The strongest reasons were continuing to believe in the nation-state as the best means of political organisation for Britain.

It is often not realised, by Europhiles and Eurosceptics alike, that the EU is more or less dedicated to becoming a quasi-superstate. It was never just about a bit of free trade and cooperation. This has been the case since the days of Monnet and Schuman, when intergovernmentalism was repudiated in favour of supragovernmentalism. Monnet's Action Committee for a United States of Europe was a pivotal pressure group in the first fee decades.  The Eurocrats hit upon the Monnet method, which is to be somewhat discrete about the final goal but to aim for piecemeal accumulation of more and more power and responsibility in Brussels. And they have followed this method. Brussels now has vast powers and competencies. At least 60% of British laws and regulations originate there and it claims responsibility over everything from social to energy policy. It is always insatiable for more integration. Brexit did nothing less than save Britain.

I encourage those interested to do real reading into the history of the EU and Britain's relationship to it. The best work I know is Booker and North's The Great Deception. There are few other works as detailed on this topic. Hugo Young's This Blessed Plot is worth a read too. He is a Europhile but he unwittingly reveals important truths about our relationship with Europe.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

It is often not realised, by Europhiles and Eurosceptics alike, that the EU is more or less dedicated to becoming a quasi-superstate.

Actually, Eurosceptics (on the continent at least) have known this since day one. That's why they are Eurosceptics. And Europhiles tend to be aware of it too - by way of having to deny it a lot, if not by any other means. And those Europhiles who have come to the realization, tend to see it as a positive thing, that's why they are called Europhiles.

Both Europhile and Eurosceptical positions are most readily available in current news.

By the way, by what reasoning does this topic belong to the Practical Philosophy section? I always saw this forum as over-differentiated. There should be max three sections, for example

- Greetings + FAQ (Questions about forum policies and tech issues)
- On topic (Philosophy and Religion related to Classical Theism)
- Off topic (Chit-Chat)

And no subforums. When someone posts in a subforum, it goes unnoticed because there's no way to see it up-front. The Latest function here is mostly empty because there's not much activity here.

And I'm taking a wild guess here: On this platform, the sections cannot be reduced without losing the discussion threads in them. I hope I'm wrong.

And what does it mean to say "Best reasons for BREXIT"? Does it mean something like how it can be seen as a good and positive thing for UK? Or does it mean best explanations to the fact that UK leaves EU?

If the latter, we have had a thread about it. On the top political level, the continental coalition kicked UK out because they could not put up with Cameron's behavior any longer. That's the explanation. It is spelled out clearly enough in the immediate official statement, 

We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union. We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union.[...]

As agreed, the “New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union”, [i.e. yet another package of UK exceptions that Cameron was negotiating] reached at the European Council on 18-19 February 2016, will now not take effect and ceases to exist. There will be no renegotiation.

That's the diplomatic equivalent of "good riddance".

Last edited by seigneur (11/22/2017 5:28 am)

Dennis wrote:

@seignur, I mean both. I want to see why one thinks that Britain should have the left the EU, and then how it is either a positive/negative thing. 

I hope my stance is clear. It was a negative thing to take UK along in the first place. It should have been foreseeable that nothing good was to come of it. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to voice my opinion.