EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

There are many facets of leaving the EU that should be extremely easy if the EU had intrinsic value:

Free trade deal? Of course. Why not? Canada has one. South Korea has one. Japan has one.
Irish border? Surely it is what is best for the Irish, and not trying to force solutions.
Citizens who remain in the UK? As all other citizens are treated - they can become dual nationalities if they want in time or are treated like people staying from (e.g.) the USA. The EU court overseeing a foreign sovereign power? Of course not!
Trade in Euros outside the EU? The USA allows trade in the dollar - and even China allows it! What sort of backward, protectionist state would try to ban it?

Placing barriers and demands for money to help ensure the gravy train continues just shows the EU's inherent weakness - people are not clamouring to join, but being forced to remain.

This is an incredibly gnomic argument, so could you clarify it for me? Call me a conservative, but I like the status quo, and knowing that tomorrow will largely be like today. Why should I rip it all up with the argument that today has no intrinsic value?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Define intrinsic value in this context? What is the intrinsic value of the UK? Why can't Scotland leave it and keep all the benefits and cooperation? Canada, Australia and the US did that of sorts, didn't they? Shouldn't that be easy if the UK had intrinsic value? Why don't other countries want to be in the UK?

This is an incredibly gnomic argument, so could you clarify it for me? Call me a conservative, but I like the status quo, and knowing that tomorrow will largely be like today. Why should I rip it all up with the argument that today has no intrinsic value?

I believe Rory is making the point that the EU, as an ideal, an institution, has no intrinsic value.

The EU is valuable because of free trade - but you can have free trade without the EU
EU Citizens living and working here can be treated just like Americans or Australians working here given "Indefinite Leave to Remain".
EU citizens are not special snowflakes - they are entitled to the same protection as Americans or Australians, i.e. British Courts.
If Dollars can be traded outside the US then Euros can be traded outside the EU.

The value of the EU is in what you can get out of it, not what it stands for.

[rory_20_uk]

This is an incredibly gnomic argument, so could you clarify it for me? Call me a conservative, but I like the status quo, and knowing that tomorrow will largely be like today. Why should I rip it all up with the argument that today has no intrinsic value?

So... drifting into what we've got with little to no oversight and never being asked is fine, but going back again might be bad - because our fellows desire it to be so...? If this were a marriage - "no you can't leave him, he'll beat you up if you do!"

Perhaps it is gnomic, but the inherent point is if something is good people want to be a part of it and if something is bad they want to leave it.

A case of the former might indeed be the Commonwealth which on paper has no value whatsoever: a club of sorts with possibly an annual meal and a chance to meet some Royals. But countries seem to want to be a part of it, have asked to join and have altered their behaviour when suspended.

The EU tends more to the latter - it is threatening those who choose to leave with all sorts of threats about what happens on leaving. A Ponzi scheme that has drawn in more members by the simple expedient of giving them money from the existing ones. Now one of the early arrivals wonders how exactly a free trade zone now costs so much to be a member of.

I have no delusions that leaving will create hardships. But these hardships are completely due to the EU. There needn't be any if they chose there to not be any. I instinctively dislike institutions that operate in such a way.

[Pannonian]

So... drifting into what we've got with little to no oversight and never being asked is fine, but going back again might be bad - because our fellows desire it to be so...? If this were a marriage - "no you can't leave him, he'll beat you up if you do!"

Perhaps it is gnomic, but the inherent point is if something is good people want to be a part of it and if something is bad they want to leave it.

A case of the former might indeed be the Commonwealth which on paper has no value whatsoever: a club of sorts with possibly an annual meal and a chance to meet some Royals. But countries seem to want to be a part of it, have asked to join and have altered their behaviour when suspended.

The EU tends more to the latter - it is threatening those who choose to leave with all sorts of threats about what happens on leaving. A Ponzi scheme that has drawn in more members by the simple expedient of giving them money from the existing ones. Now one of the early arrivals wonders how exactly a free trade zone now costs so much to be a member of.

I have no delusions that leaving will create hardships. But these hardships are completely due to the EU. There needn't be any if they chose there to not be any. I instinctively dislike institutions that operate in such a way.

Do you hate the UK? Because there was a similar referendum a few years back about one part of a union deciding whether or not to leave, and one of the main arguments against leaving was the disentangling of all the ties between that bit and the rest of the union. The rEU has been far less threatening in its language than the rUK was, other than exasperation at just how incompetent the UK side of negotiation has been. The White Paper was mocked for its unrealistic pipedream proposals. Yet it was far, far better prepared than the Leave negotiators have been.

