If Britain leaves the EU

[RB TexLa]

If Britain leaves the EU, the US should ...

23 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Not negotiate any trade agreement with them
	3 (13%)
	Negotiate a trade agreement on the same terms as we have with the EU
	14 (61%)
	Negotiate a trade agreement on less favorable terms as we have with the EU
	1 (4%)
	Negotiate a trade agreement on more favorable terms as we have with the EU
	5 (22%)
	Not negotiate any trade agreement with them and end the trade agreement with the EU. We shouldn't trade with foreigners
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[metroins]

1. Britain is one of our deepest, closest allies

I don't think, and hope, they won't leave.

But if they do, there is a bond that should never be broken.

We should treat Britain the same, whatever they decide is best for them, we should support.

[RB TexLa]

3. I disagree. They have a trade deal with the US right now through the EU.

If they leave it they are choosing to leave all benefits that come with it, including favorable trade with us.

[metroins]

5. We can always negotiate another

The USA should always work with Britain and Britain should always work with us.

[RB TexLa]

7. I do not think we should. They want to contribute to a non-unified Europe, they can pay the price

[metroins]

8. This would only hurt us

If they don't trade with us, they'll get trade elsewhere and it works create a divide with our two nations.

I'm sorry, but our bond with Britain is deeper than this.

[RB TexLa]

9. That's like saying a friendship is beneficial only because of how old it is. We will survive a

divide with the uk. With very little problem.

[metroins]

10. 5th largest gdp

I guess we're just not going to agree.

I think Britain has similar values to us.

[Travis_0004]

12. Yes, but why do we want to

Just offer them the same trade deal.

England is a country free to make its own decisions.

We should support them regardless of what they do. I dont want the US to interviene in foreign affairs by refuaing to work with them unless they vote a certain way.

[Albertoo]

14. Do you have any data backing this assertion?

[Albertoo]

19. The EU had zero impact on immigration, as can easily be proven

And the EU countries from which immigrants do come (Ireland, Poland) ALREADY were the two top countries of immigration into the UK BEFORE the EU.

[Albertoo]

22. The figure for Pakistan shows your link immigration/EU is wrong

Besides, ever since the 2007-8 financial crisis, immigration from the EU is declining,
not so from non-EU countries.

Further proof your link EU/immigration is not a fact.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/

[Albertoo]

27. Since entry in the EU, the share of European immigration in the UK DECLINED

-> you have not established any link between EU membership and immigration in the UK

[uppityperson]

23. "As of 2014, 790,000 people born in Poland were estimated to be resident in the UK"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_the_United_Kingdom

How is that "millions"?

[Albertoo]

28. UK voters chose entry in the EU which stated ever closer union in its constitution preamble

The fact demagogues like Trump or Farage ascribe the ills people suffer due to the 2008 recession to immigration doesn't make this alleged causality true.

[uppityperson]

30. Why are you so personally invested?

790,000 is far different from Millions. Even if its a year outdated.

[Corporate666]

34. Are you out of your trees?

So the USA should cut off one of the worlds largest economies from trading with us because they didn't vote the way a small number of people in the USA think they should have voted.

You think spite-based politics is a good idea? How is that anything different than what Trump proposes? Or is Trump-style politics OK as long as it's your biases and spites that are legislated into law?

....meanwhile we'll continue trading with China and ignore child labor, Africa and ignore female and homosexual oppression and atrocities, and the far east and the sex and child trafficking markets???

Or do those transgressions pale in comparison to a sovereign nation voting to leave an economic/trade union that we have absolutely nothing to do with?

[sendero]

42. I don't quite get..

... the rampant EU fellation going on here. Who wants their country to be run by a cabal of unelected bureaucrats in another country?

Fuck the EU.

The economic debacles in Greece, Spain, Italy and others COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED had these countries stayed out the of EU. The EU is just another thinly-disguised way to run the lemmings off the cliff and shear them.

Really, Britain will do just fine without the EU. The EU on the other hand has to fear for its survival if Britain actually left.

[Corporate666]

48. Well said

I don't think most Americans really understand much about the EU, or the UK or what is actually going on at ground level in these countries.

