Brexit: EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK

Brexit: EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK

Author
Discussion

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
You're not answering it though.

You're explaining that these are the rules the great and the good have settled upon, but that does not in itself explain why free movement is necessary or desirable, and indeed why it would appear the UK is not alone in disliking it as a concept. I fully understand those are the rules that faceless EU bureaucrats have set out - it's that, and things like it, that prompted me to vote leave.

It seems, to me, like it was one of the first foundations laid down against "ever closer union". It was probably the easiest to swerve through the European machine (taxation, benefits and other elements of fiscal policy being sensitive) and when we were a trading block 15 nations with no fundamental/material differences in economies/objectives it was probably seen as harmless.

Now the EU is 27 nations, with more on the horizon, and without having covered any of the other bases of "ever closer union" it all looks a bit...awkward.

It feels very much like something that was set up with good intentions, but was very ill thought through, especially in the context of the EU's desire to expand with little thought to the consequences. The same is true of much that the EU does - I can often see the intent was good, but the execution nearly always leaves an awful lot to be desired.
I actually did. Read the 2 posts that I was replying to and you'll see that I did. You are now changing questions. No problem, not difficult to deal with those ;

If you remove the emotional hyperbole of 'faceless EU bureaucrats' you'll realise that those bureaucrats are not better or worse than our own, who, as it happens are part of 'EU' ones. Why free movement is necessary or desirable? Not sure about necessary as it'll mean different things, you can ask, why is free movement of capital necessary, or why is access to single market necessary?

They are not, they are more efficient. That's why they are desirable. I want competition. I like competition. I like the idea that I can get Romanian app developer in 5 hours in London. I like the idea that I don't have to depend on some dumb, probably way out of date list to get someone fast to work on a project. What do you not like about it? If it's the question of infrastructure, with increased GDP (not just overall, but per-capita too) it's surely upto our government to address those issues?

The inevitable 'ever closer union'. And for donkeys years we don't have Euro, and yet we have City. The exclusion, built into treaties, excluding UK from 'ever closer union' is disregarded, but those same treaties are used as a proof of subjugation.

As for the rise in far right groups; very much overplayed by media. If anything appetite for referendum, let alone leaving EU has dropped significantly since Brexit. http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-desire-to-leave-eu-n...

So yes, it's been answered. All imo.

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
GoodOlBoy said:
It's all getting a bit too lengthy and I feel we're somewhat at cross purposes.

Once we leave the EU the four freedoms no longer apply. Or to put it another way - the FML may be a pillar of the EU but we will no longer be in the EU.

We are negotiating a trade deal with the EU, we're not cherry-picking. If the EU choose to link trade with FML it's a political rather than a constitutional matter and has nothing to do with the founding principles.

For countries outside the EU, why should FML even be a consideration ? Turkey already have a tariff-free deal on manufactured goods that doesn't include FML. Neither the TTIP nor the Canadian deal will include FML. I suggest that a trade deal for the UK, China or Timbuctoo doesn't need to include FML either.

As regards the desirability of FML, there are two main issues.

1. Given a surplus supply of migrant labour for whom the UK wage structure is very attractive, there is no pressure on employers to increase wages. The result, as we are already seeing, is an increase in migrant workers vs locals in certain areas.

2. Of more concern for the future there is no incentive (or need) for employers to invest in training the future UK labour force. With virtually unlimited access to "ready made" qualified professionals it makes absolutely no sense for an employer to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in training locals.

Unless point 2. in particular is addressed we are building in a real problem for the future and committing ourselves to ever-increasing reliance on migrant labour.
You are right, once we leave four freedoms no longer apply.

Your examples are not like for like, none of the countries mentioned have agreement of access to single market for services. That's a market where EU has significant trade deficit with UK. TTIP as it is, including ISDS, is so much biased towards USA that we would be really stupid to sign something like that. Doubt that that'll stop us.

1) Increasing wages is not as simple. Otherwise we could just simply increase NMW by 200% and voila. By increasing them we'll make UK less competitive, goods more expensive on domestic market too.

2) The employers will train staff where they see the benefit of training staff. Not sure why is origin of staff important in that respect.

It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not, globalization and advances in techonology that'll make word smaller are here to stay.


Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
cayman-black said:
Murph7355 said:
You can't help yourself, can you Mario wink

From a personal perspective I am under no illusions about the quality of our political classes. However I hold firmly with the view that having another bucket of ste, filled with such luminaries as Tusk and Juncker, on top of the home grown one is not making things better for all concerned.

Having that second bucket of ste in place gives our own people a cop out. I'm hoping that once that is gone, underscored by the political landscape here at the moment, that our politicians start to remember who they are working for and that we might see an improvement in quality/accountability over time.

A forlorn hope? Maybe. But one thing was certain - had we voted to remain, things would not have changed for the better. It would have been a vote of confidence in all politicians and they would have stepped up the piss taking.
Absolutely had we have voted to stay in we would have been well and truly fked. The right decisions made and in the near future all , ok (most ) will realise.
My reply to that said:
My comment was specifically on EU immigration where we will be replacing no daft bureaucracy controlling it, with a bureaucracy we can already see doesn't work very well at what it's supposed to do.

As to your wider point, there may be an extra "bucket of ste" at the top with the EU bods, but it's minuscule compared to the bucket we already have: ~33K civil servants for 500M people in the EU compared to ~440K for only 65M in the UK. And if our politicians need to remember who they're working for, it's our fault not the EU's. We should be holding them to account already. This is yet another example of blaming our internal failings on the EU

paul789

3,676 posts

103 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
Saw this on Facebook and had to laugh. Bless.

https://network23.org/antiraids/what-to-do-if-you-...


Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
paul789 said:
Saw this on Facebook and had to laugh. Bless.

https://network23.org/antiraids/what-to-do-if-you-...
Why do you have to laugh?


davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
BJG1 said:
It isn't the either/or you describe. There are lots of factors that contribute to low productivity and it's likely a combination of all of them. If your second argument were the predeominant reason then Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands would not have significantly more productive economies than ours since they have the same access to cheap labour.

As for the second part of your post, I think that's a good thing.
It's absolutely a good thing that people can't be discriminated against on the basis of their nationality. I was just pointing out one of the constraints.

And it is more complex than just the bald numbers - we have to consider the type of work involved too. The German economy is heavily focused upon high value manufacturing, whereas the UK economy is service based. It's (relatively) easy to multiply productivity through process improvements in a factory, but a person cannot wait twice as many tables, or make twice as many beds, or deal with twice as many customer service calls, through process improvements.

768

13,601 posts

95 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
7 years limit on free movement already. They're folding even faster than expected.

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
Not to mention JCJ now saying that preparation time is needed before Brexit negotiations, contrary to the earlier declare Article 50 now demands.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
...
As for the rise in far right groups; very much overplayed by media. If anything appetite for referendum, let alone leaving EU has dropped significantly since Brexit. http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-desire-to-leave-eu-n......
Denmark smile I'm not sure that proves anything about Germany, France, Italy and The Netherlands.

jjlynn27 said:
...
It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not, globalization and advances in techonology that'll make word smaller are here to stay.
This I 100% agree with you on. The key bit being "global".

So approaching this from a different angle, if FML is so desirable, why does the EU block it from all but 28 nations on the planet? And why is FML all but nonexistent everywhere else in the globe.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 25th July 2016
quotequote all
Graemsay said:
Boris said that the referendum result was not entirely overwhelming. Whilst there might not be the political or democratic will to remain in the EU, I'm not convinced that there's popular support for the sort of hard Brexit that the Tory right wing or UKIP are proposing.

The chances are that whatever deal is cooked up is going to be a compromise.

There's been talk of a new Associate Membership to the EU, which would be somewhere between being fully in and part of the EEA. It's being talked about for Norway, Iceland, and possibly Switzerland, but might suit the UK too.

So what if that was offered to the UK, along with the enhanced emergency brake, and possibly reformation of the European Commission (I think it's in the Steinmeier and Ayrault paper)? It would counter some of the concerns from the Leave camp, and could find favour with the Remainers.
The vote is over. The vote was to leave. The government will opt for something that will ensure their reelection. That is the only necessity. This means satisfying both their voters and their paymasters.