[rory_20_uk]

Do you hate the UK? Because there was a similar referendum a few years back about one part of a union deciding whether or not to leave, and one of the main arguments against leaving was the disentangling of all the ties between that bit and the rest of the union. The rEU has been far less threatening in its language than the rUK was, other than exasperation at just how incompetent the UK side of negotiation has been. The White Paper was mocked for its unrealistic pipedream proposals. Yet it was far, far better prepared than the Leave negotiators have been.

Not threatening... apart from asking for vast sums of money which if aren't paid there'll be no trade deal (since there's in fact no legal justification for the demand - just no one else wants to make up the shortfall). The Irish border has to be a border. Sod the bloodshed that this might cause - rules are rules. And Spain needs to have a say in Gibraltar. Even though those living there don't want them to. The will of the people only when it suits, eh?

I imagine that the UK's position would be extremely simple - trade as it is, UK courts final arbitrator in UK, and people coming in / out decided by the UK.

These positions are of course impossible for the EU - they want their court to continue to be over the UK court - not even the USA demands this for its citizens here. In fact, the nearest similar example is how the USA treats Iraq post-war.

Out of interest, why is free trade a "pipedream"? They managed it with several other sovereign states in recent years without freedom of movement.

[Sarmatian]

So... drifting into what we've got with little to no oversight and never being asked is fine

Why do you think that UK has no oversight and is never being asked?

N
These positions are of course impossible for the EU - they want their court to continue to be over the UK court - not even the USA demands this for its citizens here. In fact, the nearest similar example is how the USA treats Iraq post-war.

It is not really comparable. US citizens aren't in danger of having their rights drastically reduced. If they were, and especially if they numbered millions, you can be sure US would want to talk to UK about that.

This is just for those who were in the country while it was in the EU, not those that come after UK leaves.

[Beskar]

These positions are of course impossible for the EU - they want their court to continue to be over the UK court - not even the USA demands this for its citizens here. In fact, the nearest similar example is how the USA treats Iraq post-war.

The European Court of Human Rights is not part of the European Union and thus independent. It was also established primary by the UK.

So...

[Husar]

I believe Rory is making the point that the EU, as an ideal, an institution, has no intrinsic value.

The EU is valuable because of free trade - but you can have free trade without the EU

That still doesn't tell me a lot. Scottish, English and Welsh people can also have a common army via treaty without the UK, so the UK has no intrinsic value either. Saying only trade is a value seems to imply that the only value that can exist is of the monetary kind. Moral values and so on therefore don't exist? What about the sheer value of population and market size? The value of common laws (especially on one single market)? In the end the EU is a quasi-government on top of treaties that you might be able to have without that government, but the government makes sense since the logical endgame is one federal government. The only reason the process to that endgame is so slow and we're stuck in the middle, is that people keep questioning the "intrinsic value" it seems. On that note, what is the intrinsic value of the Queen? What is the intrinsic value of the US contitution? The UK doesn't need one... Again, how would you define intrinsic value in this context?

[Pannonian]

Not threatening... apart from asking for vast sums of money which if aren't paid there'll be no trade deal (since there's in fact no legal justification for the demand - just no one else wants to make up the shortfall). The Irish border has to be a border. Sod the bloodshed that this might cause - rules are rules. And Spain needs to have a say in Gibraltar. Even though those living there don't want them to. The will of the people only when it suits, eh?

I imagine that the UK's position would be extremely simple - trade as it is, UK courts final arbitrator in UK, and people coming in / out decided by the UK.

These positions are of course impossible for the EU - they want their court to continue to be over the UK court - not even the USA demands this for its citizens here. In fact, the nearest similar example is how the USA treats Iraq post-war.

Out of interest, why is free trade a "pipedream"? They managed it with several other sovereign states in recent years without freedom of movement.

This appears to be founded on things that don't chime with the reality I know, followed by demands that we receive all the benefits with no commitments, since these commitments include things that don't chime with the reality I know. AFAIK the EU, other than trade conditions, only demands conformity in areas where the UK has signed up to international treaties. And where AFAIK the UK courts have repeatedly reiterated the point as UK law and justice. On that, there will be no substantive difference between being inside the EU and outside, except that it will indisputably be UK courts that enforce the same points that people used to blame the EU for. At least PFH follows his logic through to argue that it's more about the UK government no longer having the EU scapegoat to blame for its mistakes - which I don't think is adequate reason for leaving, but at least it's better founded than your above argument.