People talk about trade, but there's no logical connection between a subservient legislature and trade. For whatever benefits the EU has brought, they have also created lots of hurdles.

Immigration has just been the last straw for many people who are seeing long wait times at hospitals, difficulty getting their children into schools, a shortage of jobs in the trades, and home prices that are skyrocketing and pricing out the average citizen from ever being able to buy.

[pampango]

38. What is the existing trade agreement between the US and the EU? TTIP is under negotiation but

is not finished much less ratified.

The US and EU belong to the WTO but practically every country in the world belong to that, including the UK, so nothing will change in the immediate future in our trading relationship with the UK.

The poll is about future changes in our trade with the UK. If we just leave it governed by the WTO then Brexit really does not change anything in that regard.

[Glorfindel]

4. Agree completely

n/t

[msongs]

2. EU is corporate run to slash wages and benefits by inducing emigration/immigration nt

[Meldread]

16. What they are doing is stupid and dangerous.

It could lead to other nations exiting the EU, and potentially even the break up of the UK. Why should Scotland remain part of the UK if they step out of the EU? The chaos that this could create is dangerous--we need our allies to be stable partners.

The EU's problem is that it is not more integrated. If there is anything good that could come out of the UK leaving is that their half in and half out approach is no longer viable. With them out the EU could become more integrated, which it desperately needs.

However, in order to hold the EU together, the UK cannot be seen as benefiting from leaving. So some degree of punitive measures need to be taken by the EU. They should not be able to negotiate as favorable trade agreements with the EU as if they were still members. The United States should stand shoulder to shoulder with our EU allies and not allow the UK to try and forge stronger trade agreements with the United States to counter any economic harm they could suffer by leaving the EU.

A path should be made for the UK and/or it's various members--join the EU as full members. If Briton doesn't want to join, then Scotland should be offered the opportunity to join independent of the UK, and there should be measures to encourage Ireland to unify.

[Meldread]

20. If the EU breaks apart, Europe as we know it begins to collapse.

The stability of Europe as we know it is due entirely to the creation of the EU. The break up of the EU will inevitably lead to an end to European stability, and a growing hostility between European nations.

I am not going to sit here and argue that the EU is perfect. It is not. It is a deeply imperfect institution, and that is putting it mildly. However, all of the flaws that it possesses exist because the individual nations that make it up are trying to maintain too much independence from the union. It would be a bit like California deciding that it wants greater independence from the United States as a whole. In an ideal situation the EU's nations would unify to function more like states in the United States.

If that were to happen, and they were to have a greater and more stronger economic and political union, a lot of the problems experienced by the EU's institutions would begin to be alleviated.

As for Scotland... it's important to remember that the United Kingdom is called "United" for a reason. It is made up of four different "countries" which are England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Overwhelmingly, the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland want to remain in the EU. In fact the Scottish are extremely pro-EU. If the UK leaves the EU it will have an impact on Scotland as well, whose people are not entirely happy with all the power England has over them. The EU is largely seen as the counterweight to English rule. There could easily be another push for Scotland to leave the UK, and if the EU is on the other side promising membership and assistance in helping Scotland gain its independence, then it is almost certain the Scottish will choose to leave. There is also a possibility of Ireland unifying so that Northern Ireland could rejoin the EU for similar reasons.

It is in the interest of the entire world to see Europe as a whole remain united and stable. The United States, as well as every other nation, should want this to be the case. I think if the UK leaves there is a potential opportunity for the EU to grow even stronger, but only if the UK is not rewarded for leaving. If the UK suffers for leaving the EU, particularly if it breaks up and its individual parts join the EU, then England will eventually relent and join as well--not as a half-assed partner, but as a full fledged member. The union could emerge stronger, but only if the UK does not benefit from leaving.

[Corporate666]

35. Why should countries remain together if they don't want to?

This is your idea of "dangerous"??

The UK is a sovereign nation. They can do what they like. The EU should break up, or at least stick to doing what works - handling trade - and stop trying to be a one-world government.

What's with all this talk of punitive and spite-based politics? You believe the EU needs to ensure economic hassle befalls the UK for having the audacity not to want to remain in the union? That's absolutely beyond the pale. The UK is the 2nd biggest economy in the EU. It would be mind-numbingly stupid for either the EU or the UK to want to inflict economic harm on each other out of some foolish notion of spite over being jilted.

