I spent some time yesterday googling the reasons for Brexit. The question I had asked in my post yesterday was genuine, although Leavers did not seem to think it was. The realisation that no Leaver had ever been able to explain why they wished to leave the EU on a rational basis was surprising, and true. I've been told time and again to understand Brexiteers. And I realised they had never explained themselves to me, which makes that hard.
Interestingly, my reading suggested that the reason why Remainers do not understand Leavers is that Remainers expect rational argument and there is none.
A few exceptions apart no one pretends we will be economically better off from Brexit. That is just not going to happen, so there is little point discussing it.
Lexiteers think Brexit will give rise to an overwhelming desire for a socialist state. I see no reason to think that will happen, at all. The appetite is not there, or in any way latent as far as I can tell.
Take those factors out and Brexit comes down to three things. They are a sense of sovereignty; a desire to control immigration and a wish to have control. To some extent they all amount to the same thing: a desire to ring-fence Britain.
The Brexit Party summarises this as a desire to control fishing, agriculture, law, taxes, finances, trade and defence. As far as I can see we have necessary agreements that are going to be replicated on fishing, agriculture, law, taxes, finance and trade and as far as I know defence has always been an issue where we have agreed to cooperate with NATO. So I still remain confused: none of these things are ever managed in isolation precisely because they cannot be and agreement with other nations is required.
So, and with respect to those who want to leave, I conclude this is not rational. The reality is that everything the EU does for us will have to be replicated in some way after we leave the EU, and we will have little, if any, chance of getting better terms than we have now. All we will be able to say then is that the worse terms we enjoy are our worse terms.
So the question is whether or not the Brexit Party is telling the truth - and at least it says something which is more than most - or whether there are other hidden agendas, such as the Singapore-on-Thames theme, which is all too easy to imagine from a Tory Party now dominated by those associated with Britannia Unchained, or something else?
And if there is something else is it really just an irrational desire to leave, inexplicable at any reasonable level and so not the basis for any rational policy platform once we have left, leaving the room open for all to project their wishes onto the resulting space with the prospect of more mayhem to follow?
It is this latter option I fear. I know there is so much to do now to tackle real issues in this country. The Green New Deal. Still failing services. The aftermath of austerity. Debt crises. Housing. And so much more. These are the issues we have to face. But where are any of these concerns now on the Leave agenda? And where will they be if in the aftermath of Leave, which I still think likely, we spend a decade having yet more arguments about what Leave means when no one knows, as is apparent?
These are not hypothetical concerns, They are the consequence of us living in a political sphere where the supposed benefits of Leave are wholly unknown and where it is inevitable that a fight as to the legacy of departure will begin the day that it happens.
To put it another way, I rather strongly suspect Leave is going to be the biggest political disappointment of all time because a lot of people want it and have no idea what it means. And that seems to me to be the most toxic of recipes for our future. The mess we're in now will look like a panacea compared to what might be to come. And that does not fill me with hope.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
And the uncertainty come from the very top!!!!
Very much doubt you will post this.
There are literally hundreds of reasons why people voted Leave. Your research is lacking if you could not find at least 1 reasonable explanation for voting Leave.
I Voted Leave for multiple reasons… But I can see some reasons why people wish to remain.
It appears Remainers are so Blinkered, they cannot fathom why someone may vote to Leave the EU… It’s also entertaining that remainers are forever calling “Leavers Idiots” Its like the school playground bully who can’t fight with reason, so resort to insults. I find it entertaining.
Maybe a better way to do it would be to explain why you want to remain so much… I would love some real reasons that do not involve “Leave cheated and lied” or “The experts say will will crash and burn”
The “experts” also said this when we rejected the motion to join the Euro…. just one rather big recent piece of proof, that the “experts” have a separate agenda. I wish I could get hold of some remainers and shake them until they see how much they are being conned by people with money that want to keep the status-QUO… I fear…. the country will be split for decades! Simply because Remainers cannot get over the fact they lost… That’s all it boils down too…
I want to Remain because
1) We will be better off
2) We can co-ordinate a Green New Deal
3) We preserve European peace
4) We have the most favourable trading relationships we can get
5) We have a voice in Europe, oehrwise denied
6) We are an investment rout into other EU nations
7) Our admin costs of regulation are minimised
8) We have freedom of movement for UK people but can still control our migration
9) We continue to share vast numbers of research and other programmes to which we otherwise have no access
10) The cost of all this is minimal
So. I’ve done ten
You did none
I can evidence all mine
Try doing the same
Your reasons seem to be opinion based , like I replied earlier you have obviously never spent more than a weekend in Brussels . Certainly Never during Strasbourg Bound week where even the prostitutes so adored by the blue plated Nerva every night . The truth is the treaty of Rome the CAP and Strasbourg doomed the idea . Reform that and yes it could Work but nobody can take the French on and the ‘family farm’ way of life the treaty of Rome enshrined forever, to be paid forever by the tax payers of Europe . As for green again Thursday afternoon and Fridays for
1st class flight between european cities . Your opinions are just that .
