Paul Mason*, although he himself voted for STAY, says there is a cogent and logical argument for leaving. He believes that Brexit will break up not only the EU but GB itself. The government is floundering, making GB look ineffectual, and the Labor Party is falling apart. Scotland threatens to leave. And the Germans and the French are furious and in a mood to punish.
Couple of things I thought of, watching this: EU is now up to 28 members with GB still included. Tony Judt, writing in 1995, did not believe such a conglomeration could ever work. He is very harsh in his assessment of the "cosseted" comfortable life in Western Europe, which was in large part due to the renewed industrial might of West Germany, not that badly damaged by the war, with U.S. aid, and the U. S. military machine providing protection from the Soviets.
Judt was pessimistic about the EU's ability to absorb countries farther to the east. He pointed out that it is not that easy to dismantle nations, which always provide a reservoir of nativist sentiment, claims of cultural superiority and a focus for"popular resentment at the presence of...immigrants." The well-formed western nations: Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the Benelux countries. fall back easily into xenophobia. The more nebulous nations to the east bring in another set of problems of ethnic tension and poor governance that have the potential to create instability thr0ughout the democracies of the west.
The carnage in Turkey is not helping . Here is a site that provides pros and cons on the topic of Turkey joining the EU.
Turkey shares a border with Syria, which is being destroyed. Going by the "con" argument, bringing Turkey into the EU would entangle the heart of Europe with this fearful situation.
Turkey is not a European country. 97% of its territory lies in Asia. The EU does not need shared borders with Syria, Iran and Iraq. Agreeing to one non-European member would open the door for candidates from Cape Verde to Kazakhstan. Turkey is too big for the EU to absorb. With a population predicted to reach 91 million by 2050, it will be the dominant member of the EU...
Despite it[s] recent growth, Turkey remains an underdeveloped economy. Its GDP per capita at €13,000 is less than half the EU average. The entry of a country that poor and that big would place unbearable strains on EU finances. Turkey’s wealth is unequally spread, meaning that an army of poor immigrants would head west, joining the estimated 10 million Turks already living in the EU. In addition, though Turkey weathered the economic crisis much better than most, it failed to push through necessary reforms and economic growth is falling while unemployment is rising.
I suspect that most citizens living in the EU would agree. The fears of destabilization from the east are real.
How does all this trouble affect us here in the U.S? One thing I don't believe is that what is happening there will be of any benefit to Trump, not when we can see what insecurity Europe now faces. We certainly don't want that for ourselves. We have got our own huge problems without adding more in the form of an ignorant blowhard in the White House. We can still depend on a fairly stable political situation if we get Hillary Clinton elected, at least as compared to the mess GB now finds itself in. Trump would send us over the cliff.
*Not to be confused with a Paul Mason that I know personally (insert smiley).