The reason the EU always wanted to have the UK on board had more to do with marketing than with necessity: Europe is France, England and Germany; if the EU was to be Europe, it needed those three in it or it isn't going to happen. It's also Spain and Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands. The more the merrier. Open a history book and if a country playing a major role on the European continent is in it, it should probably be on that list.

But the EU now already exists and the UK has been so insistent on having a special status that Europeans have gotten used to the idea of the UK not "really" being in it despite being just another European country like the rest of us.

It's okay.

You can leave.

We no longer need you for the EU to be able to exist.

We tried to accommodate you and make it work but we've understood that the feelings aren't mutual.

We'll still keep in touch with your extended family, though, and maybe over the next two years we can find a way that you can still come over to party sometimes, or y'know, just hang out if you feel like it.

No hard feelings.

Don't be a stranger.

Once again, I get the feeling you know very little about the details of the EU.

The UK's attempt to join the (forerunner to the) EU was vetoed multiple times, by France. Your first sentence about how the EU "always wanted to have the UK on board" is factually and historically false. It never needed the UK to exist and it doesn't need it now.

As for "no hard feelings", tell that to your politicians, not us. Because they seem to think most so-called Europeans want the opposite.

Heh, I hope this sort of attitude prevails on both sides of this. There's no need for nastiness and lets hope the outcome is relatively positive with the repective parties feeling more free to pursue their own directions.

Bon Chance!

> we've understood that the feelings aren't mutual.

48% of Brits, 62% of Scots don't feel that way.

And literally no one in the UK voted for what the government is currently doing or how shittily it is treating it's EU partner governments or EU guests living in the UK.

We'll be back, hopefully less arrogant the next time.

"Played a major role in European history" is a very silly criterion. By those standards Russia, Austria, Spain, or even Turkey should be much higher on the list than Britain.

> a very silly criterion

I think that's a fair description of how these things tend to work. Your only mistake is the assumption that because it's very silly nobody would actually use it, let alone that it wouldn't be incredibly widespread.

But as for the list, the EU came into being after WW2 so the USSR was out, Austria was politically irrelevant and Spain was a fascist dictatorship. Plus Turkey is on the other side of the Black Sea and the Greek really don't like them.

> If you can't take the people of a democracy with you on a project, perhaps it's best not to try and build such a thing anyway, and then end up with a hack?

The people have consistently voted for parties that wanted at least this level of integration. The problem has been that people disagree about how far to go, not that there has not been support for tighter integration.

Often to get from one local maxima to a higher local maxima you end up with options in between that are worse in various ways. Doesn't mean there aren't people who prefer to get there even if they're unable to get enough support to go further.

> On the rest - I would come to a similar state but from a different direction full autonomy for small democratic units, who voluntarily delegate some authority rather than get granted powers from "above"

That's how we got the EU.

I would argue that the delegation of powers and the dynamic of the power relationshio have been quite wrong in the case of the EU.

I agree, the people have voted for parties that had these policies. The problem is, people vote for the same two (occasionally three or four) parties regardless, and then expect them to change. Somewhat silly!