JamesWales wrote:We have the world before us now. Behind us a political project that tied us to a series of stagnant economies and imposed a one-size fits all economic policy.
It is absurd to assume that 28 nations can adopt a single economic model. It doesn't work, and it won't work and in time, we will not only be better off out - we will look on in amazement that we thought the EU model a good idea.
The UN is a good example of intergovernmentalism. The EU is a bad example of supranationalism.
There is a world of opportunities now. Accept where we are, and help shape it.
Please explain this "one-size fits all economy policy". Because as far as I can see we have separate fiscal and monetary policy; substantially different product and labour market regulation; different benefits and welfare-to-work programmes; different industrial policies; different education policies; different science policies. In fact, I think bar the areas of product standards (different to market regulation), trade policy, and certain areas of competition and labour market policy - those countries outside the Eurozone have scope for markedly different "economic policies" from the rest of Europe, and even those inside the Eurozone have the scope for quite different policy in many areas (its monetary policy they formally forgo, and accept constraints on overall fiscal stance). Ireland has low tax. Denmark has high tax. France has a highly regulated labour market. The UK the third least regulated labour market among advanced economies. France cut its deficit by putting up taxes, the UK largely by cutting spending.
A lot of rubbish is being spouted about the EU - the idea that it imposes "one-size fits all" policies on broad areas of public policy being one of them.
The idea that we were "tied to stagnant economies" is another fallacy. Germany and Austria did/do very very well trading with China and other emerging markets, despite being even more "tied in" as part of the Eurozone. Our failure to trade so much with such economies is our hollowed-out industrial base, and them not yet being at the stage where they demand quite so much of our service sector as we would like (and services are often subject to even more hidden protectionism!).
As I said if you take the view that the EU was going to start interfering in negative ways in our economy or society; or that we will be able to do a much better trade deal with the US, Canada, Brazil, China, India etc outside the EU.. then you can paint a realistic scenario for us being better off.
But arguments based on the EU bullying bogeyman, or the ease with which we will do all these wonderful deals giving us migration control, freer trade, etc... forgive me if I either call them out, or give words of caution.
And finally the idea that we should all "accept where we are and help shape it". Well, could one not have made that argument for all those years to Farage and co? And is not one way to shape it to argue for realism in terms of what to expect in a deal to avoid it dragging on longer than necessary?