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

[Maester of Valyria]

@mankytoes thank you for your points. I wouldn't have presumed to guess your political affiliation, although I do wonder at your record with the Lib Dems, arguably the most pro-EU party.

Quote

. 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.

I would be the last person to deny that the Remain campaign did not engage in a certain amount of scaremongering and exaggeration. However just because we aren't feeling the economic effects yet doesn't mean that the warnings were false. The short term effects of the vote haven't been disastrous, but they are still significant: inflation is on the increase and imports are more expensive, and the Government is still committed to austerity. An important point to make here is that WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY LEFT THE EU YET: our businesses can still trade freely with the rest of the EEA and we still gain from inward investment and EU funding. Actually leaving the Union is a far greater step than simply not joining the Euro in the first place: it's not 'the same lie' at all.

Quote

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.

Again, the economic dangers are there, but it will take a while for them to reveal themselves fully: inflation hasn't been so prominent because larger firms generally buy in advance, and those that can dig into their reserves rather than raise prices. Neither of those is sustainable in the longer term. Germany does well because it is an export-led economy: a weak currency is good for its trade. Many other EU countries would benefit from a stronger Euro - this is one of the (few, to my mind) valid flaws with the EU: the structuring of the common currency.

Quote

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).

The three countries you mention were never members of the EU to begin with: there is a difference between opting for a lesser form of membership to start with, and having full membership and then throwing it away in favour of that lesser form. By the way, with the way things are going I'd be surprised if our government does negotiate for EEA membership.

Quote

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).

The EU is weaker without us: militarily, internationally, and economically. Perhaps it will manage further beneficial integration without us (I will point out that we already had several opt outs to future integration that didn't imact the others so much), but we were always a strong, stabilising influence to form a counterweight to Germany and France.

The logic is not circular: our abscence makes the EU weaker => European defence is weaker => we are all less safe. Russia has grown increasingly bold over the years, and the EU is now without is boldest and strongest military power.

Quote

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.

This defence aggravates me. I don't deny that the Remain campaign was guilty of some 'scaremongering', but it was nowhere near as bad as Leave. From 'that misleading NHS figure' which I'm glad you recognise for the lie it was but unfortunately many people voted just for that promise, to Turkey joining the EU (never going to happen, but Boris is now actively supporting that in Europe), to being able to have the single market without free movement. The list goes on.

I was disappointed by the conduct of the left during the campaign, but that doesn't excuse either side's lies.

'Vital democratic principles'. I agree that 'the people have spoken' but I question the validity of their speaking: they voted largely based on lies, for a goal that nobody planned for, with threats that no-one understood. Not to mention that the 48% are now being treated like the 4.8%.

Quote

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

I consider myself a Londoner first, a European second, British third and English fourth. London comes first for me. And I wouldn't be too sure about that: support for Europe is much higher in most other countries than it is here, a lamentable result of decades of political and media campaigns using the EU as a scapegoat.

Quote

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.

That's not true: any country could hold a referendum at any time it wished to.

Camaraderie is stronger in other EU countries than it is here.

The former Communist countries are among the most ardent supporters of the EU.

I agree that the handling of the Greek crisis was a disgrace. However I do not believe that it is cause to leave the EU. I will also point out that the Greek crisis was a result of the 2008 Financial Crisis, and that it still isn't grounds for leaving the EU. This is an unpalatable case of pragmatism over principle, and it's only one small art of the bigger picture.

Quote

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.

The EU has many failing, a lack of democracy and efficiency being some of the biggest. However, reform is possible, and we were one of the loudest voices for reform before the referendum.

You mention the possibility of war. While I agree that the countries of Western Europe are unlikely to ever take up arms against each other again (with the possible exception of more insurrections in Ireland: another consequence of Brexit), the rest of the bloc is shakier. If the Union collapses (a far more likely prospect now we're on the way out, despite which we will not be insulated from it) then hostilities between nations could escalate: the far right is once again on the rise throughout Eastern Europe. And that's all without considering an expansionist Russia.

