Convince me that Brexit wasn't a terrible act of self-harm

[Werthead]

Quote

They may well want to make an example of it, as they did with Greece. But they should be careful of that, as there are still many things the EU countries, if not the EU bureaucracy itself, want from Britain. Take military cooperation and commitment, take intelligence provision, take the UK's relationship with the US, the significant contribution to eastern EU countries of their citizens in the UK. The UK citizens made a major error in deciding that they could take the bits of the relationship they liked as givens and reject the rest. The EU is in danger of doing the very same thing.

This is where a NATO-sceptic Trump may come in handy. If Russia starts knocking on the Baltic's front door, France and the UK's nuclear deterrant and actually-pretty-decent militaries suddenly look rather useful to the EU.

Not sure I'd risk WWIII for a superior economic deal with the EU though.

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

...let alone deal with ancillary problems such as the Irish land border.

That reminds me. It's not as big a problem, but is there any consensus on what happens with the Gibraltar border with spain? Presumably there's nothing to keep Spain from setting up border controls.

[Future Null Infinity]

Non european here, the rich members of the EU are giving too much money for the other members, this union is a fake with a fake prosperity and a fake economic growth, it's not a union of cooperation, it's a union of givers and takers.

You stay you lose, you leave you lose

The UK did the right thing by leaving (for me, it's the lesser of two evils)

[Hereward]

9 hours ago, Werthead said:

This is where a NATO-sceptic Trump may come in handy. If Russia starts knocking on the Baltic's front door, France and the UK's nuclear deterrant and actually-pretty-decent militaries suddenly look rather useful to the EU.

Not sure I'd risk WWIII for a superior economic deal with the EU though.

No-one sane would, but with the Trump triumph in mind, should the EU really risk explicitly punishing the UK and assuming there wouldn't be a nationalistic backlash? If the result is a pro-Putin Prime Minister Farage and a similar attitude to Trump on NATO, the integrity of the principle of freedom of movement is going to look pretty costly.

[Datepalm]

15 hours ago, Pebbles said:

4.  Brexit has been so horrifying that we have not had any political slashfic in the UK thread all year.  - Has anyone checked that Lummel is ok?

I see him on Goodreads, writing lengthy reviews in German about the deaths of empires. Make of that what you will.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

As someone who voted for Stay but is now less than convinced of that opinion I can say that actually Brexit might be a good thing. Before the vote I was living in a sort of liberalist daydream thinking everything was fine, because my life was ok. I was living in a total bubble however and for a large portion of Britons things are not good at all. 

This vote was really, like Trump, a reaction to Globalisation and a lack of control. Immigration is the fuel to the fire in the UK, and if you look at the immigration levels over the past few years they are pretty much insanely high, and we haven't been able to cope with it at all. Of course a lot of the strain comes from Austerity and some pretty awful governmental decisions, which has meant that public services are falling apart and not coping. At the same time your average Brit has seen a country where their demographics have changed massively overnight. 

As someone who lives in London I can say that less than 10% of my friends are British born. I am one of the few. I personally don't have a problem with that, but it is a shocking realisation. No doubt also that huge increases in low cost labour has pushed down wages for everyone. Housing is far too expensive and increased demand hasn't helped that (among other reasons)

Brexit will no doubt be a complete cock up for a while, I'm sure our economy will tank. However, the Euro as a currency is a bigger cock up and will most likely disappear in the next decade. The way the EU has treated Greece is a disgrace and the EU as an institution actually hasn't benefited most countries who are involved, it works better for some than others. 

I think we are better out than in now, but its the actual leaving that is going to be the painful part. 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Future Null Infinity said:

Non european here, the rich members of the EU are giving too much money for the other members, this union is a fake with a fake prosperity and a fake economic growth, it's not a union of cooperation, it's a union of givers and takers.

What's wrong with the richer countries helping the development of the others? Or, to say it differently, with the nations of Europe deciding collectively where to invest some of their money?

As to "fake prosperity and fake economic growth" I'd be curious to know where you are getting this from. I don't think I've ever heard it before and it sounds suspiciously like bullshit.

Lastly... The UK was always a net contributor to the EU budget, and yet, even Cameron (and though she's reluctant to admit it, May) thought that what the UK paid for access to the single market was worth it.

