The root cause of the problem ... and it is the same problem "over here" ... is that a group of businessmen started (IMHO) "a grand, dystopic, social experiment" throughout the world, "in the name of Holy Commerce."

Essentially, they tried to create a "one world government" that was based in corporate boardrooms. This cadre of "multi-national™" businessmen owe allegiance to no country, but, in so many words, seek to "play both ends against the middle" in their self-righteous pursuit of short term monetary gain ... for themselves alone.

"Immigration" (sic) is an important part of the plan, because capitalists always want "cheap and pliant labor pools," which must be injected into host countries to displace the more-expensive natives. (Or so the reasoning goes. Remember: a corporation doesn't think far beyond next month's financial results.) Find disadvantaged people, promise them a rosy future, then move them far away from home and leave them to discover that they are trapped in a situation that will never actually benefit them. Too late, they discover that they and their families are being used.

The UK represents, to me, "the first, but by no means the last" group of people who are decisively pushing-back against this misbegotten, commerce-driven (sic...) vision of Utopia. As well they should.

The Americans are doing the same by (watch out ... it will happen ...) "electing Donald Trump."

Yes, yes, "international trade" is important and necessary to us all. "But this," even though it is being pushed "in the name of international trade," is not long-term sustainable for anyone ... and all of us must take "the long view."

The internationalists insist that "national sovereignty" ought to be eliminated, just because it is unprofitable inconvenient to their plans. But, in fact IMHO, it is absolutely vital. Even though it seems "wasteful" to watch multiple sovereign governments "duking it out" over a trade agreement, you're watching an error-correction feedback process at work. We remove this push-and-pull from the process only at our grave peril.

Although it is well-and-good (maybe) for multiple North American countries to enact a "NAFTA" treaty, that treaty should never supersede the laws, nor the prerogatives, of any subscribing country. (Case in point: a "jilted lover" oil-pipeline company intends to 'sue,' in a court composed of businessmen, to impose a shale-oil pipeline upon the people of the United States, who rejected it. The right of businessmen to make a profit is construed to pre-empt the sovereign right of any Elected Government to say, "no," or to impose any conditions that would Reduce Profits for the Privileged Few.)

Likewise, it is good for Europeans to simplify and to expedite trade among themselves. But not at the expense of "who and what they are." Europeans eagerly accepted(?) the idea that they must should abdicate their national identities, creating an über-government for all of Europe in Brussels. Once they did so, Brussels wasted no time proving that it was just as susceptible as is any group of human beings to bureaucracy and to good ol' human nature.

If "the EU" is a good idea, then it will have to be partially re-designed, and the members thereof must go forward knowing that any member can, and will, depart from it if "their people" (for whatever reason) perceive that "their people's national interests" are no longer being served by the Union. Obviously, Brussels et al never seriously considered ... until now ... that this could actually happen. Until now, they simply regarded their own prerogatives as being "unchecked."

I'm kinda-sorta surprised that the EU lasted this long, without such a challenge. The run-away actions coming out of Brussels, covering "every issue under the Sun, whether-or-not related to 'trade'," can be only partially excused as "the exuberance of youth." They needed to have their ears yanked, long before now.

Yes, we all need vibrant international trade. But, we should not sacrifice our birthrights to obtain it. By doing so, we expose ourselves to great (and, unnecessary) risks.

Bravo, sundialsvcs! +1.

The incompetence of British politicians is actually now strengtening EU according to polls http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world...s-a3288071.htm

This++

Now, the next question shall be ... "what is the proper thing to do next?"

If Brussels had not so-quickly put on its "'B' is for Brussels Bureaucrat" pantaloons ... ... the notion of a "European Union" probably was, and still is, "a good idea." In principle. The problem is in the implementation.

The idea of a "North American Free-Trade Agreement," or even of a "Trans-Pacific Partnership," is also a good idea in principle, but it has thrown millions of Americans out of work while(!) it subjected millions of "imports" to conditions of "involuntary servitude" that are expressly prohibited by our 13th Amendment. ("... shall not exist in the United States," and yet it does.)

The idea of an "open-door policy" with regards to immigration ... "we like it here, and it's understandable that others might wish to live here, too" ... is also a nice idea with a flawed present implementation. (In the case of Britain, "dude, this is an island ...")

In the end, "corporations" are man-made contrivances, designed to create profit. And, they are not, ipso facto, "bad things." Almost all of us, directly or indirectly, work for one of them (or, several of them ...), and nearly everything in our homes came from one. Our trouble is: "'the expediency of commercial transactions,' important though that may be, is not why we invented Governments, and why we grudgingly put up with them to this day."

The concept of "national sovereignty," in my view, is fundamental to our inter-national protection. It is not "the cause of War," as some people suggest. ("Bull-headedness" is!)

The concept of "sovereignty" protects the notion that "We have a say in the matter of what happens here, and to us." The elimination of effective sovereignty, "in the name of commerce" (or, anything else ...) is precisely why the European Union might not make it out of its adolescence alive.

We should be screaming at our respective politicians (who are, as a lot, 'conveniently' and 'routinely' deaf ...) that we don't object to international trade agreements, i-f they are implemented in the right way.

We should be telling them that we won't accept "immigration" policies that are abusive to native and to immigrant alike.

Perhaps the biggest eye-opener to come out of this is a clear message to politicians that they can lose their jobs, or the relevance(!) of their entire institution.

Another thoughtful post, sundialsvcs.
I can understand the people who don't want the UK to leave the EU but a lot of reasoning seems like Stockholm Syndrome.

Hmmm... I had to look that one up ...
No, I really don't agree with you on this one, but there definitely is the question of: "What Does Europe Do, Now?"

Obviously, a lot of people, even though they'd obligingly written an exit-clause into the EU Treaty, never imagined that any Member would actually exercise it ... let alone "The Bulldog."