Sadly, many of the arguments for Remain were significantly more complex and harder to understand than the ones for Leave. It's easier to understand the imperative not to be racist than it is to comprehend, say, the intricacies of negotiations with 27 other nations or the true meaning of Article 50. Call me a 'liberal metropolitan elitist' if you will, but there was a clear knowledge divide in the referendum. And I would argue that of all the people who didn't understand what they were voting for, the majority voted Out.

When you say 'long term gain' do you mean ten years? 20? 50? It will take decades for our economy to recover fully, and we will never be as well placed internationally as we were before the vote.

 

 

Thank you very much for your points: I enjoyed countering them a lot. You made me think with some of that!

[Maester of Valyria]

To everyone else: WOW! I really wasn't expecting that huge a response in such a short timeframe.

I was planning to respond to everyone individually, but for obvious reasons that doesn't seem practical. I will try and reply to some posts at least.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the overwhelming majority of responses were anti-Brexit. I feel it's important to remember that this is more because this Forum is quite liberal and international, and is not representative of the country as a whole (but then what do I know? 30% of people didn't vote and teenagers were excluded).

Keep 'em coming people!

 

[Werthead]

Quote

When you say 'long term gain' do you mean ten years? 20? 50? It will take decades for our economy to recover fully, and we will never be as well placed internationally as we were before the vote.

That's one reason why I'm puzzled about the people complaining about the autumn statement. Membership of the European single market has been a cornerstone of the UK economy for forty years. Leaving it makes us poorer, permanently, relative to if we stay in it. We can only make up the difference if the EU collapses (putting us all on the same playing field), if we remain a member of the single market after leaving, or if some other massively unpredictable event takes place.

Farage, to his credit, was very straight-up about this and said in the Brexit campaign that a poorer Britain was worth it for increased sovereignty (left unspoken: he didn't give a shit because he was loaded, having made a lot of money working in...Europe). I'm wondering how many of the middle and working class families seeing how much poorer they're going to be (notably poorer in 2022 relative to 2007 by the looks of things, which is appalling) would now agree with that assessment.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Membership of the European single market has been a cornerstone of the UK economy for forty years.

Try having a country whose entire economy revolved around selling meat and dairy products to the UK, only to suddenly be screwed by the Mother Country joining the Common Market. We survived then, and the UK will survive now.

[mormont]

Nobody doubts that we'll survive. The question is whether we'll be worse off.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Short term? Yes (disputes about to what extent). Medium term? On balance of probabilities (depends on various other factors). Longer term? Impossible to tell - you're looking at forced changes to the UK's economic trajectory that will make comparisons pointless (e.g. how wealthy would New Zealand be in 2016 if Britain hadn't dropped us in the 1970s? It's a question without answer. All we know is that things would be different).

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

Farage, to his credit, was very straight-up about this and said in the Brexit campaign that a poorer Britain was worth it for increased sovereignty (left unspoken: he didn't give a shit because he was loaded, having made a lot of money working in...Europe). I'm wondering how many of the middle and working class families seeing how much poorer they're going to be (notably poorer in 2022 relative to 2007 by the looks of things, which is appalling) would now agree with that assessment.

I think the problem is that many working class and middle class families were ALREADY poor, and seemingly leaving Europe wouldn't feel like it was going to affect them at all. I think those who tend to vote for staying are those who feel their lives are fine and there isn't a problem. But we live in a bit of a bubble and don't see that actually 'globalisation' has been pretty awful for some people. 

Having said that, I think that the EU gets targeted unfairly, it isn't 'globalisation', merely a symbol of it, and I think that is what people are reacting to. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

15 hours ago, Rippounet said:

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.

Are you talking about a proper economic and banking union?