[Werthead]

Quote

No-one sane would, but with the Trump triumph in mind, should the EU really risk explicitly punishing the UK and assuming there wouldn't be a nationalistic backlash? If the result is a pro-Putin Prime Minister Farage and a similar attitude to Trump on NATO, the integrity of the principle of freedom of movement is going to look pretty costly.

I'd be cautious of exploiting that, but on the other hand if it ensured the UK's prosperity I'd probably do it anyway.

I think recent events have made the EU more cautious about rocking the boat, especially if they believe they are also risking (however distantly at the moment) losing the Netherlands, Austria and maybe even France.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

What's wrong with the richer countries helping the development of the others? Or, to say it differently, with the nations of Europe deciding collectively where to invest some of their money?

I'm sure that most British people couldn't give two shits about the living standards in less wealthy EU countries, particularly given the cuts to public services we've seen.

Most don't see it as cooperating with Europe for the greater good, rather having to support weaker economies to the detriment of our own.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

49 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I'm sure that most British people couldn't give two shits about the living standards in less wealthy EU countries, particularly given the cuts to public services we've seen.

Most don't see it as cooperating with Europe for the greater good, rather having to support weaker economies to the detriment of our own.

Also the perception is that the poorer countries are less hard working and are just taking our money. Whether that is true or not is not the point really. Its perception.

Globalisation as a whole has been bad for the middle classes in Europe and the US, rather than raise our standards of living its brought us down a few levels while everyone is doing rather well out of it. Thats why there is such a backlash.

[SeanF]

19 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

I live in the UK, and on 24th June this year I woke up to a different country than the one I'd gone to sleep in.

Brexit was, on every level, a catastrophe. Our economy is severely damaged with sterling down massively against major currencies and the prospect of losing access to the EU single market. The UK's standing internationally has been, perhaps irrevocably, damaged by our childish fit of xenophobia and isolationism. European security is now threatened by a weakened EU and a weakened UK, in the face of increased Russian aggression and a US President-elect who's commitment to NATO and collective defence is smaller than the 1 Euro-cent coin.

And all this for a pack of lies, fed to us by a lying media and a bunch of irresponsible politicians in it for the glory, in the quest for benefits which it is clear are never going to materialise!

I consider myself a citizen of Europe before I do a citizen of the United (ha) Kingdom, and for the past five months I have been constantly fretting over my future and that of my friends and family. So please, if there is someone there who is willing to try and convince me that Brexit was in fact a great decision, and not the greatest act of political and economic self-harm my country has ever made, then I'm all ears. Five months on, let's put our respective ideologies to the test.

 

[for the Mods: if this is in the wrong place then please move or delete: I couldn't find a politics thread and there are a lot of Trump topics in General Chatter]

Well, I don't consider myself a citizen of Europe, so I don't consider the loss of EU citizenship to be any bad thing.

Broadly speaking, I'd say the UK is a bad fit for countries whose political classes wish to progress to full political and economic integration.  I think that a large majority of British voters only want a trading relationship with the rest of the EU, similar to NAFTA, whereas in a lot of countries, people want far more than that.  They see the creation of a new European State as a way of avoiding war. If we hadn't voted to leave on 23rd June, we would have done at some stage.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

As someone who lives in London I can say that less than 10% of my friends are British born.

Honest question: but are those 90% of people you know coming from the EU? Or do they come from somewher else like... Say... Commonwealth countries?

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

However, the Euro as a currency is a bigger cock up and will most likely disappear in the next decade.

I wouldn't bet on it.
Of course, there's a possibility that populism keeps rising and actually succeeds in threatening the EU. But just like there was never a real plan for Brexit, there is currently no real plan to get rid of the Euro. Also, there are powerful economic interests that could trump democracy here ; even a populist leader like Le Pen might find it impossible to take a country out of the eurozone once in power (not to mention the fact that the corporations financing her campaigns may be lukewarm about it). Especially since scrapping the Euro would mean facing the prospect of a major economic crisis. Lastly, and more importantly, assuming the populists take power in one or several European countries, they could simply get rid of the free circulation of people and reinstate borders instead of messing with the economy ; this would satisfy most of their voters without taking unnecessary risks.
Anyway from what I understand, the problem isn't the Euro itself, but the monetary policies of the European Central Bank. Given the current atmosphere in Europe, those might change in the coming years. Heck, it's even conveivable that the European Parliament starts implementing a number of policies to prevent the possibility of anyone leaving the ship. The recent creation of a "European army" may be just the beginning.