What on earth are you trying to say?
“What on earth are you trying to say?”
Fair does, Richard that’s about as coherent a statement of the reasons for leaving the EU you will ever hear. 🙂
Probably worth framing it for the office wall.
Chris,
You’ve just shown in your post exactly why some remainers refer to leavers as idiots!
Where are your multiple reasons?
Also I don’t remember any ‘experts’ suggesting we would ‘crash and burn’ if we rejected the Euro.
You say there are hundreds of reasons why people voted to leave, but in typical Brexiter fashion you don’t/ can’t name a single one.
Are you afraid you might appear stupid ?
“There are literally hundreds of reasons why people voted Leave. Your research is lacking if you could not find at least 1 reasonable explanation for voting Leave.
I Voted Leave for multiple reasons…”
Chris, could you please list them, together with the evidence leading you to believe them? I’d genuinely be interested.
In favour of remain, let me add a personal argument to the ones Richard listed. I am German and my parents grew up in the GDR. When they were young, living in Britain, or anywhere in the West, was utterly out of reach. One generation later, I was able to move to the UK, study, work and get married without so much as having to fill in an entry form. Germany and the UK being part of the EU has enriched my life and broadened my horizons. I want my children to have the same opportunities, no matter which country has printed their passport.
What benefit of leaving do you see outweighing the loss of that freedom?
Peter
To me that is massively important
And I too would like that list of ten from a Leaver
With enough hint of the source to be credible
Richard
“the country will be split for decades! Simply because Remainers cannot get over the fact they lost… That’s all it boils down too…” Your post is almost an apotheosis of what is causing this division: no attempt to answer the reasonable question Richard asked, a sneering tone, and above all this narrative of ‘you lost, get over it.’ That, more than anything else, has been the seedbed for the disaster that brexit has become for leavers as well as remainers. There’s constant talk about ‘the will of the people,’ often accompanied by adjectives like ‘overwhelming.’ Yet neither of those is true, and in that misrepresentative narration lies the whole world of dysfunction, distrust and hate in which we now reside.
Had the referendum been an opinion poll, any responsible pollster would have cautioned that the result was too close to be able to draw any firm conclusions. Now, let me be clear: this wasn’t a poll, it was a referendum, so even a close result is a winning one. But, the crucial point is that a brexit which reflected ‘the will of the people’ would be one which reflected the totality of that vote: i.e. a ‘soft’ brexit which kept many of the economic and social benefits whilst allowing us in time to spread our wings wider. This winner-takes-all fallacy and constant harping on about the 17.4M without mentioning the 16.1M is the very dictionary definition of divisiveness. And, as is being discovered, it is simply impossible to enact a brexit on those terms, although the attempt is coming close to breaking everything that both leavers and remainers would surely have cited as things that are great about this country – tolerance, parliamentary democracy, a robust and independent judiciary. You can complain about ‘remainer’ MPs ‘blocking’ it, but the truth is, they’re doing their best in pretty impossible circumstances to do exactly the job we elect them to do. If the brexit that was on offer had actually been a fair reflection of the people’s will, my belief is that it would have been a done deal by now.
Leavers have fundamentally misconceived the true nature of the referendum vote: that, more than anything else, is the cause of our current malaise.
(In assessing the true validity of the vote, I have deliberately left out the question of the illegality of the leave campaign’s practices, that needs another thread all of its own – but it doesn’t make the leave argument anything other than weaker.)