And on people coming in/out being decided by the UK; the UK government has downsized customs staff. The UK-democratically government decided we don't drastically need such controls. But despite that, the EU does allow us substantial control over how we deal with EU nationals in the UK, in order to minimise the burden on our infrastructure. Other countries do it. But the UK does not. And that's the choice of the UK government, not to use these measures. And the UK government has said that we shouldn't expect any substantial change in numbers of immigrants nor their situation here. So here too, there will be no concrete change since the UK chooses things to be this way anyway.

On practically every Brexit argument I've seen, the government has said that there will be no substantial change as the UK wants to do things this way anyway, the only difference is that it will be the UK choosing to do things this way, rather than the UK agreeing to do things this way. And for this theoretical change with no substance, Brexiters are willing to tank the economy.

On trade, regulations, red tape, etc., there will be no substantial change, as the EU won't allow goods/produce to enter their markets unless they conform with current regulations, which are mostly H&S-related (see Gove for the same thing regarding the UK and US). Hang that, there will be substantial change, namely an increase as people can no longer assume that UK standards will at a minimum meet EU standards, but will need extra checks to see that they do. Extra red tape for the exact same thing.

[Gilrandir]

Why don't other countries want to be in the UK?

I believe Hong Kong does.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The European Court of Human Rights is not part of the European Union and thus independent. It was also established primary by the UK.

So...

So it's not to be confused with the European Court of Justice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That still doesn't tell me a lot. Scottish, English and Welsh people can also have a common army via treaty without the UK, so the UK has no intrinsic value either. Saying only trade is a value seems to imply that the only value that can exist is of the monetary kind. Moral values and so on therefore don't exist? What about the sheer value of population and market size? The value of common laws (especially on one single market)? In the end the EU is a quasi-government on top of treaties that you might be able to have without that government, but the government makes sense since the logical endgame is one federal government. The only reason the process to that endgame is so slow and we're stuck in the middle, is that people keep questioning the "intrinsic value" it seems. On that note, what is the intrinsic value of the Queen? What is the intrinsic value of the US contitution? The UK doesn't need one... Again, how would you define intrinsic value in this context?

Asking "how do you define intrinsic value?" is a non sequitur.

You can't, that's the point.

Of course, intrinsic value is subjective so perhaps for you the EU and the dream of a unified Europe (really the dream of Pax Romana) has intrinsic value.

The British, however, are generally not buying into it.

It's like that girl at work you like, but not enough to want to date her.

[Husar]

Asking "how do you define intrinsic value?" is a non sequitur.

You can't, that's the point.

Of course, intrinsic value is subjective so perhaps for you the EU and the dream of a unified Europe (really the dream of Pax Romana) has intrinsic value.

The British, however, are generally not buying into it.

It's like that girl at work you like, but not enough to want to date her.

So it's more of an opinion than an argument then since it's based on entirely subjective "facts".
I would count as an intrinsic value the sheer size of the EU's internal market, the power of its politicians by merit of the population and market size they represent and everything that is related. In a world that is somewhat defined by corporations that become bigger and more powerful than governments and therefore start to overrule governments, potentially even take over their functions, I find this to be a very important intrinsic value.

Add to this the advantages of centralizing certain government functions that can actually help economic growth, government efficiency and save you taxes on top. I've never heard anyone say that huge corporations could offer their services cheaper if they were just a lot of independent small workshops, but somehow people assume that to be true for governments.


Also, @Gilrandir: Hong Kong is not a country.

[Fragony]

Don't you love that word. The EU simply isn't needed for Europe to prosper economically. It's an iedogical monster that is leaded by idiots with no mandate whatsoever. They know that very well and they are scared that their comfortobale life is in jeopardy. They are right. The visegrad-countries have had it with eurocrats as well. Something simply has to change and eurocrats have no place in it. Eurocrats are simply afraid of people understanding that they are nothing but a useless overhead

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So it's more of an opinion than an argument then since it's based on entirely subjective "facts".
I would count as an intrinsic value the sheer size of the EU's internal market, the power of its politicians by merit of the population and market size they represent and everything that is related. In a world that is somewhat defined by corporations that become bigger and more powerful than governments and therefore start to overrule governments, potentially even take over their functions, I find this to be a very important intrinsic value.