They are in a cleft stick, albeit of their own manufacture. The vote was near equal. A considerable number of people did not vote, more than a quarter. So the negotiators will have the problem of trying to satisfy both sides. The norm in this situation is that they will opt for where they think the 'bulge' is. In the middle? I don't know, but I bet they will, if not now then in the near future. They will also keep a finger on the pulse.

They will feed information to the right (in more ways than one) papers and we'll know where they see the bulk of people.

If we invoke Article 50 then the referendum has been resulted. That was what was voted for. There was no immigration aspect to the vote. All they have to do is leave the EU and the rest is a free choice. What will they go for after that will be down to conflicting pressure balancing. Lobbyists v voter figures.

It is not going to be easy and I'd feel sorry for them if it wasn't their own fault.

The 7 year moratorium is a bargaining point. There will be others, presumably, and hopefully, from both sides.

The fact that the opposition is in disarray means that the options are open to an extent that they could not have hoped for before Corbyn got in and then refused to go. Whether this is good or bad is open to question.

I would suggest that we will be treated to a number of statements to the effect that the verdict of the people has been followed once Article 50 has been served on the opposition. We'll be told it is now dead and buried and the only intent now is to make the best deal the government can given the limitations of the out vote.

It is what I'd do.


jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
...
As for the rise in far right groups; very much overplayed by media. If anything appetite for referendum, let alone leaving EU has dropped significantly since Brexit. http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-desire-to-leave-eu-n......
Denmark smile I'm not sure that proves anything about Germany, France, Italy and The Netherlands.
LOL. And you are telling others that they can't help themselves? As for the support in other countries, have this;

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poll-i...


Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
...
It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not, globalization and advances in techonology that'll make word smaller are here to stay.
This I 100% agree with you on. The key bit being "global".

So approaching this from a different angle, if FML is so desirable, why does the EU block it from all but 28 nations on the planet? And why is FML all but nonexistent everywhere else in the globe.
In a nutshell? Lack of political will. Wildly different historical contexts. Wildly different cultural experiences.

Now that I've answered your questions; please name notable people (outside of UK) who think that brexit was/is good idea.


Jockman

17,912 posts

159 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
Now that I've answered your questions; please name notable people (outside of UK) who think that brexit was/is good idea.
Juncker?

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
jjlynn27 said:
In a nutshell? Lack of political will. Wildly different historical contexts. Wildly different cultural experiences.

Now that I've answered your questions; please name notable people (outside of UK) who think that brexit was/is good idea.
If FML is overwhelmingly a good idea, why is there no political will to do it globally? As you note, globalisation is a fact of life. Being a "Little EUer" is surely as unhealthy as being a "Little Englander"?

And how is our "historical context" not wildly different to Romania's (as an example)? Or our cultural experiences. And our shared histories with the majority aren't overly "cohesive"/"friendly".

Ultimately I suspect all of this comes down to where you choose to "measure" from (whether that's history, disparate economical situations or whatever else drives the choice of expansion). So it's arbitrary based on personal predilections. If we can accept that, then it's no more "right" or "wrong" to draw the lines at the "UK" than it is around the "EU" or "EMEA" or wider.

Personally, however, I take the view that history shows the larger you make a body the harder it is to manage it properly. Empires collapse when they outgrow themselves, and social and economic problems become very, very difficult to contain unless you become overly dictatorial....and I hope we can all agree that would not be good for anyone.

I'm not privy to what other "notable people (outside of the UK)" may or may not think about Brexit. Though to be honest it's not and never was anything to do with people outside of the UK. And I'm afraid my inbuilt cynicism suggests that people outside of the UK will first and foremost be forming their opinions based on what is good for them/their nation. That may or may not be harmonious with what is good for the UK.

It seems to me that the hard messages pre-23rd have softened somewhat though. As toys start to be put back in prams over the next 2-3yrs I strongly suspect that softening will continue, and eventually (5-10yrs I suspect) it'll be like we were never in the EU (aside from those in this country who continue to sulk that a vote didn't go their way smile).

If the EU doesn't adjust its stance on FML (not with us specifically, on a general basis), I would bet a large amount of money that it will be at the root of a lot of huge social and economic problems within a decade. Either that or it must consolidate all the other facets of closer union, which I don't see as being possible.