Thanks
Why I voted leave:
1. I am close to tears when I see the picture of two leaders of France and Germany, standing hand in hand in fron of a pair of coffins. The two leaders were Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany, formerly in the Eehrmacht, a moderate right wing politician, and Francois Mitterand, President of France, formerly of the French Resistance, and a socialist. These two, a Frenchman and a German, from opposite sides of the political divide, former enemies from the war, are holding hands before the two coffins, one holding the body of a German soldier, the other holding the body of a French soldier, both young men slain in the great slaughter at Verdun in the Great war. These two leaders were affirming their allegiance a final reconciliation between two nations formerly at war, to a sacred ideal, a determination that their two countries, and the other countries of Europe, should not ever again inundate the continent with the blood of their peoples. It is assuredly a moral duty to ensure that never again shall the nations of Europe seek to murder each other and edevastate their lands. Europe must be one. And Britain must be part of that sacred union. No man is an island etc.,
2. My wife is Irish. My father half French, half Italian. My mother half English, half Scots, my godmother Hungarian, my Great Aunt Flemish. During the war, when my mother went to work during the day, I was looked after by a German lady who fortunately had British nationality and had not been interned. I was educated at a state school in London that had every nationality from Europe and many from beyond in attendance. At school I learned of Galileo and Kepler, Newton and Darwin and Einstein, Beethoven, Elgar, Da Vinci, Durer, Turner, Constable, Picasso, Dickens, Shaakespeare, Chateaubriand, Moliere, Goethe, Dante…….and Joan of Arc, Emily Pankhurst, Madame Curie, George Elliot, Florence Nightingale, Artemesia di Gentilischi, these are all Europeans, torchbearers of European culture and civilisation, art, philosophy, Europeans all, and I have to identify with them………I am European. The French and Irish and Italians and Flemings. I refuse to accept that I belong to a country that divides itself from its fellow Europeans, and imagines that “over there” are aliens, foreigners, and I am not going to identify myself with the miserable minded philistine barbarians and nationalist bigots who are leading this hapless country into the wilderness without the destination of a promised land.
3. There are good economic reasons for voting remain m- I leave these to the politicians and economists for these are matters of the head; it was the heart that dictated my choice on the ballott paper.
“Remainers cannot get over the fact they lost… That’s all it boils down too…”.
The British Constitution has been misused by the Conservative Party to conflate the mere election of a transient Government with making a fundamental change to the Constitution. Losing a General Election provides a maximum of five years before the Government and all its works may be entirely overthrown by the electorate. Fundamental constituional change, like the EU Referendum, carried out on a narrow majority does not allow any prospect of change, for decades, generations – or a lifetime. A wafer-thin majority in the 2016 Referendum will deprive me of all my personal rights to freedom, including freedom of movement and of life throughout the EU. I am being deprived of profound personal rights on a tiny majority without hope of redress; and to add personal insult I am reminded: “you lost”, as if that is compensation for the permanent deprivation of fundamental personal rights: the Referendum wasn’t a football match.
The American Founding Fathers of the Constitution established the first post-imperial, post-British Constitution. They were careful to ensure they did not import this fundamental flaw into their constitutional arrangements. They realised that narrow majorities specifically in Constitutional matters leads to electoral dictatorship, and would destroy the new USA: that ‘you lost’ doesn’t cut it when the survival of not just a short-term Government is at stake, but individual personal rights within a Constitution. James Madison built in ‘checks and balances’; safeguards to protect individual and ‘states’ rights being controversially removed from the Constitution on small majorities.
It is precisely this dreadful failure to understand the deeper differences of Constitutional change from mere elective conventions, that ensures that Scotland will require to leave the British Union to protect the personal rights of the Scottish people from the oppressive application of British electoral dictatorship.
Chris, I find nothing wrong with your statement that people voted leave for hundreds of reasons. That’s not the point. The point is none of them are valid.
And Chris will not state them
Quoting you “I wish I could get hold of some remainers and shake them until they see how much they are being conned by people with money that want to keep the status-QUO”. The only reason there is political will for Brexit is money. The Leave campaign and the current Tories are bankrolled by hedge funds who staked enormous bets on us leaving on 31 October. You have the right conclusion, but you picked the wrong side. As the writer says, there are no good reasons for leaving. If you wish to punch yourself in the face in the name of idiocy, please do, just stay away from voting stations as your head is a pickle
Numerous polls have shown that the highest support for Brexit comes from within England. Why, might one ask, does ‘Take Back Control’ resonate so highly with so many people in England, specifically? Could it be the relative democratic desert that is England outside of the capital? England has the most centralised government in the G7 with Whitehall departments deciding the bulk of local government spending and subsequent Tory/coalition governments using austerity as an opportunity to severely limit and or withdraw from local governments what little powers they still retain.
With more than 10 years of central government neglect, is it any wonder that increasing numbers of English voters were angry and left feeling disenfranchised. That the architects of Brexit understood the sentiment of the country is obvious in the specific language the chose for their campaign. Taking back control is necessary. But it is from London, Westminster and Whitehall that control must be wrested. Whole scale democratic reform of the UK and specifically England is long overdue and could go a long way to reuniting a nation divided by a referendum.