Add to this the advantages of centralizing certain government functions that can actually help economic growth, government efficiency and save you taxes on top. I've never heard anyone say that huge corporations could offer their services cheaper if they were just a lot of independent small workshops, but somehow people assume that to be true for governments.


Also, @Gilrandir: Hong Kong is not a country.

Again - this is not "intrinsic" value. You are not describing the value of the EU in intrinsic terms, but in practical terms.

Let me flip it around - Scotland has no practical value to the UK outside of being somewhere to mark our nukes and a way of not having a Northern land border. Despite that even pacifist Englishmen who wish to see our Nuclear weapons dismantled will defend the Union of Scotland with the rest of the UK, even though separation would further their political goals and benefit English people in general terms because we subsidise the Scottish Government financially.

On the other hand, the Germans will not subsidise the Greek Government to keep it solvent because they see the EU in only practical terms.

[Pannonian]

Again - this is not "intrinsic" value. You are not describing the value of the EU in intrinsic terms, but in practical terms.

Let me flip it around - Scotland has no practical value to the UK outside of being somewhere to mark our nukes and a way of not having a Northern land border. Despite that even pacifist Englishmen who wish to see our Nuclear weapons dismantled will defend the Union of Scotland with the rest of the UK, even though separation would further their political goals and benefit English people in general terms because we subsidise the Scottish Government financially.

On the other hand, the Germans will not subsidise the Greek Government to keep it solvent because they see the EU in only practical terms.

Hasn't the UK blocked every attempt to redefine the EU in such intrinsic terms? Encapsulated in the hatred for the idea of a federal Europe. In political terms, that would seem like the ideal compromise solution to everyone who fears losing identity, allowing everyone to retain their existing national citizenship with an overall EU citizenship on top of that. But that has been painted by Eurosceptics as an attempt to remove national indentities, even though it by definition allows it, and the EU has customarily promoted regional identities, eg. its cities of culture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hasn't the UK blocked every attempt to redefine the EU in such intrinsic terms? Encapsulated in the hatred for the idea of a federal Europe. In political terms, that would seem like the ideal compromise solution to everyone who fears losing identity, allowing everyone to retain their existing national citizenship with an overall EU citizenship on top of that. But that has been painted by Eurosceptics as an attempt to remove national indentities, even though it by definition allows it, and the EU has customarily promoted regional identities, eg. its cities of culture.

Yes, it has.



Britain has never "believed" in Europe, some of the generation under mine do, a bit, but even then it's more a cynical lack of belief in our own politicians.

[Pannonian]

Yes, it has.

Britain has never "believed" in Europe, some of the generation under mine do, a bit, but even then it's more a cynical lack of belief in our own politicians.

I certainly believe in the common liberal and social democratic values that Europe enjoys. That liberal democratic culture is typical of the west as a whole, and can be taken to be the definition of the west. And going a bit further than that, I believe the social democratic values help preserve the best aspects of local cultures. That's the contradiction that I see between your and my views of locality. You see the need for a strong Westminster to preserve national identity. I see the EU promoting regional identities that Westminster has customarily neglected.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I certainly believe in the common liberal and social democratic values that Europe enjoys. That liberal democratic culture is typical of the west as a whole, and can be taken to be the definition of the west. And going a bit further than that, I believe the social democratic values help preserve the best aspects of local cultures. That's the contradiction that I see between your and my views of locality. You see the need for a strong Westminster to preserve national identity. I see the EU promoting regional identities that Westminster has customarily neglected.

I have no interest in a strong Westminster, I have even less interest in a strong EU.

In my view the EU promotes local identities at the expense of established national identities, leading to increased calls for independence in the UK, in Spain, in Belgium. As I recall Beskar once advocated such a strategy for undermining traditional Nation-States as a means towards One World Government.

I support the UK against the EU because I consider that we are not suited to be the kind of Europeans that the EU wants. Stuck on our little Island we have diverged over the last 1,500 years from the Continent. I also support the UK against the EU because I believe that the UK is the maximum workable size for a democratic Nation-State. In my view part of the problem the US has is one of sheer scale.

[Husar]

Again - this is not "intrinsic" value. You are not describing the value of the EU in intrinsic terms, but in practical terms.