I'm not an economist either, but from what I can tell once you are locked into one big continent wide currency then the number of controls and options you have to rescue your economy are massively reduced. Greece couldn't devalue, or do QE or use any of the controls it usually could to find a way out of trouble. The banks wanted their money, they sent the IMF in and pulled the country apart. 

I think that economic and banking unions will only work if you unify Europe completely as one country, like the US. Otherwise everyone is coming from different playing fields, with different cultures and economies, which clearly doesn't work. Britain made a very smart choice not joining the Euro, and I think that smugness is playing into us wanting to leave the  EU too.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Britain made a very smart choice not joining the Euro, and I think that smugness is playing into us wanting to leave the  EU too.

Problem is that having countries outside the Euro is basically a violation of the overarching doctrine of Ever Closer Union. The EU exists as a political project, first and foremost - and if it indeed start moving towards a greater level of fiscal union (as response to the Greek calamity), you are indeed looking at a much more "unified" model. Which places those oddities outside the Euro in an awkward situation.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

16 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Problem is that having countries outside the Euro is basically a violation of the overarching doctrine of Ever Closer Union. The EU exists as a political project, first and foremost - and if it indeed start moving towards a greater level of fiscal union (as response to the Greek calamity), you are indeed looking at a much more "unified" model. Which places those oddities outside the Euro in an awkward situation.

But which countries actually want this ever closer union? I don't see many willing to give up their national sovereignty 

[mankytoes]

15 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

@mankytoes thank you for your points. I wouldn't have presumed to guess your political affiliation, although I do wonder at your record with the Lib Dems, arguably the most pro-EU party.

I would be the last person to deny that the Remain campaign did not engage in a certain amount of scaremongering and exaggeration. However just because we aren't feeling the economic effects yet doesn't mean that the warnings were false. The short term effects of the vote haven't been disastrous, but they are still significant: inflation is on the increase and imports are more expensive, and the Government is still committed to austerity. An important point to make here is that WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY LEFT THE EU YET: our businesses can still trade freely with the rest of the EEA and we still gain from inward investment and EU funding. Actually leaving the Union is a far greater step than simply not joining the Euro in the first place: it's not 'the same lie' at all.

Again, the economic dangers are there, but it will take a while for them to reveal themselves fully: inflation hasn't been so prominent because larger firms generally buy in advance, and those that can dig into their reserves rather than raise prices. Neither of those is sustainable in the longer term. Germany does well because it is an export-led economy: a weak currency is good for its trade. Many other EU countries would benefit from a stronger Euro - this is one of the (few, to my mind) valid flaws with the EU: the structuring of the common currency.

The three countries you mention were never members of the EU to begin with: there is a difference between opting for a lesser form of membership to start with, and having full membership and then throwing it away in favour of that lesser form. By the way, with the way things are going I'd be surprised if our government does negotiate for EEA membership.

The EU is weaker without us: militarily, internationally, and economically. Perhaps it will manage further beneficial integration without us (I will point out that we already had several opt outs to future integration that didn't imact the others so much), but we were always a strong, stabilising influence to form a counterweight to Germany and France.

The logic is not circular: our abscence makes the EU weaker => European defence is weaker => we are all less safe. Russia has grown increasingly bold over the years, and the EU is now without is boldest and strongest military power.

This defence aggravates me. I don't deny that the Remain campaign was guilty of some 'scaremongering', but it was nowhere near as bad as Leave. From 'that misleading NHS figure' which I'm glad you recognise for the lie it was but unfortunately many people voted just for that promise, to Turkey joining the EU (never going to happen, but Boris is now actively supporting that in Europe), to being able to have the single market without free movement. The list goes on.

I was disappointed by the conduct of the left during the campaign, but that doesn't excuse either side's lies.

'Vital democratic principles'. I agree that 'the people have spoken' but I question the validity of their speaking: they voted largely based on lies, for a goal that nobody planned for, with threats that no-one understood. Not to mention that the 48% are now being treated like the 4.8%.

