Leaving the eu isn't really something you can adjust to. It's like losing a limb: you might learn to do without, but it's loss you work around not one that grows back...
Is it? The UK had a global empire before the EU existed. I'm not suggesting we go back to colonising far off lands, but clearly a nation can be successful outside the EU (there a plenty of examples of that). What an absurd idea.
A person can absolutely be successful after losing a limb. But it's a lot easier if they haven't lost the limb. And when you lose a limb because of serious systemic issues (like the UK has) the chances of going on to be successful are... Dire.
That's where the UK is. Success is entirely possible. And that's the faintest praise anyone can give isn't?
Many of the the (other) EU countries had global empires too. Fortunately or unfortunately the era of global colonialism has ended.
Since we're all unlikely to be able to conquer large swaths of far-away continents anymore, we're kind of better off working together instead. The alternative is that there's just a bunch of tiny rump-states rusting away in a corner of the globe, pining for our former glory.
But countries can work together without being in the EU. In fact the EU's refusal to work with countries geographically close to Europe unless they totally submit to the will of the Commission on everything, is one of the factors most damaging to European cooperation. The EU is ideologically incapable of compromise, structurally incapable of working together on some things and not on others. Once upon a time it could do those things, but not for many years now.
As far as I know there are many countries that cooperate with the EU but are not a part of it, based on many levels of compromise. (This video proposes we replace the european flag's stars with asterisks for all the exceptions and compromises! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg )
In fact the UK took several of those types/levels of cooperation into consideration and rejected each. (Here's a quick video overview of that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E )
Many countries outside of Europe cooperate with it. Within Europe such non-EU controlled agreements are legacy and have been replaced over time with EU controlled institutions and agreements.
The UK tried many times to come up with some sort of compromise agreement or continued collaboration on various topics, but the EU never accepted them, always with some statement about "cherry picking" or how "Europe is not a la carte". In other words, totalitarianism: either you obey us in all respects, or we don't work together on anything.
In practice this was not a realistic policy position and the Commission has been forced into a series of reversals or dropping of its more extreme ideas especially around finance. But their position was clear at the time.
Even on the European continent there are many many asterisks. The UK themselves have had many many asterisks even while they were a member of the EU (eg: status of overseas territories, opt out of Schengen border control zone, opt out of Euro monetary union etc etc...) . If you look at it that way, you'd think that the average EU negotiator wouldn't even blink if someone requested an extra half dozen asterisks and a pound of cheese to go please.
Of course, I could be wrong. Can you give a specific example?
The thing to understand is that the EU has changed a lot over time. You're right to observe that the UK had many opt outs of various forms, but this comes with two extremely severe caveats:
1. They were all old. When the EU was smaller and the Commission less powerful, it was more willing to compromise. As it grew and took over more powers, its appetite for compromise lessened. It started to talk about competing approaches or partial cooperation derisively ("cherry picking") and refused to contemplate looser integrations.
2. They were getting unreliable. The UK secured an opt-out when the vague collection of principles called "human rights" was translated nearly directly into law - a bad move, constitutionally, and one the UK was wise to reject. The human rights were never written to be laws and could not function properly as such, so the UK insisted on an opt-out and got it along with Poland. The relevant bit of law is as clear as can be: UK and Poland are not subject to those laws. But as often the case with the EU the written word turned out to be utterly worthless. The ECJ simply ruled later that the opt-out was void. No actual real legal justification was provided - they just annulled it by fiat, and told the UK its opt-out was gone. And because EU membership means obeying the ECJ in all matters, that was that. No more opt out.
Now comes Brexit. Enormous numbers of proposals were tried by the UK to stay with closer alignment, a free trade deal, continuing in the Horizon research programme etc. All were rejected by the EU and we ended up with a relatively "hard" Brexit.
I did vote for Brexit and still support it strongly, partly because of things like this. The EU of 1992 is not the EU of 2022. It knows many populations don't want the level of control the EU currently has, and it feels like if it gives up even an inch the whole anti-democratic project will start to fall apart. Indeed one of the primary motivations of the EU negotiators during the Brexit talks was to not do anything that might encourage other countries to re-assert independence in any area, even if they didn't want to leave.
The UK is a non-example because that makes the argument circular.
So I'll forget you mentioned it.
Norway isn't successful?
Norway is an outlier case, for obvious reasons.
You could have also picked Albania, ex-Yugoslavia, Belarus, Ukraine in your list of proud EU dissenters but that wouldn't support your argument too well if you had, now would it?
Of course there are such examples
Just not "plenty" of them.
Dear God, aren't debates on HN about basic world facts outright silly.
You're the one who made the claim that there were no such examples, which is wrong. Now you're trying to come up with explanations for why those examples don't count or should be balanced against other countries.
You're also putting quote marks around the word "plenty" although you never said that, your statement was absolute.
Comments
Leaving the eu isn't really something you can adjust to. It's like losing a limb: you might learn to do without, but it's loss you work around not one that grows back...