2 hours ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I'm sure that most British people couldn't give two shits about the living standards in less wealthy EU countries, particularly given the cuts to public services we've seen.

Of course. Problem is, the two are rather unrelated. The austerity that was imposed on the UK was purely ideological, and definitely not because of the money the UK had been spending on the EU.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Honest question: but are those 90% of people you know coming from the EU? Or do they come from somewher else like... Say... Commonwealth countries?

Almost all of them are from the EU. Its hard to really comprehend just how huge the surge in European, especially Eastern European immigration has been in this country. I joked about it previously as I always saw it as a positive, and the negative side of it seemingly didn't affect me. I laugh with these guys about being the only British person in the group, but its not a rare occurance. And I grew up in one of the most multicultural areas of London where I was one of the few white people, so this is not something new for me. London has always been cosmopolitan. The difference now is something like 400k people coming in a year. Thats staggering. 
 

 

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Anyway from what I understand, the problem isn't the Euro itself, but the monetary policies of the European Central Bank. Given the current atmosphere in Europe, those might change in the coming years. Heck, it's even conveivable that the European Parliament starts implementing a number of policies to prevent the possibility of anyone leaving the ship. The recent creation of a "European army" may be just the beginning.

 

The two things are interlinked no? You can't have a single currency without all countries having the same fiscal controls. The problem is Greece's economy is a million miles away from Germanys , but has no methods to fix its problems without screwing Germany. It can't devalue, so the only solution is huge, country breaking austerity. Which is what we've seen. Basically bullying by the banks, destroying Greece so that they can get their money, all through the process of the EU. 

A european army was always on the cards btw, its something certain members , I think Juncker in particular are keen on. The Euro can only work if there is FAR more integration in Europe, which basically means dismantling national barriers altogether. However this will never happen. They can try and crowbar solutions for closer integration but you will get a fight back, in fact its happening right now. If most of the countries in the EU feel its not a good deal for them then who is going to stop them?

 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Of course. Problem is, the two are rather unrelated. The austerity that was imposed on the UK was purely ideological, and definitely not because of the money the UK had been spending on the EU.

Oh yes I know, but very many (most?) are happy to believe the likes of Farage because it's easy to blame the foreigners.

I also think SeanF is right in that most British people don't want to be involved with Europe other than economically, which is at odds with the EU's core objective of "ever-closer union". I voted remain, but talk of a single European army definitely rubs me up the wrong way.

[mankytoes]

21 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

I live in the UK, and on 24th June this year I woke up to a different country than the one I'd gone to sleep in.

1. Brexit was, on every level, a catastrophe.

2. Our economy is severely damaged with sterling down massively against major currencies and the prospect of losing access to the EU single market.

3. The UK's standing internationally has been, perhaps irrevocably, damaged by our childish fit of xenophobia and isolationism.

4. European security is now threatened by a weakened EU and a weakened UK, in the face of increased Russian aggression and a US President-elect who's commitment to NATO and collective defence is smaller than the 1 Euro-cent coin.

5. And all this for a pack of lies, fed to us by a lying media and a bunch of irresponsible politicians in it for the glory, in the quest for benefits which it is clear are never going to materialise!

6. I consider myself a citizen of Europe before I do a citizen of the United (ha) Kingdom, and for the past five months I have been constantly fretting over my future and that of my friends and family.

7. So please, if there is someone there who is willing to try and convince me that Brexit was in fact a great decision, and not the greatest act of political and economic self-harm my country has ever made, then I'm all ears. Five months on, let's put our respective ideologies to the test.

 

[for the Mods: if this is in the wrong place then please move or delete: I couldn't find a politics thread and there are a lot of Trump topics in General Chatter]

As a Leave voter, I'll answer your points. Please note I'm not a typical Leaver- I have only voted Lib Dem at general elections. So I'm not a supporter of Boris, Farage, etc.