That's really no different than the right wing kooks who wanted the US automotive manufacturing industry to collapse in 2008, because they would rather die and take others with them than see someone they hated get a bailout.

[Meldread]

37. My response.

This is your idea of "dangerous"??

The UK is a sovereign nation. They can do what they like. The EU should break up, or at least stick to doing what works - handling trade - and stop trying to be a one-world government.

What you propose is dangerous, so yes it is my idea of dangerous. What you are proposing is a rise in self-interested nationalism. That is never a good thing for any nation. Not to mention it is never a liberal value. If the EU collapses then all of Europe destabilizes. Ignoring the economic implications of that, both for the people of Europe and the UK as well as the rest of the world, the far worse implications would be the increased nationalism of each nation and the potential for increasing hostility. Old Europe was not a peaceful place--in case you might have forgotten your history. The EU is the glue that holds the peace and stability of Europe together, no matter how imperfect the EU as an institution may be. ...and we should remember that the reason the EU has so many issues and is so imperfect, is because its member nations still want to cling to national sovereignty and independence. The thing that fixes the most critical problems of the EU is increased integration, but this would require its member nations to essentially function more like states in the United States.

In short, the problem here is self-interested nationalism. It is a problem throughout Europe and the UK. It is the source of the problem. Instead of thinking of ways they can increase their ties, come to agreements, and work together to create a more perfect union, they are discussing what is in their best (short term and not long term) interests. It's the difference between "what is good for me" verses "what is good for us."

What's with all this talk of punitive and spite-based politics? You believe the EU needs to ensure economic hassle befalls the UK for having the audacity not to want to remain in the union?

If the UK attempts to act in such a manner that could endanger the long term survival of the EU, those nations states committed to the EU and especially those committed to increased integration of EU nation states, have to send a strong message that leaving the EU has consequences. If the UK can receive all the benefits of being in the EU without actually being part of the EU, then this creates an incentive for other nations to leave because they'll believe they will be similarly rewarded.

If I were advising those who favored deeper EU integration, my recommendation would be to refuse all non-essential trade from the UK. While at the same time reaching out to the member states of the UK and offering them a special and a clear path to join the EU. It is almost certain that if Scotland knew that they could leave the UK and have easy access into the EU, and they knew that they would be supported by the EU in their transition that they would take it. Similarly, if a deal could be struck where Ireland became unified, that would give those living in Northern Ireland immediate access to the EU since Ireland is already a member state. This will leave England a fractured power, controlling a fraction of an island. I would then make it clear that England could join the EU under similar special circumstances, but it would have to fully integrate as well. The same goes for Wales.

As this unfolds, I would encourage popular votes in existing member states to support increased political and economic integration. With the UK out this actually becomes easier to achieve. Then over the coming decade or so, the EU slowly knits itself together to become more like the United States of Europe--where each nation functions similar to a state in the United States. This fully unifies Europe into another great world power, as it should be, and as a result it becomes more stable, more economically prosperous, and better able to deal with many of the economic and political issues it currently faces.

This is good for the people of Europe, good for the people of the UK, and good for the world. Increased isolationism and nationalism is -ALWAYS- bad for the people engaging in it and the rest of the world.

[Corporate666]

47. So you're in favor of

NAFTA, TPP and the other trade deals?

Or is a one-sided deal OK if it's other nations doing it (and it leads to more integrated nations) and bad when it's the USA that is asked to do the same?

As for the EU - the "United States of Europe" will never happen. Ever. People who think it's about racism and xenophobia are missing the issues entirely. The root of the problem is that Europe is a diverse place, and trying to equalize them as strongly as the EU does just will never work. Culturally, socially, economically, financially and politically, Greece has very little in common with the UK. Countries like Germany come out ahead in the EU because their currency would otherwise be artificially high. This drives exports up, but costs countries like Greece dearly. Then the Germans feel like they are working hard and their wealth is going to lazy Greeks. On the other hand, Greeks feel like Germany is taking a huge slice of the pie, giving them a little sliver and making them dance to their tune to receive it.