I consider myself a Londoner first, a European second, British third and English fourth. London comes first for me. And I wouldn't be too sure about that: support for Europe is much higher in most other countries than it is here, a lamentable result of decades of political and media campaigns using the EU as a scapegoat.

That's not true: any country could hold a referendum at any time it wished to.

Camaraderie is stronger in other EU countries than it is here.

The former Communist countries are among the most ardent supporters of the EU.

I agree that the handling of the Greek crisis was a disgrace. However I do not believe that it is cause to leave the EU. I will also point out that the Greek crisis was a result of the 2008 Financial Crisis, and that it still isn't grounds for leaving the EU. This is an unpalatable case of pragmatism over principle, and it's only one small art of the bigger picture.

The EU has many failing, a lack of democracy and efficiency being some of the biggest. However, reform is possible, and we were one of the loudest voices for reform before the referendum.

You mention the possibility of war. While I agree that the countries of Western Europe are unlikely to ever take up arms against each other again (with the possible exception of more insurrections in Ireland: another consequence of Brexit), the rest of the bloc is shakier. If the Union collapses (a far more likely prospect now we're on the way out, despite which we will not be insulated from it) then hostilities between nations could escalate: the far right is once again on the rise throughout Eastern Europe. And that's all without considering an expansionist Russia.

Sadly, many of the arguments for Remain were significantly more complex and harder to understand than the ones for Leave. It's easier to understand the imperative not to be racist than it is to comprehend, say, the intricacies of negotiations with 27 other nations or the true meaning of Article 50. Call me a 'liberal metropolitan elitist' if you will, but there was a clear knowledge divide in the referendum. And I would argue that of all the people who didn't understand what they were voting for, the majority voted Out.

When you say 'long term gain' do you mean ten years? 20? 50? It will take decades for our economy to recover fully, and we will never be as well placed internationally as we were before the vote.

 

Thank you very much for your points: I enjoyed countering them a lot. You made me think with some of that!

It's pretty simple for me, I really believe in liberalism as a philosophy, so I voted for the Liberal party. That has to come first. Obviously if there was a liberal eurosceptic party, I would vote for them.

I know people are now saying this economic disaster will only happen after we leave, but it's important to be clear; the Remain side said the recession would happen NOW, BEFORE leaving. Honestly, my suspicion is that they will just keep postponing their prediction for this downturn until there is a recession, as history tells us there will be eventually, and then that will be blamed on the Brexit.

I'm happy for us to negotiate for EEC membership. It's the political union that we have to distance ourselves from. As Gorn pointed out, we've actually consented to the trading partnership.

I don't think our influence was ever that strong, because we never embraced the project, especially when we didn't join the Euro.

It's circular logic in that you have to accept the premise that us leaving the EU makes it weaker. Of course, we can and have co-operated militarily outside the EU. 

Do you have any evidence a significant number of people voted leave "just because" of the NHS figure? It seems like it was always something the Remainers made a bit deal of, not the Leavers. Any time people throw out numbers like that (see the latest £58 billion cost of Brexit) they don't even register with me. If I'm being technical, it was misleading, not a lie, and that's hardly unusual in politics. 

It doesn't excuse the Remain campaign, but it does even things out. In fact, I still think there was more weight to the Remain side, considering the establishment power it had behind it.

They didn't largely vote based on lies. That seems to be based on the idea most people only made their minds up in the campaign, which polling shows isn't true. We've all spend two decades in the EU. That is what most people based their vote on.

I'm not surprised you consider yourself a Londoner first, because so many ardent Remainers do. Have you ever lived up North? People are very aware of what your priority is. London is very different to most of the country. 

You mean they can have a referendum any time the establishment allows them one. Only Switzerland gives referendums by popular demand. 

The former Communist countries are the biggest supporters because they benefit from the subsidies. Support for the EU in Spain plummeted when those countries joined, because it went from gaining overall to losing. They don't like the EU because they feel a great kinship with the Germans and Portugese, they like it because they get money.

