This sort of mentality and pretending to stand on the podium of social righteousness is the problem. Things didn't go how you wanted, so therefore it must be wrong, hateful, xenophobist, and racist right?
> so therefore it must be wrong, hateful,
> xenophobist, and racist
I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't.
The least bad argument seems to devolve down to the conceit that "British experts are better than pan-European experts at making decisions", and the nicest thing you can say about that particular argument is "it's a misguided view of British primacy".
I'm just yet to hear any arguments that, when dug into, aren't.
Playing devil's advocate for a minute, here are just a few of the big claims often made before the referendum that would point in favour of leaving if you accept them:
- The EU economy is still fragile, particularly within the Eurozone. Another financial crisis is possible, or even likely, within the next few years, and the recovery could be even harder if it does happen.
- The EU takes billions of pounds in funding from the UK every year, and yet has a track record of not producing any properly audited accounts to show where the money actually goes.
- The power structures of the EU are cryptic and there are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit.
- The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively, perhaps with good intentions, but with poor execution. This is harmful, particularly to small businesses whose needs are frequently overlooked. The regulations apply to goods and services for domestic consumption or trade outside the EU as well as to trade within the EU, even though the latter represents only a relatively small part of our economy as a whole.
- Being a member of the EU limits our ability to make independent trade deals with the rest of the world. The EU's track record on making good trade deals with non-EU partners on our behalf is questionable. Our international trading was already shifting slowly but surely towards more trade with non-EU partners, and this is only likely to accelerate given global economic development patterns, even if the EU doesn't suffer another major financial problem.
- A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for ever closer union, increasing our exposure to all of the above and reducing the influence of our national government. In the strongest negotiating position a British leader would ever likely be in, Cameron still won only minor concessions, which may or may not have been binding. In any case, with 26/28 member states already in or expected to join the Eurozone, it is unrealistic to expect a "two-speed Europe" to remain a relevant concept, and arguments about keeping a seat at the table by remaining in are significantly weakened.
As I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here and making the case for a single side of the debate, but I don't see anything particularly wrong, hateful, xenophobic or racist about any of those points, and none of them seems particularly esoteric or out of character with what many who came down on the Leave side were saying before the vote.
> Another financial crisis is possible,
> or even likely, within the next few
> years, and the recovery could be even
> harder if it does happen
It's unclear to me how one gets from there to "the UK would be better equipped to handle EU-originating recession from outside the EU", especially as it's not yet Euro-using.
> The EU takes billions of pounds in
> funding from the UK every year
> yet has a track record of not producing
> any properly audited accounts to show
> where the money actually goes
Isn't the EU budget available easily online? Anyway, using this as an argue presupposes:
a) The UK doesn't get £8bn of value from being part of the EU. Given the size of the tax basis from financial services (£66bn/annum), and that the UK is the EU's defacto financial and service center, and that passporting rights will likely evaporate when we leave the EU, this seems faintly ridiculous.
b) UK politicians would be able to better distribute this £8bn than EU civil servants. Evidence to support this is scant on the ground.
Both presuppositions need to be true for the argument to hold.
> The power structures of the EU are
> cryptic and there are legitimate concerns
> about democratic deficit
There are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit within the UK, as well. The EU parliament represents an effective third chamber, but only the second in the UK that's directly elected. I don't see how one can reasonably claim that a democratic deficit is being reduced by decreasing the proportion of lawmakers who are elected.
> The EU has a tendency to regulate excessively
When asked for examples, people tend to come up with bendy bananas, which even a cursory glance at reveals to be nationalist propoganda. So no, I don't accept this, and consider it a facet of misplaced nationalism. There's also absolutely no evidence that UK politicians would come up with better or less onerous regulation.
> Being a member of the EU limits our ability to
> make independent trade deals with the rest of
> the world
Reducing the size of our negotiating power is unlikely to result in better trade deals.
> A vote to remain would de facto be a vote for
> ever closer union
Baseless scaremongering.
Thankyou for taking the time to write all these out.
OK, I'll play along one more time (with the same disclaimer that this entire post is in devil's advocate mode).
It's unclear to me how one gets from there to "the UK would be better equipped to handle EU-originating recession from outside the EU", especially as it's not yet Euro-using.
One reasonable point I heard was that if you're voting to stay in on economic grounds, you're essentially betting that the benefits of closer trade with EU partners will outweigh the costs from restricted trade with non-EU partners. If the ability of those EU partners to trade effectively is significantly reduced, for example because they're dealing with a new Eurozone financial crisis, then the cost/benefit ratio could change significantly.
Another is that with almost everyone else in the EU either already in the Eurozone or planning to join it, EU policy would inevitably be built around protecting the interests of the Eurozone if crunch time arrived, but that wouldn't necessarily be in the economic interests of the few remaining non-Euro member states.
Isn't the EU budget available easily online?
I think it's the "not audited" part, and evidence suggesting various dubious "redirections" of the funds, that upset people here.
The UK doesn't get £8bn of value from being part of the EU. Given the size of the tax basis from financial services (£66bn/annum), and that the UK is the EU's defacto financial and service center, and that passporting rights will likely evaporate when we leave the EU, this seems faintly ridiculous.