Whatever happens regarding Brexit, if the problems facing democracy in England are not addressed, then the future of the Union is bleak at best.
http://www.epicenternetwork.eu/blog/on-regulation-and-centralisation-the-uks-record-is-no-better-than-the-eus/
http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/08/02/audit-2017-how-democratic-is-local-government-in-england/
I live in Europe and apart from the morbid fascination of watching England implode (and hoping for Scottish independence), I don’t care about brexit. However, Rob has a point. I lived in London for years and thought that was England, however a couple of years ago I had to spend 10 days working in someplace near Birmingham and I was shocked. It was broken and dirty. People would pawn their iphone until payday and then feed their kids Big Macs. No one understood different cultures, everyone lived for Friday night so they could get drunk and escape the grind for a few hours. It was horrendous and I was glad to get back on the plane. With Brexit they were basically offered a new Jerusalem and they will cling to that hope at all costs. It is irrational (IMHO) but with that vote they feel as if they have taken a stand. I pity them.
And Trump did the same promising to ‘ drain the swamp ‘ . Hillary called the people who voted for him ‘ deplorables ‘ , but she lost and he won , and Remain lost and Leave won and Remain think Leavers are deplorables , but like those same Trump voters they wanted to stick a whole fistful of
f..ks into the Establishment and someone offered them the opportunity to do so and they took it . It really isn’t hard to work this out . We who enjoy the fruits of our status, money , whatever, find it hard, if not impossible to get this.
And how angry are they going to be when they realise they have been sold a pup?
I keep asking to which questions is Brexit the answer?
Logic would dictate that we revoke – and then ‘prepare for Brexit’ – in about 25 years time.
http://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/time-to-realise-that-the-eu-doesnt-need-us
I cannot find an answer to your question
,,, by which time the EU may well have evolved out of all recognition. As, indeed, may we ourselves. This is one instance in which the generally abysmal practice of kicking awkward matters into the long grass seems to be the only appropriate course of action.
🙂
6 times 9 isn’t it?
Knitting together all the legion strands of this acrimonious debate, there is evidence of a gradual trend towards Remain, even if all the ‘undecided’ plump for Brexit – https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/#93494. While the world ‘poll’ appears to trigger the same emotional response as ‘expert’, they offer some qualified insight. Just as does the increased Tory lead of 13% over Labour. One makes of these observations what one will but it would be foolish to dismiss them out of hand, whatever one’s opinion.
In the event of an ERG inspired final exit – with the resultant decline in public services & threatened material prosperity against a continuing concentration of wealth and power (viz. implementation of the international Neo-liberal agenda) – at some point in the political cycle there will be a concerted public back-lash. At that stage one’s Brexit vote will be irrelevant. It’ll then be a more overt conflict between ‘Capital’ and societal well-being in its widest sense. And who knows how that will play out. Radical change tends to be generational. In terms of ‘Brexit’ it is clear that an overwhelming percentage of younger people would prefer to stay in the EU. That in itself will dramatically change the country’s political climate, unless by then they’ve all been totally brainwashed by the phoenix arising from the ashes of Cambridge Analytica. If that’s the case then there’s no hope. I have a lurking fear that Aldous Huxley was on the button.
Richard – I seriously admire your ability & energy to maintain the battle of ideas. It must be mentally & even physically exhausting. But, as either JRM or Johnson might say: ‘Illegitimi non carborundum’ 🙂
Thanks
And that was your 1,000th comment here
Good grief, is it really! Thank YOU for providing such an instructive, entertaining, interactive and open forum which is probably unique outside the Twitter-sphere. That’s enough sycophancy for one day. Barista – due caffè forti per favore.
Quite so
I am enjoying a coffee right now
1)The EU is a zone of comparative economic failure. Since 2000, its average GDP growth has been 1.6pc. This compares with 2.1pc for the United States and Canada, and 1.9pc for the UK. Meanwhile, excluding the UK, the EU’s average unemployment rate is 6.7pc, 3pc higher than the UK’s.
2) The EU’s most ambitious economic endeavour has been the formation of the euro. It has wrecked the economies of Southern Europe, with massive youth unemployment and is a major factor causing inequality across europe – not my words but those of Joseph Stiglitz. Supposedly, euro members must simply put up with it because it’s there and “breaking up would be hard to do”, or it can be radically improved through moves towards financial, fiscal and political union. Good luck with that…The EU’s economic track record will one day feature in history books as a case study of ineptitude and mismanagement.
3) Oh and …The UKs EU imposed immigration policy is racist – it forces the discrimination of europeans over people from the rest of the world.