Mrr T

12,152 posts

264 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
davepoth said:
It's more complex than that. The big problem the UK economy has is low productivity. Productivity is simply the amount of GDP created per worker. There are two arguments as to why UK productivity is so low. Firstly, that there's something inherent in British companies and workers that makes them lazy; or second, that an effectively unlimited supply of people willing to do minimum wage work makes it cheaper to employ more people than to make the existing people more productive.

I believe the second argument.

Take it a little further, and ask yourself this question: If companies know they can get someone on minimum wage, why on earth would they pay any more to someone just because they're British? They wouldn't, and under EU rules they aren't allowed to.
Like so many of the leave team there is no need to discuss or look at evidence the poster just knows the reason for the low UK GDP per head. It funny that its a subject of much debate amongst economomists who cannot agree a reason.

My own guess is it a statistical data issue. If you look at the data for example why is Ireland above Germany.

As for the other comments typical leave who seems to believe Eastern Europe has no schools or universities so all immigrants will only get minimum wage jobs.

Finally the real statistics for EU immigrantion are, employment at record levels, job vacancies remain high and real wages are rising.

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Jockman said:
jjlynn27 said:
Now that I've answered your questions; please name notable people (outside of UK) who think that brexit was/is good idea.
Juncker?
hehe

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
If FML is overwhelmingly a good idea, why is there no political will to do it globally? As you note, globalisation is a fact of life. Being a "Little EUer" is surely as unhealthy as being a "Little Englander"?

And how is our "historical context" not wildly different to Romania's (as an example)? Or our cultural experiences. And our shared histories with the majority aren't overly "cohesive"/"friendly".

Ultimately I suspect all of this comes down to where you choose to "measure" from (whether that's history, disparate economical situations or whatever else drives the choice of expansion). So it's arbitrary based on personal predilections. If we can accept that, then it's no more "right" or "wrong" to draw the lines at the "UK" than it is around the "EU" or "EMEA" or wider.

Personally, however, I take the view that history shows the larger you make a body the harder it is to manage it properly. Empires collapse when they outgrow themselves, and social and economic problems become very, very difficult to contain unless you become overly dictatorial....and I hope we can all agree that would not be good for anyone.

I'm not privy to what other "notable people (outside of the UK)" may or may not think about Brexit. Though to be honest it's not and never was anything to do with people outside of the UK. And I'm afraid my inbuilt cynicism suggests that people outside of the UK will first and foremost be forming their opinions based on what is good for them/their nation. That may or may not be harmonious with what is good for the UK.

It seems to me that the hard messages pre-23rd have softened somewhat though. As toys start to be put back in prams over the next 2-3yrs I strongly suspect that softening will continue, and eventually (5-10yrs I suspect) it'll be like we were never in the EU (aside from those in this country who continue to sulk that a vote didn't go their way smile).

If the EU doesn't adjust its stance on FML (not with us specifically, on a general basis), I would bet a large amount of money that it will be at the root of a lot of huge social and economic problems within a decade. Either that or it must consolidate all the other facets of closer union, which I don't see as being possible.
Nothing on Reuters link? Ok.

As for both historical context and cultural experiences; I was talking about EU in general vs row. Friendly/unfriendly has changed so many times, that in the light of this discussion is completely meaningless.

You are not privy? You don't need to be privy. You can read about it. It's not like that people have kept what they think about Brexit to themselves. I'll give you a hint; Le Penn, Wilders and Trump. As per Reuters link, contrary to what many thought (and hoped?) here, it seems that brexit had completely opposite effect.

For large vs small I'll direct you to a thread about London seceding. As joking as it was it was quite an eye opener. Larger markets will have more influence and generally be more efficient / beneficial than small ones. This ridiculous notion that all of a sudden we'll be able to negotiate super deals benefiting UK like never before, are pipe dream. There is no empirical evidence that support that notion. On the contrary, examples of Chi<>Swi, Can<>USA paint completely different picture.

Soft/Hard message. Pretty meaningless; I don't see them bugging on FML <> true free access to sm. Whatever the deal is, large number of both remainers and leavers will be unhappy about it. But we should see that once we have any idea of what 'we' actually want.


Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
jjlynn27 said:
In a nutshell? Lack of political will. Wildly different historical contexts. Wildly different cultural experiences.