The City is a major international centre for financial services, providing them to both EU and non-EU consumers. This demonstrates the demand for those services from around the world and the UK's ability to provide competitive services whether or not the consumer is also in an EU member state. This in turn suggests that businesses in other EU member states would continue to want to use the services regardless of the UK's membership.
UK politicians would be able to better distribute this £8bn than EU civil servants. Evidence to support this is scant on the ground.
But at least the UK politicians are then accountable for how they spend the money, and UK reporting standards will apply so the facts will be known.
There are legitimate concerns about democratic deficit within the UK, as well.
Certainly, and many who voted Leave also advocate electoral reform at home. But two (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
The EU parliament represents an effective third chamber, but only the second in the UK that's directly elected. I don't see how one can reasonably claim that a democratic deficit is being reduced by decreasing the proportion of lawmakers who are elected.
In the UK, the Commons has primacy over the Lords. This is enshrined in law and the power is actually used occasionally.
In the EU, there is no such primacy of the European Parliament over the Commission or Council, and even after the Lisbon Treaty the real power is concentrated in the latter parts of the EU administration.
When asked for examples, people tend to come up with bendy bananas
On the contrary, when Remain advocates criticise this point all they ever seem to come up with is something about bananas that was debunked long ago. However, there are countless other regulations that are real and just as silly. (I've seen many extensive discussions about this area, and giving my personal opinion for a moment I actually have a lot of sympathy with this particular argument.)
There's also absolutely no evidence that UK politicians would come up with better or less onerous regulation.
But what evidence would anyone reasonably expect there to be at this point? As long as the UK is part of the EU, it's subject to the EU regulations anyway, so in many cases there is neither the need nor the power for the UK government to act unilaterally. No-one knows what would happen if that changed, but it doesn't make the existing problem any less. And again, at least UK politicians would be directly accountable to the electorate for whatever regulations they did or didn't make.
Reducing the size of our negotiating power is unlikely to result in better trade deals.
The EU is trying to negotiate a trade deal on behalf of more people, but it's also trying to negotiate a trade deal in the interests of 28 member states at once, even though sometimes those member states will have very different goals or priorities.
In any case, given that the EU managed to take 7 years to complete a trade deal with Canada, and has repeatedly failed to produce a useful trade deal with the US after many years and huge costs trying, the EU's competence in making trade deals at all is suspect.
Baseless scaremongering.
That's not really a counter-argument. Many of the influential national leaders within the EU and obviously the EU's own leadership have openly advocated greater integration on economic, diplomatic, defence and other matters. Even if the UK has theoretical safeguards such as veto powers, its position will not be tenable if it is repeatedly a thorn (possibly the only thorn) in the side of the other member states, and its bargaining position could be significantly weaker after a Remain vote because the threat of leaving would be gone. You don't normally join a club if you don't agree with its principles and you object to many of its rules, but this could increasingly be the situation the UK found itself in.
>> It's unclear to me how one gets from
>> there to...
> One reasonable point I heard
And it's a reasonable point and all, but nobody has a crystal ball, and the definite cost and risks of a break need to be weighed upon a castle built in the sky of hopeful predictions, based on nothing but the idea that British people are better than Europeans, so will make better deals.
> evidence suggesting various dubious
> "redirections" of the funds
I don't think I've ever seen an example of this, and I'm surprised more wasn't made of it during the referendum campaign if there's anything particularly egregious in it.
However, again, there's a presupposition here that British politicians / civil-servants will be more rigorous, more diligent, etc etc.
> This demonstrates the demand for those
> services from around the world
No. If McDonald's stopped selling hamburgers tomorrow, you can't say it'll all be ok because they sell a lot of fries at the moment. The UK is seen a gateway into Europe. If this is impeded by taxes and regulations that aren't currently in place, the only way we get to the City remaining £8bn of tax revenue unscathed is by presupposition that British etc etc etc etc
> UK reporting standards will apply
Rather than those shifty EU reporting standards, presumably?
> In the EU, there is no such primacy
> of the European Parliament over the
> Commission or Council
Except the head of the Commission is elected by MEPs, and the Council is chosen by national governments, who are elected.
> countless other regulations that are
> real and just as silly
I have not. But even if they exist, there is an assumption that the UK will come up with better regulations. There's no evidence for this.
> No-one knows what would happen if
> that changed
But to vote for such a painful change, one needs to assume it's worth it because one is predicted the short-term pain will be worth it for long-term gains.
In summary:
Every single one of these eventually comes down to "British people are better than the wider EU", at its base. Sometimes there are one or two steps to get there, but it's always there lurking. British people are more competent, so they'll do better than the EU.
Combine this with relentless scaremongering about letting The Other from inside the EU into the country (gotta watch those Bulgarians with their premium quality dairy produce and funny foreign ways!), and you come back to the original point:
> therefore it must be wrong, hateful,
> xenophobist, and racist
Brexit voter here. Reasons? The treatment of Greece; the craven slavery of the EU to Neocon coup-instigating in Ukraine (and general Russia-baiting - yes, I realise that is unlikely to change short-term in UK with Brexit, but have hopes for the future); and a general belief in the superiority of smaller polities.
The least bad argument seems to devolve down to the conceit that "British experts are better than pan-European experts at making decisions", and the nicest thing you can say about that particular argument is "it's a misguided view of British primacy".