1. You have to concede, at this point, it has had much less negative effect than the Remainers said. Cameron and Osbourne both claimed it would put us in a recession AT THIS POINT. So that, one of the main Remain arguments, has already been shown to be false. And they just continue saying "the disaster is round the corner". I don't buy it. Prominent Remainers, big buisnessmen, claimed we would lose jobs, one key figure (I'll find his name if you want) claimed MILLIONS, if we didn't join the Euro. Then he said the same about the EU. You can't keep telling the same lie. Fool me once, and all that.

2. Markets always react badly to uncertainty, I don't think that means we should always be small "c" conservatives and never take a risk. The fall in sterling has not had a terrible effect on our economy, nor should we expect it to, Germany has consistantly done well with a weak Euro.

3. Has it? By what measure? Have Switzerland, Iceland and Norway been irrecovably damaged by not joining the EU? Are they viewed as isolationist and xenophobic (maybe Switzerland are seen as a bit xenophobic, but because of strong far right parties, not EU absense).

4. It's interesting you view the EU as weaker without us. As a perennial thorn in their side, our absense might actually lead to some improvements. Anyway, the logic there is a bit circular- you say we are weaker, because leaving the EU is bad, because it makes us all weaker. Trump's election is a separate issue, though I know the media are desperate to lump them together. To be clear, I would never vote for Trump in a million years (I never even voted UKIP in European elections).

5. This point aggrevates me. Yes, the Leave campaign was pretty shitty, especially with that misleading NHS figure. But the Remain side was at least as bad. The government clearly broke the rules by sending out pro EU propaganda, and not counting it in the Remain budget. What is really sad is the Europhile left refused to hold them to account for this, which came across as so unprincipled, happy to turn a blind eye to Tory corruption when it suits them. Exactly the same thing happened with the AV referendum (which I was a passionate "yes" supporter). Similarly, it's sad to see how many people are happy to ignore vital democratic principles when things don't go their way. I've never voted for the winning side before, but I've always accepted the result.

6. You're in a minority then, not just in the UK, but in Europe generally. Very few people consider themselves European before their nationality, and that's probably the most fundamental flaw in the EU.

7.They built a political system without consent of any of the people in it (the demos), we are the first people ever to get a choice on EU membership. They are trying to shove all these people who don't have a feeling of comradery together. This has never worked, like with Yugoslavia. The Greek crisis convinced me of this. The Germans are amongst the least nationalistic (for obvious reasons) people in Europe, yet they were absolutely outraged at having to bail the Greeks out. Why? Because they aren't a part of the same nation. The EU is a castle built on sand.

I have a degree in Politics, I've studied the EU at that level, and it is not competent, it is not democratic, it is not efficient. The European project was originally supposed to prevent a third great war between European powers. That is not a current foreign policy priority. I don't for a moment think we won't have any more great wars, but Germany and France won't be on opposite sides.

I know many Leavers voted for silly reasons, but I'd say the same about Remainers. How many of them have any real idea how the EU is run? I keep hearing Leavers (mainly white working class people) mocked for their reasons given, but a lot of the Remainers couldn't come up with a better reason than "it's racist to want to leave". That's an institution of all majority white countries they're refferring to. Right.

I didn't vote Leave for a short term gain, I voted Leave for a long term gain. I don't think the EU is sustainable in the long term, and history will judge us well for this. It is a monkey off our back.

[Rippounet]

27 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The two things are interlinked no? You can't have a single currency without all countries having the same fiscal controls. The problem is Greece's economy is a million miles away from Germanys , but has no methods to fix its problems without screwing Germany. It can't devalue, so the only solution is huge, country breaking austerity.

I can't pretend to be an economist but I understand from my readings that there could have been alternatives to austerity and massive privatization. What they did to Greece was outrageous because they almost openly made a point of plundering the country after Syriza won the elections.

27 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The Euro can only work if there is FAR more integration in Europe, which basically means dismantling national barriers altogether.

Are you talking about a proper economic and banking union?

[Gorn]

9 hours ago, Future Null Infinity said:

Non european here, the rich members of the EU are giving too much money for the other members, this union is a fake with a fake prosperity and a fake economic growth, it's not a union of cooperation, it's a union of givers and takers.