Now that I've answered your questions; please name notable people (outside of UK) who think that brexit was/is good idea.
If FML is overwhelmingly a good idea, why is there no political will to do it globally? As you note, globalisation is a fact of life. Being a "Little EUer" is surely as unhealthy as being a "Little Englander"?
I'd say that it's because the EU are more advanced politically/socially etc than the rest of the world and showed countries how working together for a common goal was better than trying to compete at each other's expense. Think of it like an economic version of peace vs war. Sure if you start a war you may win, but there's always going to be a loser and it'll always be expensive. Work out how to get on with your neighbour and cooperate, you'll both do well and also save money.

The countries of the EU essentially said "here's our club, here are our rules (you have to be democratic, free, no cap punishment plus many other good things) and if you're willing to abide by these good things, you can join the club and partake of all the bonuses and benefits". I see that as a manifestly good thing and if other countries around the world could meet the required criteria I'd be happy for them to join as well and be in the SM and have FML

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
I'd say that it's because the EU are more advanced politically/socially etc than the rest of the world and showed countries how working together for a common goal was better than trying to compete at each other's expense. Think of it like an economic version of peace vs war. Sure if you start a war you may win, but there's always going to be a loser and it'll always be expensive. Work out how to get on with your neighbour and cooperate, you'll both do well and also save money.

The countries of the EU essentially said "here's our club, here are our rules (you have to be democratic, free, no cap punishment plus many other good things) and if you're willing to abide by these good things, you can join the club and partake of all the bonuses and benefits". I see that as a manifestly good thing and if other countries around the world could meet the required criteria I'd be happy for them to join as well and be in the SM and have FML
Further to what I wrote above, imagine a future world where lots of countries have joined an expanded EU as they have met and maintained a minimum (but high level) of common legal, economic, living etc standards and that you could go and live and work completely freely anywhere in that union. In the same way that you may want to take a job in Italy now, you could go to say Japan, India, Oz, Iran, USA, Namibia, Argentina or wherever had been able to meet those standards and live/work there knowing that you'd have the same broad rights and privileges as you do in the UK? That's what the idea of a SM and FML mean to me as a goal to aim for.

Seems a bit pie in the sky? Maybe. But then I suspect if you went back in time 100 years and told the countries of Europe they'd basically all be in a peaceful political union with free trade, free movement, no wars between members for 70 years, common goals, human rights etc etc, you'd probably have been called mad by all but a few.

In the context of all that, throwing our teddies out of the pram and leaving because of some notional lack of immigration control or national sovereignty seems like a massive step backward. If we want to play the long game for our benefit like Brexiteers claim they do, then we should be playing the 30, 50 or 100 year game for our kids and grandkids. And I'd bet my house that doesn't involve nations doing the sort of thing we've voted to do.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
Mario149 said:
I'd say that it's because the EU are more advanced politically/socially etc than the rest of the world and showed countries how working together for a common goal was better than trying to compete at each other's expense. Think of it like an economic version of peace vs war. Sure if you start a war you may win, but there's always going to be a loser and it'll always be expensive. Work out how to get on with your neighbour and cooperate, you'll both do well and also save money.

The countries of the EU essentially said "here's our club, here are our rules (you have to be democratic, free, no cap punishment plus many other good things) and if you're willing to abide by these good things, you can join the club and partake of all the bonuses and benefits". I see that as a manifestly good thing and if other countries around the world could meet the required criteria I'd be happy for them to join as well and be in the SM and have FML
Further to what I wrote above, imagine a future world where lots of countries have joined an expanded EU as they have met and maintained a minimum (but high level) of common legal, economic, living etc standards and that you could go and live and work completely freely anywhere in that union. In the same way that you may want to take a job in Italy now, you could go to say Japan, India, Oz, Iran, USA, Namibia, Argentina or wherever had been able to meet those standards and live/work there knowing that you'd have the same broad rights and privileges as you do in the UK? That's what the idea of a SM and FML mean to me as a goal to aim for.

Seems a bit pie in the sky? Maybe. But then I suspect if you went back in time 100 years and told the countries of Europe they'd basically all be in a peaceful political union with free trade, free movement, no wars between members for 70 years, common goals, human rights etc etc, you'd probably have been called mad by all but a few.