The Greek crisis was made much worse by their membership of the Euro, which stopped them devaluing their currency. 

The far right is on the rise in many EU countries, I see no evidence being in the EU prevents right wing populism. I think it makes it worse, because it gives them an issue to rally around (they are almost all eurosceptic).

I can only give you the Eurosceptic side, which is that people generally feel that we weren't engaged on the issues, we just kept being told we didn't understand, instead of people actually addressing our points. 

If you want an exactly number, I'm thinking more 20 for real benefit to be clear, and for the majority of the people against the EU to be much larger, just like the attitude to adopting the Euro. 

You too, it's nice to discuss this in a civilised way! I'm at work, so sorry if some of these points are a bit short.

16 hours ago, Gorn said:

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.

That's very dodgy, especially to me, considering in the two elections I've been eligable to voted, I've voted for the most Europhile party, the Lib Dems, as I've liked their policy programme and philosophy the best overall. 

Even with the most generous interpretation of a mandate, there isn't one from several countries, including Germany, the most populous in the EU. 

[Maester of Valyria]

6 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm not an economist either, but from what I can tell once you are locked into one big continent wide currency then the number of controls and options you have to rescue your economy are massively reduced. Greece couldn't devalue, or do QE or use any of the controls it usually could to find a way out of trouble. The banks wanted their money, they sent the IMF in and pulled the country apart. 

I think that economic and banking unions will only work if you unify Europe completely as one country, like the US. Otherwise everyone is coming from different playing fields, with different cultures and economies, which clearly doesn't work. Britain made a very smart choice not joining the Euro, and I think that smugness is playing into us wanting to leave the  EU too.

I have a bit of a background in economics. You are correct when you say that common currency countries lose many of their economic levers: they ceded monetary policy over to the ECB. This is actually a bit of a structural problem with the Euro: countries have the same monetary policies but independent fiscal (tax and spending) policies. This is why we are selfish when we keep blocking further integration between Eurozone countries. A 'United States of Europe' was the dream of politicians after WW1 and onwards, but sadly it never worked out. Which is a shame: the USE could easily be the world's greatest superpower.

Oh, Britain is incredibly smug, not just over the Euro but over everything! Something that wasn't picked up on much in the campaign is that we aren't that important by ourselves anymore. What economic and political clout we do retain is largely (albeit not totally) because of our favoured position within the EU. And yet we have politicians who should know better talking about returning to the days of the Commonwealth and greatness! Never can and never will happen.

4 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Problem is that having countries outside the Euro is basically a violation of the overarching doctrine of Ever Closer Union. The EU exists as a political project, first and foremost - and if it indeed start moving towards a greater level of fiscal union (as response to the Greek calamity), you are indeed looking at a much more "unified" model. Which places those oddities outside the Euro in an awkward situation.

Several countries have permanent 'opt-outs' from Ever Closer Union, including the UK (a fact ignored by most Leavers). However further integration between the Euro countries would be beneficial for all: increased financial stability would only be good for us. And I firmly believe that we need to move on from this era of national borders: for me, the UK eventually joining a fully-fledged 'United States of Europe' would be a welcome development.

 

[Maester of Valyria]

@mankytoes

Quote

I know people are now saying this economic disaster will only happen after we leave, but it's important to be clear; the Remain side said the recession would happen NOW, BEFORE leaving. Honestly, my suspicion is that they will just keep postponing their prediction for this downturn until there is a recession, as history tells us there will be eventually, and then that will be blamed on the Brexit.

The Remain campaign DID exaggerate the immediate risks, I don't deny that. However the predictions of recession were not that extreme given that there were so many unknowns: is appears consumer spending held up fairly well, but that could well not have been the case. It is possible that we will escape recession; however with rising prices (higher inflation is a given) and falling investment our economy WILL be considerably poorer and less resilient (for example to another major financial crisis, or a Trump/China trade war) in any event.