"The run-away bureaucrats in Brussels" never considered that anyone would seriously oppose them. (And, on this side of The Pond, there are likewise many "very comfortable people" who never seriously reckoned on the undeniable rise of Donald Trump, as they thrust this nation into one ##TOP SECRET## "trade agreement" after another after another.

"Well, change had to happen, so eventually it did." But, the question of "exactly what to do now" is not an easy one.

I think that many people now realize that we, as a world(!) community, "tried to go much too far, much too fast." We realize that there is a middle-ground, somewhere, that is not quicksand. But now, we have to find it.

(And, to these ends, we now have a huge "Ace in the Hole": The Internet. "Common folk," like you and me, are talking about these things directly, among themselves, even in improbable places such as "a Linux forum." They are doing it, for the first time in human history, without the constraint of geography. They are self-discovering that they have common ground ... and, common injuries.)

Going forward, I expect that the EU will continue to exist, but that its role and its power will be dramatically reduced. Likewise, I expect the United States to be much less willing to be (and, to remain ...) a party to "sweeping, dystopian (IMHO ...) trade agreements." I also expect the States themselves to assert more autonomy and self-control.

"We live in interesting times."

I was being a little facetious describing it as Stockholm Syndrome but I think there seems to be a lot of emotional attachment to the EU from some people akin to that of anybody who has been institutionalised.

You may find that some people benefit directly or indirectly from the EU. The "bureaucrats in Brussels" argument is just one small aspect of this - the "cheap migrant labour" argument is also disingenuous. Much of the migrants are from war zones or former war zones from outside of the EU.

For the average person - the protection in place regarding maternity/paternity rights and holiday allowances are added insurance as is the minimum working week. I can imagine future governments slashing these post-Brexit under the "austerity" banner. Equal pay (something which we still struggle with here) is also written into the EU Treaty.

In some cases we're meeting minimum requirements and in other cases exceeding those, but without the EU, those rights are essentially exposed to systematic demolition from the same school of thought who brought us the 'bedroom tax'.

I can only imagine that some of the pro Brexiters either don't have these concerns, or didn't consider the implications, but they may have in the future.

(by the way I'm not "pro EU", just realistic about my future and status as one of the working classes)

"You may find that some people benefit directly or indirectly from the EU."

Ever need a doctor? EU workers in the NHS: 'I've faced racial abuse and will head home'

Don't complain about your National Health Service: at least you have one.

Over here, in the "enlightened" United States ... .... health care (sic) is run for corporate profit, as is the health insurance (sic) that is the only way to pay for it.

So, if you are so unfortunate as to go to the hospital, Revenue Management is the first organization within the hospital to be engaged: to figure out what you can or can't afford. After diagnosis, the insurance company is contacted to see if they will pay for the recommended treatment ... which, of course, is the most-expensive (most profitable ...) treatment that the Revenue Management department can come up with. If the insurance company won't pay, you don't get that treatment. You might not get treated at all, because, from a profit standpoint, it's cheaper for them if you just die. (And please, go die somewhere else ...)

Think I'm kidding? No, I'm not. First, my uncle got a C. Diff. infection. Vancomycin is the treatment of choice, but it costs about $400. My uncle's insurance company refused to authorize it, so a "cheaper alternative" was given ... and my uncle died.

To a corporation, my uncle wasn't worth $400.

Then, it happened a second time, closer to home. My father had an identical infection. The insurance company did the same thing. We immediately got a certified check and took it to the hospital. We were directed to ... Revenue Management. After studying the check to satisfy themselves that it was genuine, Revenue Management called the pharmacy and authorized the treatment. Knowing that we were dealing with pure greed, but that my father's life then depended on it, we purposely wrote the check for about double the cost of the treatment ... and the hospital kept it all and then some. But, my father survived.

Effectively, our family bribed the hospital to treat him.

The only government-provided health care in the US comes from the Veteran's Administration for returning soldiers. But, the for-profit health care dogs are trying to seize that business, too. They won't take on grievous injuries, but they want the US Government to pay them to treat most veterans. "It's all about the money," simple as that.

I thought you had something called "medicare" for the poor.

US healthcare is why I could not possibly live in US. I need anti-psychotics to operate like normal human. Here 2 monts worth of medicine costs me about 5 euros, in US it would be about 2000$

"The poor," and the elderly, get a modicum of care from Medicare, but it is "unprofitable," and therefore only lip-service is paid to it.

The very sick and dying can get Medicaid, but that requires you to pledge your home and pretty much everything that you have as security, so that after the person dies the government gets (and sells off) their house.

ugjka, you would be distinctly "unprofitable" to have as a patient. Therefore, you probably wouldn't be one for very long. And in any case, you wouldn't necessarily be able to obtain the medications prescribed by your doctor, if your insurance company didn't want to keep paying for it. Your insurer would periodically drop your coverage and force you to buy a more and more expensive policy that covered less and less. Unless they could shove you over on the dole onto Medicare or other programs for the indigent ... which, by the time they got through wringing cash out of you and your family, you would be.

In the USA today, neither health care nor education is recognized as "a basic human right." (The 4-year college degree that cost a scholarship about $11,000 thirty years ago, now costs about $350,000 at a public college, according to their own web site. The price has gone up $120,000 in the past year and a half. There is open discussion about closing these institutions. (a) We can buy college-educated foreigners on the H-1B and L-1 non-immigrant visa programs. (b) Only the rich kids really need to go to school. The rest can just drive trucks.

Yeah, it's gotten pretty grim over here. And, until the problem of institutionalized bribery is finally confronted by the younger generation, significant change is not yet in the forecast.

ugjka, you buy medical insurance from your employer or your are forced to buy it from Obamacare. You must have insurance, that is the law.