In the context of all that, throwing our teddies out of the pram and leaving because of some notional lack of immigration control or national sovereignty seems like a massive step backward. If we want to play the long game for our benefit like Brexiteers claim they do, then we should be playing the 30, 50 or 100 year game for our kids and grandkids. And I'd bet my house that doesn't involve nations doing the sort of thing we've voted to do.
But its not the rose garden you portray, how many country in the EU are doing well?

I do wish people would stop associating peace in Europe with the EU, who was going to go to war when the Americans had thousands of troops stationed in Germany along with a number of British troops, Germany would not invade France due to the simple fact France had Nuclear weapons, so who was going to go to war under the conditions that they could be wiped off the face of the earth?
If the EU is such a wonderful place why have Norway and Switzerland withdraw their membership applications ?
As with a lot of things looks good on paper fails in reality , the EU is not working in its present form and is incapable of change, it will die, maybe EU Mk2 might work if they are prepared to learn from their mistakes but I suspect not.

Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Tuesday 26th July 2016
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Mario149 said:
Mario149 said:
I'd say that it's because the EU are more advanced politically/socially etc than the rest of the world and showed countries how working together for a common goal was better than trying to compete at each other's expense. Think of it like an economic version of peace vs war. Sure if you start a war you may win, but there's always going to be a loser and it'll always be expensive. Work out how to get on with your neighbour and cooperate, you'll both do well and also save money.

The countries of the EU essentially said "here's our club, here are our rules (you have to be democratic, free, no cap punishment plus many other good things) and if you're willing to abide by these good things, you can join the club and partake of all the bonuses and benefits". I see that as a manifestly good thing and if other countries around the world could meet the required criteria I'd be happy for them to join as well and be in the SM and have FML
Further to what I wrote above, imagine a future world where lots of countries have joined an expanded EU as they have met and maintained a minimum (but high level) of common legal, economic, living etc standards and that you could go and live and work completely freely anywhere in that union. In the same way that you may want to take a job in Italy now, you could go to say Japan, India, Oz, Iran, USA, Namibia, Argentina or wherever had been able to meet those standards and live/work there knowing that you'd have the same broad rights and privileges as you do in the UK? That's what the idea of a SM and FML mean to me as a goal to aim for.

Seems a bit pie in the sky? Maybe. But then I suspect if you went back in time 100 years and told the countries of Europe they'd basically all be in a peaceful political union with free trade, free movement, no wars between members for 70 years, common goals, human rights etc etc, you'd probably have been called mad by all but a few.

In the context of all that, throwing our teddies out of the pram and leaving because of some notional lack of immigration control or national sovereignty seems like a massive step backward. If we want to play the long game for our benefit like Brexiteers claim they do, then we should be playing the 30, 50 or 100 year game for our kids and grandkids. And I'd bet my house that doesn't involve nations doing the sort of thing we've voted to do.
But its not the rose garden you portray, how many country in the EU are doing well?

I do wish people would stop associating peace in Europe with the EU, who was going to go to war when the Americans had thousands of troops stationed in Germany along with a number of British troops, Germany would not invade France due to the simple fact France had Nuclear weapons, so who was going to go to war under the conditions that they could be wiped off the face of the earth?
If the EU is such a wonderful place why have Norway and Switzerland withdraw their membership applications ?
As with a lot of things looks good on paper fails in reality , the EU is not working in its present form and is incapable of change, it will die, maybe EU Mk2 might work if they are prepared to learn from their mistakes but I suspect not.
I never said it was a rose garden, there have been problems but overall it's been a success. If it was so clearly catastrophic we wouldn't be having this conversation. And countries still want to join. You seem to think that trying to do something on this scale is going to be without flaws and mistakes along the way. When the reality is anything of this magnitude is by it's very nature going to be imperfect. Then throw in the biggest financial downturn that the world has possibly ever had into the mix for some extra challenge.

As for peace in Europe. Who knows? You can't prove it is in spite of the EU and I can't prove that it's because of the EU. But I'd suggest that a whole load of countries connecting themselves by choice economically and politically in a peaceful manner to further trade and all the less measurable stuff like quality of life, human rights, justice etc did anything other than reduce the risk of conflict, I'd be very surprised.