4) Also..We currently hand £xxx’s million per week to the EU. We receive approximately half back in the form of a rebate (an amount that will fall over time), but the EU directs where that rebate is spent, and gets the credit in the form of advertising that identifies the funds as having come from the EU. The EU has no funds – it spends our money and then brags about its generosity. Surely we are better judges of how to spend our money?
5) There can be little doubt that the EU favours big business. EU rules on tax domiciles enable global corporations to select the most favourable jurisdiction and minimise tax, giving them an unfair competitive advantage against local small businesses. Recent ECJ judgments have upheld the principle that an employer’s right to do business trumps an employee’s right to strike. Paul Mason outlines the many ways in which the EU reveals itself to be no friend of the working person.
6) Go into any high street shop and see how many goods have been made in China, a country that does not have a trade deal with the EU. America also lacks a trade deal with the EU. How many US companies sell goods, products and services in the UK? As someone who has advised corporations all over the world, I know that it is business people, not the EU, who decide where and with whom to trade.
If i had the time there are many many more as i have said read Roger Bootle on the subject ….incidentally I VOTED REMAIN but get annoyed by the patronising tone of the remain rhetoric
1) Have you noticed that the EU absorbed some states suffering significant problems and 2) these were exacerbated by the global financial crisis? I agree re the euro. We are not in it. Nor are quite a number of states. You cannot equate the two. Comparing fundamentally different states makes little sense. Oh, and they are separate states. Just for the record.
3) No it’s not racist: it biases those from home states. So does the UK. Unless you’re arguing for completely open borders post Brexit your claim does not stack. Are you? Why? And with what expected consequence?
4) True, the south east of the UK is a major contributor to the EU, from which it has earned vast amounts as a euro clearer. Are you really saying you’ll ignore all the knock on effects? Why? Shouldn’t those who earn most pay most? If not, why not?
5) Sure, the ECJ created some issues. But the EU has also been the most effective opponent of tax abuse. And has promoted major improvements in worker rights. The situation is not black and white. Paul Mason makes that clear. I too can criticise it. I do the UK government. I don’t want to scrap the UK government as a result. Why do you want to scrap the EU? Why not change it instead? It’s clear change can happen
6) Sure, there is trade. But with impediments and you should know that. Do you want us to trade with those impediments and costs when we do not need to do so? Why? You must know it will impose costs. Why do you want them?
Why not write some substainable commentary? This stuff is A level fail grade. Sorry, but that’s not patronising, that’s fact
“This stuff is A level fail grade. Sorry, but that’s not patronising, that’s fact”….haha, I’m not disagreeing..maybe if i was a Professor like you i could write more coherently!..but what i would say on the couple of points i raised and you answered..
“it biases those from home states” …it is obvious many of the population don’t want this bias of “home states”
” True, the south east of the UK is a major contributor to the EU”…it is obvious many of the population want a UK Govt to decide where the money is spent (our NHS, Police etc etc)
The evidence is more people want to control migration that not. You do not have a case.
It is obvious that overall people prefer progressive taxes. That is what the EU is delivering.
As i have stated i voted to remain but am fed up with the patronising nature of many remainers..
The evidence is more people want to control migration that not. You do not have a case.
It is obvious that overall people prefer progressive taxes. That is what the EU is delivering.
You call this good logical argument. It isn’t…
There is a great deal of survey evidence to support both cases
This is usually how we know things
Tell me, how do you know otherwise?
“It is obvious that overall people prefer progressive taxes. That is what the EU is delivering.”
Yes the British public will pay higher taxes to fund better public services…BUT the majority of British public will not pay more tax to fund less prosperous member states, particularly when the their hardship to a large extent is caused by the Euro and subsequent German prosperity.
In fact why not circumvent things and just write a cheque to Germany just like the southern states are effectively doing… you say we are not part of the Euro (thank god we took that decision) but we are effectively paying for the economic mess it has created.
Tell me how much you think might be involved in £ and as a % of government spending?
Precisely?
And then consider how significant that is, please?
Hang about..
“There is a great deal of survey evidence to support both cases”
So You are claiming the British Public are happy to pay higher taxes to fund weaker member states
I claim they no not..you claim to have evidence of some survey to prove your point..I claim you do not because you are wrong.