Without individual fiscal policy that matches their social, economic and cultural individuality, a common currency cannot work. And neither can a common legislative body - especially one made of representatives that the people have zero vote for.


To engage in a trade war with a sovereign nation over this is just absolute idiocy. It's more dictatorial than any other action the USA has ever taken against Europe in modern times, and it ought to go against everything "real" liberals stand for.

[Recursion]

17. Less or more favorable for us or them?

My first thought is that if they exit we should offer them a better deal than the EU was giving them, which would be "less favorable" for us but "more favorable" for them.

[davidn3600]

32. The EU has been shooting themselves for awhile

At this point, breakup seems inevitable. Whether it happens now or years from now is the only question. The EU has a lot of cracks forming and it's beginning to be a struggle to hold it together.

And the reasons it's cracking is very evident and self-inflicted. Just look at how they've handled the migrant crisis. It's a disaster. That's the truth. It's a mess. And that's just one example. Look at the debt problems. Look at the terror problems. Look at the political strong-arming going on. The Euro has also lost a lot of strength. For awhile, some people thought it would replace the US Dollar as the "reserve currency." Not many think that anymore.

It's too much bureaucracy. Nothing is efficient. And nothing gets done.

[nationalize the fed]

33. history

The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover

The Telegraph 27 4 2016

Brexiteers should have been prepared for the shattering intervention of the US. The European Union always was an American project.

It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations.

While irritated at times, the US has relied on the EU ever since as the anchor to American regional interests alongside NATO...snip

...Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project.

As this newspaper first reported when the treasure became available, one memorandum dated July 26, 1950, reveals a campaign to promote a full-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the Central Inteligence Agency. ...more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/

Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels 19 Sep 2000

DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

The US/CIA can't keep from meddling. And the people don't care enough to stop it.

NO THANK EU
Shout OUT!
Vote BREXIT

[tirebiter]

36. After bailing their asses out of two world wars,

three if you count the Cold War we have a right to aggressively be part of this process.

[whatthehey]

44. Hmm let's see

80% of German combat fatalities were at the hands of Russians.

Operation Sea Lion, the planned invasion of Britain, was abandoned over a year before US entry to WW2 becasuse the British had established air superiority and would simply bomb any invasion fleet into the sea.

Cash loans were all paid back with interest and whatever lend-lease aid that remained was more than paid back by the invaluable IP gifts of the Tizard mission.

Despite what Hollywood shows, less than 1/4 of the troops for the final invasion started at the Normandy landings were American, and a much smaller ratio of ships.

And WW1? The US sacrificed less than a tenth of the French casualties and an eighth of the British, and nearly half of that bit died of the flu. Five times as many European Allied troops died in one battle, which the US sat out, than the entire American war dead.

[pampango]

39. The US 'should' treat them the same but the UK will find that their negotiating clout is diminshed

in bilateral trade negotiations with the US.

Negotiations between the US and EU is essentially between equals. Negotiations between the US and UK would not be. That is why Trump prefers to just do bilateral trade agreements. The US would almost always be the stronger of the two negotiating parties.

[ileus]

40. So we're actually discussing how to punish the UK for leaving the EU???

[bemildred]

41. "Do nothing" sounds good. Why must we react at all? nt

[Lee-Lee]

43. When two good friends divorce I don't see it as my role to take sides or punish one

Unless one engaged in some sort of behavior that would cause me to treat them differently absent the divorce.

What goes between them is between them.

I see this as the same thing on a global sale. It's their divorce. It's just a situation where they don't see it working out anymore. I hope they stay together but if they split we shoild treat them the same as we did before.

This talk of "punishing" them for dropping out is nonsense. It is not ten role of the USA to act as a spiteful friend for the EU after a bad breakup.

[whatthehey]

45. One little wrinkle

The exit process under treaty takes two years, during which the exiting nation cannot make independent treaties and forfeits all voice in EU decisions. They didn't write this thing with an easy out. It's not like the UK just does what it wants 6/24 if the UKIP crowd get their way.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. So let me get this straight. You will not trade with a country that votes to leave the EU but

will trade with countries that execute their LGBT citizens, atheists and dissenters.? Because we do that right now.