Quote

I'm happy for us to negotiate for EEC membership. It's the political union that we have to distance ourselves from. As Gorn pointed out, we've actually consented to the trading partnership.

Two points: 1) as EEC members we will still have to abide by the majority of EU laws, regulations, and directives without having a say in them, and 2) we also consented to the political part: the European Commission (AKA 'unelected faceless bureaucrats') is bound by laws made by EU governments.

Quote

I don't think our influence was ever that strong, because we never embraced the project, especially when we didn't join the Euro.

It's circular logic in that you have to accept the premise that us leaving the EU makes it weaker. Of course, we can and have co-operated militarily outside the EU. 

Pre-referendum, all decisions made in Europe needed two of the 'Big Three': the UK, Germany, and France. We were on the winning side of new laws 87% of the time (LSE research). Our reluctance for further integration in some ways increased our influence: we had an independent streak that had to be catered for.

Quote

Do you have any evidence a significant number of people voted leave "just because" of the NHS figure? It seems like it was always something the Remainers made a bit deal of, not the Leavers. Any time people throw out numbers like that (see the latest £58 billion cost of Brexit) they don't even register with me. If I'm being technical, it was misleading, not a lie, and that's hardly unusual in politics. 

That figure was one of Leave's two flagship promises: they made a such a big deal of it that they put it on the side of a bus! Numbers like that don't register because they're so big, but it doesn't mean they aren't important. And it was a lie that we would make net budget savings: see that £58bn cost.

Quote

It doesn't excuse the Remain campaign, but it does even things out. In fact, I still think there was more weight to the Remain side, considering the establishment power it had behind it.

They didn't largely vote based on lies. That seems to be based on the idea most people only made their minds up in the campaign, which polling shows isn't true. We've all spend two decades in the EU. That is what most people based their vote on.

The balance of lies is still heavily skewed towards the Leave camp.

Yes, they did. With respect, it is ludicrous to think that the campaign wasn't the most significant factor in the vote: this is shown by the continually narrowing margins in the months before.

Quote

I'm not surprised you consider yourself a Londoner first, because so many ardent Remainers do. Have you ever lived up North? People are very aware of what your priority is. London is very different to most of the country.

 

You mean they can have a referendum any time the establishment allows them one. Only Switzerland gives referendums by popular demand.

I am extremely aware of the deprivation that exists in much of the country. This is a national disgrace, but it is not due to the EU but rather successive government's policies. It started when Thatcher began deindustrialisation, and it was never checked by meaningful efforts to start up new industries in the region, or even to retrain the people there or provide decent benefits. Globalism doesn't fail because of free trade - it fails because of governments.

I am also aware that London is a very different beast to the rest of the country. However given that around a third of the UK's tax comes from London, the city's voice and needs seem to have been ignored in the last few months.

 

Again, this is an issue of domestic policy, not a fault of the EU.

Quote

The former Communist countries are the biggest supporters because they benefit from the subsidies. Support for the EU in Spain plummeted when those countries joined, because it went from gaining overall to losing. They don't like the EU because they feel a great kinship with the Germans and Portugese, they like it because they get money.

The Greek crisis was made much worse by their membership of the Euro, which stopped them devaluing their currency. 

I don't see why we (rich Western European countries who can easily afford it) should be complaining about helping the development of our poorer neighbours. Eastern Europe benefits from more than just subsidies (as do we) and they seem to appreciate the value of common direction just as much as they should.

Agreed: the Greek crisis was not handled as it should have been. However this is an example of a case where reform could have had a real impact. I will also mention that the UK has been extremely reluctant to contribute towards bailout funds.

Quote

The far right is on the rise in many EU countries, I see no evidence being in the EU prevents right wing populism. I think it makes it worse, because it gives them an issue to rally around (they are almost all eurosceptic).

It does provide a rallying point, but that is hardly the EU's fault. Once again, EU failures are being blamed for domestic policy failings. Governments should be focusing on employment and support, but sadly Keynesian thinking isn't nearly prevalent enough. And I'm afraid you have not addressed the increased danger of Russia in the wake of our departure.

