move to a unified Europe was based, primarily, on the perfectly understandable desire to put an end to Europe's very long history of brutal and ever escalating warfare. Of course there were economic interests involved, but they were ancillary.

Unfortunately, the masterminds of the EU and its antecedents apparently concluded, perhaps based on WWII alone, that the citizens of Europe couldn't be trusted to steer their nations away from war, and so they have deliberately created an undemocratic system which mirrors the progressive dream: Enlightened technocratic experts make the majority of decisions.

3) The EU is accountable to its member states and thus the citizens of its member states.

On paper perhaps but in practice no. Even though the UK was one of the pillars of the EU, no matter what it's populace might have wanted to happen, unless they convinced a whole lot of Europeans to agree with them, it wouldn't happen.

What democratic power did Greece or the Greek people have?

Despite the notion that the Remain supporters were promoting: We are all Europeans, there remain very distinct differences and interests within the member states. They EU members do not come close to resembling the 50 United States. Part of this is because our Federalist system allows the 50 States a fair degree of autonomy while the EU doesn't allow the same for its members. There is one and only one reason that Germany has so much influence on the EU, and it has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with economics.

I find this highly ironic since Germany is the country that was most instrumental in the creation of the EU, based on it's prior bloody history.

4) What you say is the "only remaining conclusion" isn't the only remaining conclusion. Your conclusion isn't even a very logical one compared to the other more rational conclusions that could be made.

If you don't accept the premise that the EU is an undemocratic organization, then you are right, my conclusion is not logical, however, if you do, what is the alternative answer? That they don't want the riffraff to take away all of the excessive perks they enjoy in Strasbourg and Brussels?

5) The biggest arguments for staying in the EU were economic arguments. You seem to miss that point completely.

Sez you. Where in what I've written can you draw a conclusion about what I believe to have been the reason for the Remain vote?

Yes, a major reason was economics based on dire predictions that may or may not come true.

A not inconsequential reason was a desire among a lot of Brits to identify as European. I could be wrong here, but my bet is all of these folks feel warm and fuzzy about progressive ideology.

They were, in large measure, among the elite of the UK in the sense that the ability to move across borders and create business opportunities wherever they wished was very attractive, and possible. What did these benefits mean to a mechanic in Manchester, or a farmer in Yorkshire.

If you don't believe me, read the op-ed section of the Sunday NY Times. In it you will find one article by a 27 year old Brit who clearly loathes the middle class suburban town in which he grew up (Surprise surprise!) and wishes Nature would consume all of the UK and, in effect, wipe out humanity and the scars we have left upon the land. Then this nihilist has the gall to accuse those who voted to Leave, as being nihilists. Frankly I'm amazed the editors of the Times printed this piece. Their standards are obviously worse than even I believe.

You'll also find a piece from a Brit Remainer who declares he is giving up his UK citizenship and seeking Irish citizenship so he can remain European. Along the way he recounts similar intents of his friends and colleagues.

Neither of these pieces had anything to do with economics.

I don't know how you missed the point that this vote is an example of democracy overcoming the undemocratic nature of the EU. Obviously the Brits could have democratically decided to put up with undemocratic governance.

Then you don't understand the EU. Walter will agree with me that the origins are relevant even if we disagree why. The move to a unified Europe was based, primarily, on the perfectly understandable desire to put an end to Europe's very long history of brutal and ever escalating warfare. Of course there were economic interests involved, but they were ancillary.

On paper perhaps but in practice no. Even though the UK was one of the pillars of the EU, no matter what it's populace might have wanted to happen, unless they convinced a whole lot of Europeans to agree with them, it wouldn't happen.

Oh please Walter.

Stop trying to promote a fiction.

How far are you willing to warp the truth to support your position?

Are you really trying to tell us that if the majority of Brits didn't give a sh*t about the angles of bananas and cukes it would have been so in the UK?

That the EU is a democratic organization.