Is it? The UK had a global empire before the EU existed. I'm not suggesting we go back to colonising far off lands, but clearly a nation can be successful outside the EU (there a plenty of examples of that). What an absurd idea.
To clarify my metaphor...
A person can absolutely be successful after losing a limb. But it's a lot easier if they haven't lost the limb. And when you lose a limb because of serious systemic issues (like the UK has) the chances of going on to be successful are... Dire.
That's where the UK is. Success is entirely possible. And that's the faintest praise anyone can give isn't?
Many of the the (other) EU countries had global empires too. Fortunately or unfortunately the era of global colonialism has ended.
Since we're all unlikely to be able to conquer large swaths of far-away continents anymore, we're kind of better off working together instead. The alternative is that there's just a bunch of tiny rump-states rusting away in a corner of the globe, pining for our former glory.
But countries can work together without being in the EU. In fact the EU's refusal to work with countries geographically close to Europe unless they totally submit to the will of the Commission on everything, is one of the factors most damaging to European cooperation. The EU is ideologically incapable of compromise, structurally incapable of working together on some things and not on others. Once upon a time it could do those things, but not for many years now.
Can you provide some examples?
As far as I know there are many countries that cooperate with the EU but are not a part of it, based on many levels of compromise. (This video proposes we replace the european flag's stars with asterisks for all the exceptions and compromises! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37yJBFRrfg )
In fact the UK took several of those types/levels of cooperation into consideration and rejected each. (Here's a quick video overview of that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E )
Many countries outside of Europe cooperate with it. Within Europe such non-EU controlled agreements are legacy and have been replaced over time with EU controlled institutions and agreements.
The UK tried many times to come up with some sort of compromise agreement or continued collaboration on various topics, but the EU never accepted them, always with some statement about "cherry picking" or how "Europe is not a la carte". In other words, totalitarianism: either you obey us in all respects, or we don't work together on anything.
In practice this was not a realistic policy position and the Commission has been forced into a series of reversals or dropping of its more extreme ideas especially around finance. But their position was clear at the time.
Even on the European continent there are many many asterisks. The UK themselves have had many many asterisks even while they were a member of the EU (eg: status of overseas territories, opt out of Schengen border control zone, opt out of Euro monetary union etc etc...) . If you look at it that way, you'd think that the average EU negotiator wouldn't even blink if someone requested an extra half dozen asterisks and a pound of cheese to go please.
Of course, I could be wrong. Can you give a specific example?
The thing to understand is that the EU has changed a lot over time. You're right to observe that the UK had many opt outs of various forms, but this comes with two extremely severe caveats:
1. They were all old. When the EU was smaller and the Commission less powerful, it was more willing to compromise. As it grew and took over more powers, its appetite for compromise lessened. It started to talk about competing approaches or partial cooperation derisively ("cherry picking") and refused to contemplate looser integrations.
2. They were getting unreliable. The UK secured an opt-out when the vague collection of principles called "human rights" was translated nearly directly into law - a bad move, constitutionally, and one the UK was wise to reject. The human rights were never written to be laws and could not function properly as such, so the UK insisted on an opt-out and got it along with Poland. The relevant bit of law is as clear as can be: UK and Poland are not subject to those laws. But as often the case with the EU the written word turned out to be utterly worthless. The ECJ simply ruled later that the opt-out was void. No actual real legal justification was provided - they just annulled it by fiat, and told the UK its opt-out was gone. And because EU membership means obeying the ECJ in all matters, that was that. No more opt out.
Now comes Brexit. Enormous numbers of proposals were tried by the UK to stay with closer alignment, a free trade deal, continuing in the Horizon research programme etc. All were rejected by the EU and we ended up with a relatively "hard" Brexit.
I did vote for Brexit and still support it strongly, partly because of things like this. The EU of 1992 is not the EU of 2022. It knows many populations don't want the level of control the EU currently has, and it feels like if it gives up even an inch the whole anti-democratic project will start to fall apart. Indeed one of the primary motivations of the EU negotiators during the Brexit talks was to not do anything that might encourage other countries to re-assert independence in any area, even if they didn't want to leave.
Asterisks are stars.
[There a plenty of examples of nations successful outside the EU]
But not nations actually in, you know, Europe.
So, Switzerland is not successful? Norway isn't successful? The UK isn't successful?
Of course there are such examples. Especially if you consider that it's not really clear what makes the EU "successful" in this argument.
The UK is a non-example because that makes the argument circular.
So I'll forget you mentioned it.
Norway isn't successful?
Norway is an outlier case, for obvious reasons.
You could have also picked Albania, ex-Yugoslavia, Belarus, Ukraine in your list of proud EU dissenters but that wouldn't support your argument too well if you had, now would it?
Of course there are such examples
Just not "plenty" of them.
Dear God, aren't debates on HN about basic world facts outright silly.
You're the one who made the claim that there were no such examples, which is wrong. Now you're trying to come up with explanations for why those examples don't count or should be balanced against other countries.
You're also putting quote marks around the word "plenty" although you never said that, your statement was absolute.