Quote

I can only give you the Eurosceptic side, which is that people generally feel that we weren't engaged on the issues, we just kept being told we didn't understand, instead of people actually addressing our points.

There were many deficiencies to the Remain campaign, a lack of charismatic spokespeople and a slight patronising air being two of them. Believe me, I didn't approve in the slightest of how some politicians would talk down to Leave supporters.

Quote

If you want an exactly number, I'm thinking more 20 for real benefit to be clear, and for the majority of the people against the EU to be much larger, just like the attitude to adopting the Euro. 

Ok so...you're willing to see two decades of economic stagnation (if we're lucky) in the hope that what we get at the other end will be better than what we started with? Even if we manage to develop a German-like economy, entire generations will have been blighted by years of wasted development. Also, bye-bye NHS.

Quote

You too, it's nice to discuss this in a civilised way! I'm at work, so sorry if some of these points are a bit short.

Indeed: it makes a nice change from facebook comment wars! If I may inquire, what do you do for a living? (no need to answer if you don't wish to).

When this topic dries up, I would be very happy to continue this over PM?

Quote

ignore

Quote

ignore

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Problem is that having countries outside the Euro is basically a violation of the overarching doctrine of Ever Closer Union. The EU exists as a political project, first and foremost - and if it indeed start moving towards a greater level of fiscal union (as response to the Greek calamity), you are indeed looking at a much more "unified" model. Which places those oddities outside the Euro in an awkward situation.

By what measure is it moving to a closer union? 

The EU parliament is a pretty powerless institution. The European council is calling the shots, and that's the head of (the member) states. And there's no intention or desire to shift power away from the states to the EU.

The Trump presidency might force more coherent EU policies in some aspects, like a common EU security policy. But that's probably more wishful thinking. Just look at the member states position to Putin/Russia. That's pretty inconsistent. You have some Putin buddies like Orban in Hungary, then you have the Baltic states, who are pretty scared they are next on the to do list of restoring the Soviet Union. Btw. Bulgaria has recently elected a new head of state, who is more into Moscow than Brussels. 

So where do you see evidence for a closer union?

[Werthead]

John Major suggests a second referendum is possible.

The "tyranny of the majority" line felt like a little bit of a side-swipe at Farage and other people who support both Brexit (thus supporting that a very narrow majority should get their way) and Trump (thus supporting that they shouldn't), with "tyranny of the majority" being a line used a lot recently to justify the electoral college institution.

Quote

Nobody doubts that we'll survive. The question is whether we'll be worse off.

There is no question. We will be worse off. The only thing in question is if it will be for a few years, a decade or maybe a full generation, or if something else will happen that will materially affect it.

Quote

Problem is that having countries outside the Euro is basically a violation of the overarching doctrine of Ever Closer Union. The EU exists as a political project, first and foremost - and if it indeed start moving towards a greater level of fiscal union (as response to the Greek calamity), you are indeed looking at a much more "unified" model. Which places those oddities outside the Euro in an awkward situation.

The powers in the EU that believed in ECU have been losing ground for years, and actually the restoration of the European project to a close trade alliance with some common laws (basically where it is now) is extremely popular. ECU is, I think, pretty much dead regardless of Britain's status. The financial crisis exposed the weakness of the Euro.

Quote

I know people are now saying this economic disaster will only happen after we leave, but it's important to be clear; the Remain side said the recession would happen NOW, BEFORE leaving. Honestly, my suspicion is that they will just keep postponing their prediction for this downturn until there is a recession, as history tells us there will be eventually, and then that will be blamed on the Brexit.

I don't recall anyone except a couple of fringe lunatic statements to this effect (along  with Cameron's suggestion that us leaving would trigger WWIII). The economic forecast was that a vote to leave would entail a transition period of tremendous uncertainty (as we are seeing now), and then the full economic consequences would become clear after we voted to leave.