The "givers" aren't giving money out of goodness of their hearts, they are doing it because they also have a clear interest in the matter.

- If the poor countries get more developed, they can better afford the goods and services exported by the rich countries. They are also more likely to prefer their goods and services over those provided by their competitors (such as China and the US). Germany's export-based industrial economy reaps the most benefits from the EU, which outweigh Germany's contributions by far.

- Those poor countries foot the bill for educating the skilled workers which richer countries need, and which they have the pick of without any expense of their own.

- The investments help the poor countries develop the economy and infrastructure to provide those goods which the rich countries lack.

- Unskilled immigrants from poor countries will stay in their own country if they can find a decent job there.

- In the long term, it is in everyone's interest to help the poor countries to get on their feet, catch up with others and become more self-reliant. No-one wants a hotspot of crime and violence caused by poverty on the same continent, because that shit has a tendency to spill over. Those same "givers" were once benefactors of Marshall's plan, which was developed for much the same reasons.

[Gorn]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

7.They built a political system without consent of any of the people in it (the demos), we are the first people ever to get a choice on EU membership.

That's straight-up false. There were no less than 59popular EU-related referendums in various countries (including the UK one in 1975): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union

Norway rejected the EU twice, Greenland also rejected it. Denmark and Sweden rejected the Euro, France and Netherlands rejected the European Constitution (which failed as a direct result of it), Ireland rejected first versions of Treaty of Nice and Treaty of Lisbon. On the other hand, voters in Ireland, UK, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Croatia all voted that they want to be part of EU, most of them by huge margins. Also, every EU country has at least one anti-EU party which they are free to vote into government whenever they want.

There are many valid criticisms against the EU, but claiming that it lacks popular approval and consent of the people is ridiculous.

[mankytoes]

27 minutes ago, Gorn said:

That's straight-up false. There were no less than 59popular EU-related referendums in various countries (including the UK one in 1975): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union

Norway rejected the EU twice, Greenland also rejected it. Denmark and Sweden rejected the Euro, France and Netherlands rejected the European Constitution (which failed as a direct result of it), Ireland rejected first versions of Treaty of Nice and Treaty of Lisbon. On the other hand, voters in Ireland, UK, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Croatia all voted that they want to be part of EU, most of them by huge margins. Also, every EU country has at least one anti-EU party which they are free to vote into government whenever they want.

There are many valid criticisms against the EU, but claiming that it lacks popular approval and consent of the people is ridiculous.

Our 1975 referendum was on membership of the European Communities, that's signficantly different. It's clearly wrong to state "voters in the UK... voted they want to be part of the EU". I'm quite shocked you'd think otherwise, as that was a major reason for the referendum.

And getting to reject the Treaty of Lisbon is quite different to getting to choose to stay in the EU, especially when the response is "try again...".

Though of course, you're right that I worded it wrong, what I meant to say was we are the first to get a choice to STAY in the EU.

[Gorn]

21 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Our 1975 referendum was on membership of the European Communities, that's signficantly different. It's clearly wrong to state "voters in the UK... voted they want to be part of the EU". I'm quite shocked you'd think otherwise, as that was a major reason for the referendum.

And getting to reject the Treaty of Lisbon is quite different to getting to choose to stay in the EU, especially when the response is "try again...".

Though of course, you're right that I worded it wrong, what I meant to say was we are the first to get a choice to STAY in the EU.

If people vote for parties which support staying in the EU, they are also implicitly voting for staying in the EU. UKIP participated in five different parliamentary elections prior to 2016. If UK voters had such a burning desire to leave the EU, they would have voted them into government in one of these elections. Instead, they only voted to leave by the slimmest of margins (much slimmer than the '75 vote to join the EEC), with the Leave campaign fueled by false promises.

ETA: Also, voters in four countries directly voted to create the EU and accept the treaty of Maastricht. Voters in Ireland and Denmark agreed to transfer powers from their governments to European Parliament (treaty of Amsterdam). Voters in fourteen different countries agreed to join the EU (not EEC). Voters in Spain and Luxembourg both accepted the European Constitution by large margins. In each of those cases, people affirmatively voted to either become part of EU or strengthen their participation in it. Again, claiming that EU has no popular mandate and was forced on population from above is ridiculous.