Let me flip it around - Scotland has no practical value to the UK outside of being somewhere to mark our nukes and a way of not having a Northern land border. Despite that even pacifist Englishmen who wish to see our Nuclear weapons dismantled will defend the Union of Scotland with the rest of the UK, even though separation would further their political goals and benefit English people in general terms because we subsidise the Scottish Government financially.

On the other hand, the Germans will not subsidise the Greek Government to keep it solvent because they see the EU in only practical terms.

There are different terms for it now?

You can't call my question for a definition of intrinsic value a non sequitur and then call my definition of intrinsic value wrong. How am I supposed to comment on your intrinsic value argument if I don't even know what you mean with the term? Wikipedia offers five pages on the term and the financial one apparently means some kind of objective value of a good, which is more or less how I understood and used the term.

If your entire point is that intrinsic value is entirely subjective (and the English think the EU has none), then bringing it up in this argument is completely pointless, because your subjective opinion clashes with the definition of intrinsic value being an objective value (according to the definition most likely applicable IMO) and your subjective opinion may just be wrong anyway or is unlikely to be accepted by me as a valid argument.

How is a larger market size not an intrinsic value of the EU? IMO it's an intrinsic value because no opinion can strip it away. The very idea of the EU is to turn several countries into one (at least in some aspects for the time being), which e.g. increases the market size. Therefore it's an intrinsic value of the EU because every outside observer should see that being able to sell stuff to 500 million people has a higher value than being able to sell stuff to 50 million people.

[Pannonian]

I have no interest in a strong Westminster, I have even less interest in a strong EU.

In my view the EU promotes local identities at the expense of established national identities, leading to increased calls for independence in the UK, in Spain, in Belgium. As I recall Beskar once advocated such a strategy for undermining traditional Nation-States as a means towards One World Government.

I support the UK against the EU because I consider that we are not suited to be the kind of Europeans that the EU wants. Stuck on our little Island we have diverged over the last 1,500 years from the Continent. I also support the UK against the EU because I believe that the UK is the maximum workable size for a democratic Nation-State. In my view part of the problem the US has is one of sheer scale.

I disagree on the EU undermining national identities by promoting regional identities. The EU promotes regional identities for its own sake. Regions then calling for undermining nation states is then a first world problem. The kind of thing some people do when they have the luxury of being bored. They have this luxury because the EU promotes prosperity (and certainly has done for the UK), and it promotes small producers, who get protection against multinationals by the EU's protection of their local identity. Brexit acts to check this luxury by checking Britain's prosperity.

[Sarmatian]

1. Stuck on our little Island we have diverged over the last 1,500 years from the Continent.

2. I also support the UK against the EU because I believe that the UK is the maximum workable size for a democratic Nation-State.

1. I do understand all nations need to feel special. People will often pick something totally arbitrarily and point to it as proof of exceptionalism. I just can't understand that British choose the sea. Sea has never been a barrier. It's a highway. You've spread your language, culture and political system around the world over the sea. When you tried it by land the best you could do was northern France for a short time. By sea you've reached China, India, America, Australia...

Choose something that makes sense.

2. Are there any facts behind that or is that just your personal feeling?

[Pannonian]

1. I do understand all nations need to feel special. People will often pick something totally arbitrarily and point to it as proof of exceptionalism. I just can't understand that British choose the sea. Sea has never been a barrier. It's a highway. You've spread your language, culture and political system around the world over the sea. When you tried it by land the best you could do was northern France for a short time. By sea you've reached China, India, America, Australia...

Choose something that makes sense.

2. Are there any facts behind that or is that just your personal feeling?

The Channel has saved Britain from invasion by the main continental power in the 19th and 20th centuries, meaning the UK, barring some channel islands, has not had to experience occupation or how to cope with and avoid it. However, this reasoning is completely outdated given that no continental power will be invading Britain again. But people still hark back to that reasoning. Just as prosperity leads to people having the luxury of indulging first world problems, so the sea allows Britain to indulge island mentalities. The Americans have it to an even greater degree. However, the Americans utterly dominate their continent. We do not.

[Husar]

The technological advances of the 20th and 21st century have to some extent and will likely even more, render the entire island thing nonsensical both in the area of invasion and culture...