[Hereward]

28 minutes ago, Werthead said:

There is no question. We will be worse off. The only thing in question is if it will be for a few years, a decade or maybe a full generation, or if something else will happen that will materially affect it.

I really wish you wouldn't keep doing this, asserting that your opinion is unquestionably right and unchallengeable. Of course there is a question. I tend to agree that we will be worse off, but there is a somewhat credible view that concentrating on free trade with the most dynamic economies of the world could be good for the country. We'd need to be a hell of a lot more inventive, entrepreneurial and productive than we are now, though.

[Werthead]

23 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I really wish you wouldn't keep doing this, asserting that your opinion is unquestionably right and unchallengeable. Of course there is a question. I tend to agree that we will be worse off, but there is a somewhat credible view that concentrating on free trade with the most dynamic economies of the world could be good for the country. We'd need to be a hell of a lot more inventive, entrepreneurial and productive than we are now, though.

That was the opinion of most of the economic experts in the country (and many outside it) and was the opinion of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the OBR just this week. And if you note, I did point out that something unforeseen could happen which would change that situation. But I'm not seeing many credible alternatives at present, other than the previously-discussed notion that a bellicose Russia may convince European powers that having one of the most militarily powerful nations in western Europe (not that's saying much) on-side may be a good idea.

I agree that concentrating on free trade with the most dynamic economies is certainly good for the country. But concentrating on it doesn't mean we're going to get it in a reasonable timeframe, and if Canada can't get a trade deal with the EU in under seven years it seems unlikely we'll be able to.

[Werthead]

The creators of Football Manager 2016 were uncertain how to model Brexit in the game. They usually do include major financial events in their modelling of each year, and Brexit's impact on the football transfer market was something they wanted to include. So when they couldn't get any answers from the government on it, they decided to create several possible outcomes.

The result is that an annual video game franchise now features more in-depth computer modelling of what Brexit means for a sector of the economy than the government appears to have done.

Also, one player accidentally got the "hard Brexit" outcome in which British and EU players need visas and it crippled his ability to create a decent team. Enraged, he posted a one-star review.

An interesting side-commentary on the fact that this is another area that it doesn't appear much research or work was done in to consider the impact of Brexit.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Football players will probably be the least affected workers in the EU though.  

I assume they will fall into some "UEFA player" category. That is obviously just a guess, and whichever goverment tries to deal with that issue, might fear they will set a precedent for other businesses, but I think there will be sufficient pressure from clubs and fans to make excemptions for the clubs and their "toys". The talent poaching might get a bit more tricky though. And it might affect the coaching staff however, but I don't see that happening either. 

Though I must admit, I get some guilty pleasure out of the image, how a Leave voter (supposition, but follow me down that road), gets mad how his real life political decission, influences the outcome of his video game. I find that pretty funny. 

Of course, I don't know if the gamer in question voted leave, or was even of voting age. 

Maybe FM should have included a Brexit scenario in their previous version.

[Rippounet]

10 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But which countries actually want this ever closer union? I don't see many willing to give up their national sovereignty 

Right now, I think most countries in Europe are content with the situation as it is. Which is a pity, because I feel that with the EU as it is we're getting the worst of both worlds: a neoliberal union of countries, but without the political strength that it should have on the international scene.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure I truly understand nationalism. I mean, I love the culture of my nation and most of its values, but its institutions are definitely not something to be treasured and I'd willingly exchange them in a heartbeat for a single European country based on regional federalism.

8 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I don't think our influence was ever that strong, because we never embraced the project, especially when we didn't join the Euro.

Funnily enough, some people in France rejoiced when Britain left the EU because they thought that there would be a greater chance of fighting neoliberalism on the EU level. There is a feeling in France that Britain and Germany can be partly blamed for the direction that the EU has taken. I doubt it's that simple, but nevertheless, Cameron did show that he could get huge concessions out of the EU...