I said they are happy with progressive taxes
I did not say anything else
Now please answer my questions – it’s very irritating to engage with people who ignore you
October 28 2019 at 11:43 am
“The EU is a zone of comparative economic failure. Since 2000, its average GDP growth has been 1.6pc. This compares with 2.1pc for the United States and Canada, and 1.9pc for the UK. ”
Econnomic growth is the enemy of the planet. If economic growth continues worldwide, there will be no hope of achieving carbon neutrality, and global warming will continue apace. If the EU has slower growth than the USA, China, the UK, and Canada, that means it has been less harmful to the planet and has increased its carbon emissions more slowly than the USA, China, the UK, and Canada.
I too am very curious about the reason why leavers wish to leave.
To add to the mix, three other refrains I have heard repeatedly by Leavers are:
The EU is corrupt. The UK plays by the rules. Other countries within the EU do not. Greece and Italy are commonly cited.
The EU is an expensive, inefficient, meddling and an unnecessary layer of bureacracy and it has spawned a self-seeking nomenklatura.
This one I quote: “I have nothing in common with the Greeks”.
The oddest of odd things about these responses is that they were given by people I like and respect as moderate, thoughtful, kind, a pleasure to be with. They all care about community. Another characteristic they share is that they are all middle-of-the-road folk who have their own small businesses. None of them have worked in the public sector. I should say I am not claiming that all such folk are in favour of leaving.
As I generally listen rather than respond, because I wish to understand, I had a sharp intake of breath and an inward laugh at the third of these responses. It keeps coming up!
These responses are not rational, they arise from values and I think the subtext is “we are virtuous”, “they lack virtue”, they do not play by the (our) book. At one level, understand it: “I work in a small business, I pay my taxes, I believe in a fair society, I believe in taking responsibility for myself.”
As you say, leaving will not make these feelings go away. On the contrary, they are more likely to intensify.
This BREXIT mess makes me weep.
As a matter f fact over 40% of all small businesses do not pay all their taxes: HMRC tax gap sourced statistic
So many of those people are bullshitting when making that claim
I have listed my reasons a 100 times. ( wish I had copy and pasted 😉
You cannot possibly evidence half of what you say…
You know why… because we have not left.
They are really good sound bites… but that’s all they are im afraid.
I have 1 point that simplifies it all… see if you can understand it… Democracy…
had 2 votes on it already and leave won twice… how many would you like? best of 10??? Explain why the 48% are more important than the 52%… and why you do not believe in democracy… please
Democracy is an ongoing process
t can never be fixed
If it was we’d still be bound by the results of, say, the 1832 election
So that argument is crass: the facts have changed and people need to vote again. And for the record, the fact that has changed is that we can no more easily leave the EU than we can the planet
As for my claims, of course I can evidence them. There will not be freedom of movement. We will be worse if, the additional costs prove it. And so on, and on, and on.
Now, deliver the 100, please. Or I will assume that like everyone else you can’t.
Chris,
I was already thinking of replying further up-thread, but now that you have responded down here, I’ll respond here. (I assume both Chrises saying roughly the same thing are the same Chris)
To the post above:
“Democracy… …had 2 votes on it already and leave won twice”
When was the second vote?
To other bits up thread, ignoring all the heat around remain/leave, remainers calling leavers idiots (I don’t think leave voters are idiots by the way, but I do believe many were ill informed):
Basing questions on an assumption that we are still to leave.
– Why do we have to leave in such a shambolic fashion?
– Do you believe we should leave at any cost (and the cost will be, and already has been, great)
– Why is it wrong to expect competence from the people “in charge” of leaving?
– What is your issue, if any, of delaying leaving until a proper description of how we leave has been agreed on, followed of course by a democratic yes or no to those terms?
I would still rather remain a member of the EU, but if a well reasoned and well executed leave was necessary I would accept it.
I will not, however, accept this current atrocity as “democracy”. (And I hope I am not forced to live through much more of it either)
Thanks
And they look like the same Chris to me….
Johan G raises some pertinent points in his post on the 28th at 2:05pm:
Why do we have to leave in such a shambolic fashion?
There is no justifiable reason why this should have happened: Brexit should always have been a UK National Project, but instead the Tories treated it as Conservative Party Project and shut out all input from opposition parties and devolved governments. They then compounded this by failing to apply the basic, widely-used principles of Project Management. If they had, there would have been a Risk Register, which would have made for very interesting reading, and there would have been coherent Project Plans at top level and detailed topic plans which would have been reflected in the top level plan.
There’s nothing esoteric or revolutionary about any of this: the UK has no shortage of highly experienced Project Managers and it would be instructive to know how many were employed by the Tories on Brexit. It’s certainly instructive to consider just how chaotic the management of Brexit has been (contracts for No Deal shipping awarded, then cancelled, then awarded again — although this time to companies which actually have ships — and now potentially cancelled again) and the needless and massive associated costs.