The Stukas off WW2 couldn't even reach Ireland or the West Coast of England IIRC, today you can get a RyanAir flight from Frankfurt to London for 18€ or thereabouts, takes off several times a day probably.
In the 1950s you had to pay through the roof to use one of the few undersea phone cable slots to make a call from here to London, today once I click "Post Reply", my message may even go via Hong Kong and the US (via wherever the server is located) to London in under a second so that you can read it there when you open the page... and it won't even cost me anything extra!

Of course some of this is relatively new while cultural adaptation and so on take a bit longer, but if I had to guess I would say that unless we wipe ourselves out, this sort of technology will only increase and make the borders even more meaningless as time goes on. Surely it won't change who your direct neighbors are, but the cultural interchange happens anyway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are different terms for it now?

You can't call my question for a definition of intrinsic value a non sequitur and then call my definition of intrinsic value wrong. How am I supposed to comment on your intrinsic value argument if I don't even know what you mean with the term? Wikipedia offers five pages on the term and the financial one apparently means some kind of objective value of a good, which is more or less how I understood and used the term.

If your entire point is that intrinsic value is entirely subjective (and the English think the EU has none), then bringing it up in this argument is completely pointless, because your subjective opinion clashes with the definition of intrinsic value being an objective value (according to the definition most likely applicable IMO) and your subjective opinion may just be wrong anyway or is unlikely to be accepted by me as a valid argument.

How is a larger market size not an intrinsic value of the EU? IMO it's an intrinsic value because no opinion can strip it away. The very idea of the EU is to turn several countries into one (at least in some aspects for the time being), which e.g. increases the market size. Therefore it's an intrinsic value of the EU because every outside observer should see that being able to sell stuff to 500 million people has a higher value than being able to sell stuff to 50 million people.

If the EU provides a larger market then the EU has value as the means to provide a larger market. Such value is not intrinsic to the EU because there are other means of achieving this goal. To have intrinsic value the EU must be an end of itself, not a means to an end.

We are speaking here philosophically, not economically.

The point is this - the British - and especially the English see the EU as a means to an end, not an end.

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

[Pannonian]

If the EU provides a larger market then the EU has value as the means to provide a larger market. Such value is not intrinsic to the EU because there are other means of achieving this goal. To have intrinsic value the EU must be an end of itself, not a means to an end.

We are speaking here philosophically, not economically.

The point is this - the British - and especially the English see the EU as a means to an end, not an end.

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

A significant proportion of the British people disagree with your view. The custom of centre-based British governments is to govern in the direction that their party tends towards, but without alienating the majority of the remainder.

[Montmorency]

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

But that can't really be the case, can it? The intrinsic value you referred to is diminished by the departure (at least as much as the absence) of a major party.

[Husar]

If the EU provides a larger market then the EU has value as the means to provide a larger market. Such value is not intrinsic to the EU because there are other means of achieving this goal. To have intrinsic value the EU must be an end of itself, not a means to an end.

We are speaking here philosophically, not economically.

The point is this - the British - and especially the English see the EU as a means to an end, not an end.

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

How is that different from the UK? The UK is just a means to the end of uniting the British Isles and you weren't really happy when some people in Northern Ireland wanted to leave. The British Isles would be even more united under the EU because "southern" Ireland is included there as well, so the UK has no intrinsic value as far as I can see.

Again, if it's just about how the (some) British like to see it, then don't call it intrinsic value, because that's like calling a minority view common sense. And that you see it that way is useless to bring up because it's, uhm, common knowledge. It then just seems like there is no objective reason for you to leave, just "feelings" because you're "snowflakes".
Which is okay to an extent until you pretend it were somehow the rationally objective position to take.

Also what Monty said.

[Strike For The South]

UK in a Strong Anglosphere> UK in some continental system where Germany finally is able to exert its will over the landmass.

The 5 eyes countries share a much stronger cultural base for cooperation. These relationships seems so "special" only because trust can be quickly built when you come from the same place.

[Husar]

UK in a Strong Anglosphere> UK in some continental system where Germany finally is able to exert its will over the landmass.

The 5 eyes countries share a much stronger cultural base for cooperation. These relationships seems so "special" only because trust can be quickly built when you come from the same place.

Their Queen is from Germany and they refuse to dethrone her, so what's the problem here?

Besides, if they have a problem with Germany controlling the landmass, then they can prevent that much better by being part of the EU than as an outside observer. If they're outside, they would play into our hands in this regard. That we try to make them stay anyway might also be a hint at how silly that idea seems to us.