Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:28 pm
OK, so I'm going to throw myself into the maelstrom, but hopefully not stir it much more.
Look, I think its hard to deny the following:
- Many leave voters and some remain voters voted the way they did for issues that don't stand up to much scrutiny. It suggests either they aren't that smart, haven't thought about this issue with their full capabilities, or have voted on a sort of gut feeling and struggled to rationalise it.
I say "many" leavers because, in my view at least, there is something more inherently "emotional" about voting leave: taking back control; restoring Britain to some sort of globe-trotting glory.
I say only "some" remain voters because a lot of the voted remain in a sort of "hard-headed" way - they would probably be emotional leavers, but thought economics/risks were such that they really should vote remain. (Its the same in Scotland where a lot of "No" voters would actually vote yes if they thought the economics was balanced).
But the relative strength/rationality of remainers arguments doesn't necessarily mean they are right - they just tended to be more consistent with things like: the economics of trade; the legal and political workings of the EU, and the wider world, etc. With people like Donald Trump about, and the rise of China, its possible that the rules of the game are changing, and maybe Leavers have cottoned on to that sooner than the rest of us.
One of the best arguments I've heard about leaving the EU is that the economic and monetary union is fundamentally misconceived and will collapse; that this will drag down the whole of the EU; and more generally the world is going to become more insular and nation-state led again. Now even if you think thats a bad thing (I certainly do!), you can make the case that its better for the UK to get out the EU before the collapse, so that theres less chance of us losing money in bail outs etc. And we can start preparing for that more mercantalist world better outside the EU. To be honest, I'm not sure I buy this argument given the rising power (China's) growing interest in globalisation, given the centrality of global supply chains to its own prosperity. So even if the US starts to pull back, China will push forward on globalisation. And I'd rather be negotiating with them as a bigger bloc (the EU) than as smaller units, which they can divide and rule.
The other good argument I've heard is about how the EU allows the UK government to be less accountable. Thats because the media and people don't really take enough interest in what happens in Europe and quite a few important things in relation to the economy, workers rights, environment are taken in the EU. Now quite often, the British Govt is in the vanguard of supporting controversial decisions in these areas: such as the decision in 2015 to not apply big tariffs to chinese steel. But thats because this is all rather opaque in the EU, and issues don't get the same public debate and scrutiny as if they are happening in Westminster. So the British Govt can get away with stuff that they couldn't get away with if the decisions were being taken in the UK parliament. Again, I think there is a counter-argument: the solution to this is a much better media that properly holds policymakers and decisions taken at a European level to account, not pulling out of the EU!
I must say, most of the other arguments I've heard don't seem to stack up to me:
- We can do more trade with the rest of the world like China: I don't see Germans struggling to trade with China in the EU, and we'd get less good trade deals given our smaller size
- We can spend more money on things here given our EU contribution will stop: thats only true if the impact on the economy is less than 0.5%, and in the long-term still virtually every analyst/researcher thinks it will be quite a bit more than that
- Migration is taking jobs and hurting public services; migrants are a source of demand for products/services as well as extra labour; they also pay more money in tax than receive in benefits and public services, so the real problem is under-investment in public services not migrants.
And unfortunately you hear some absolute tosh:
- the EU money was spent badly (thats our fault not theirs!)
- people in 1066 wouldn't have put up with unelected rule!!! (That was some lady from Hastings saying why she voted leave)
And finally, Paul. Just because a lot of remainers continue to point our problems, potential pitfalls, etc, does not mean they don't want things to turn out well. Its for two things:
(1) Some think there is genuinely a chance to stop Brexit, if they can persuade people its going to be bad, and if people start seeing intractable negotiations, etc.
(2) Many more think that its important to be forwarned of the potential problems lying ahead, in part so the more giddy sort of leavers (and there are quite a few in Westminster) don't get carried away and do damage to the country's interests by patronising our EU neighbours, thinking through consequences, etc.