Why is it wrong to expect competence from the people “in charge” of leaving?
The people in charge of Brexit are all highly-paid Ministers and their advisers, so the very least anyone should expect of them is knowledge and understanding of their areas of responsibility and the necessary level of competence to carry out their duties. But just look at what has happened: Raab unaware of the critical importance of the Calais — Dover crossing, Grayling and his non-existent ships, Davis utterly unprepared for important negotiations, the general inability of UK ministers to communicate a clear indication of UK’s proposals for a deal, May arriving for a high-level meeting without having cleared her proposals re the Irish Backstop with the DUP and having to beat a hasty retreat. The list goes on and on and simply illustrates that Project Management wasn’t involved.
Brexit raises massive doubts about Tory governance and competence and, when we look back to pre-Brexit times, these doubts simply multiply: can they ever again claim to be the party of business when their leader shows disdain (“f*ck business”) and their policies over a 30-year period have reduced the diversity of British industry, destroyed jobs and workers’ rights? Add in the effects of Brexit uncertainty (large-scale emigration of British businesses) plus the economic damage still to come once Brexit bites and any claim to be the party of business is risible.
They also claim to be the only party which can successfully manage the economy, but just consider 10 years of unnecessary austerity and the damage to jobs, lives, public services of all kinds that it brought. Going back before the 2016 referendum, it was the Tories’ deregulation of the City which contributed massively to the scale of the UK’s financial meltdown in the GFC of 2008. Instead of investing to regenerate economic activity, they became blinded by their ideology and set out to shrink the state. It’s as though John Maynard Keynes had never existed!
Given all this, why would anyone vote Tory?
Why, indeed?
One of the things that puzzles me is this oft-repeated fairy tale that, if only we were free of the EU, all would be rosy and we could decide for ourselves where to ‘spend our taxes’ (I’m not even going to get into the wrongness of that concept…!) Now, I’m certainly not blind to the faults of the EU, it’s tendency towards neoliberalism and damage to the cause of equality across its area, etc. But the idea that, free of the EU, we would do better on our own, just flies in the face of absolutely manifest evidence: there are so many aspects of British life on which the EU had no influence, such as social welfare, which show unarguably that we are natively far LESS likely to promote equality or social justice. The EU, for all its faults, has acted as a balancing force against our own destructive tendencies.
And it costs just over 1% of our taxes, at most
same chris. nite time where I am… so tad tired. 🙂
referendum and the following election where both promised to uphold the result.
Why is there so much fear? we can leave with no deal… There was a time before the e.u… they want to trade with us… a trade deal will be done. can you not see it is remainers fear driving the the e.u to play hard ball on a deal! I doubt remainers have had much business dealing in there lives… you cannot say… we want this… but we will accept whatever you offer because we are scared of no deal… can you at least get that this weakens the leave strategy?
The campaigns were clear on both sides… ridiculous scare mongering from remain (uk will collapse on just the vote, let alone actually leaving 2 years later) and leave campaign exaggerated…. but that’s what politics is… same shit happens every election.
Not sure who can’t use Google above… but same experts said pound would fail if we did not take up the euro. it’s a fact. If you still cant be arsed to find an example i will tomoro.
The UK wants this shit show over with. democratically leave… then you lot can campaign to rejoin later. If your so sure it will fail… let it… the truth is the establishment have you all scared of your own shadows and will have you under their thumb for the rest of your lives. I feel pity for the left.
This is quite bizarre
Every single major business organisation, all unions and just about every economic adviser prefers Remain but you claim none have business experience.
For the record, I have, a lot
And it’s certainly a powerful argument to stay
No one says there will be no trade but the impediments are high
Only businesses trading almost solely in the UK seem to think otherwise e.g. Timpsons
Sorry, but your claim is absurd
*sigh*
Hi Chris,
Thanks for clarifying that you are indeed both Chrises. You haven’t actually answered any of the questions I asked, but ok.
“referendum and the following election where both promised to uphold the result.” No. If anything, the 2017 election reduced the governing party’s mandate. I know the other side of the argument is that Labour also said that they would enact leave. I’m not convinced 2017 can stand as the proxy you claim it is, but I’m happy to agree to disagree on this point for now.
“why so much fear?” – I’m not writing with fear. More with anger at the extreme clusterfuckery of the Torys since 2016. So:
“we can leave with no deal” – yeah, kind of. It’s a bit of a meaningless statement as some form of deal will have to be negotiated at some point. The issue as I see it is that BJ and pals are doing everything they can to side-step some very important obligations. The deal bit we’re on now is basically (as I understand) to ensure that those obligations are upheld. In that regard, we most certainly CAN’T leave without a deal. Do you remember the troubles? I had an inkling of how bad they were, even just as a kid in the north west on the mainland. I do not want them to return and anyone who doesn’t understand that and thinks that NI can (or should) be discarded as Johnson et al are trying to do really needs to do some learning. I’ll probably be accused of being a “scared remainiac”, but no. This is too big. The damage, if the troubles return, will be too great.
“they want to trade with us… a trade deal will be done” – yes, no doubt a deal will be done. But I doubt it will be favourable for the UK (I’m more than happy to be proven wrong, but I am sceptical). On this theme, why not remain in the CU and SM? I don’t understand the obsession with leaving, but hey-ho. In fact, one of my close relatives who voted leave basically voted to take us back to SM&CU without the side bits. Where’s their representation? Hold on, SM&CU sounds familiar…
“The campaigns were clear on both sides”. Not how I remember it. Not at all, but I don’t want to get dragged into the interminable “he said, she said”
“There was a time before the e.u” – yes, and there was a time before Christ, but to ignore the existence of Christians wouldn’t have gotten you very far for the past 2000 years. There seems to be a common theme, that if we leave the EU we just go back to *how it was*. But the world has moved on. The EU exists for better or worse, and to leave in such a disorganised fashion can only *only* make the UK relatively poorer, not only with respect to ourselves now, but with respects to everyone around us.
“democratically leave” – I literally just outlined how to do this.
On experts and poor predictions, it’s going to happen. I accept that both sides used hyperbole before the referendum. Then again, maybe we can have a look at what is happening right now, such as scientific funding and collaborations being stripped from the UK at unprecedented rates. I’m sure this will be dismissed with a casual wave of the hand as well, but IT’S HAPPENING NOW!
Apologies for the extended, ranting and sometime sarcy answer, but the response to my questions was the same brick wall I, and I assume many others, feel as though I’ve been banging my head on for the past 2 and a half years.
Even when the question is asked – ok, we concede to leaving, but can we at least do it well? the answer is invariably “stop complaining, stop being so scared, we should just pull together”
Thanks
The UK electorate in December 2016 was 45,766,000
17,410,742 voted leave (38.04%)
16,141,241 voted remain (35.26%)
33,551,983 voted but 12,214,017 didn’t
Two statements can be made on the basis of this evidence
There was no ‘overwhelming’ majority of the electorate for ANY position.
Neither side can claim to know the minds of those who did not vote.
The Brexiteers are saying that only the votes of the leave campaign vote count. 38% of the electorate are demanding that 100% of their wishes are fulfilled and that 62% of the electorate require no consideration for any part of their concerns ie no deal brexit. Given that we now have a PM put into office by less than 100,000 people. A PM who is a stranger to truth. Add to that leaked documents indicate preparations to reduce workers rights and that only a minimal impact assessment has been grudgingly released. Or that similar downgrading awaits climate change initiatives. I for one cannot see any concern for the welfare of my children and grandchildren. It has created in my mind a level of suspicion and distrust that I believe will colour my political judgements for what remains of my time here. We are being launched into a policy that meets the ambitions of very few, it has no return – any attempt to rejoin the EU at a later date will be under Article 49 which is a much different animal.
Get the deal done and move on to heal the divisions. What a load of bovine excrement they have no intention of healing anything. This is an exercise to reset the political clock to the 18th century when the right kind of people ran things.
I think that the notions that drive Leavers are really just simple headlines ‘ Taking back control’ for example. I’m not sure many venture much further than that.
Fulfilling that headline remains the goal of most Leavers. Leaving is the answer that they have settled for. By leaving, their worries will melt away. Leaving is the only answer. It is a form of fundamentalism. If anyone – even judges – get in the way and the headline tells them the judiciary are ‘the enemy of the people’ then that message appeals unquestioningly.
I suppose in any society, there is a group of people who respond well to being manipulated – who find fascism attractive – who can be programmed. You might also say the same of the Left – even those of us who count ourselves as well-informed and pragmatic humanists have met hot blooded Marxists who are no better than Tories who misquote Adam Smith.
But that is all I see in discussion with most Leavers. They behave like robots or those unblinking victims you see in sci-fi movies – they just repeat what they have read as if they have been hypnotised.
Sometimes you can make an impact though.
I have a Leave voting boss. As bosses go, he’s good company, great to work for, his heart is in the right place (he promotes apprenticeships but also pays well above minimum wage for the skilled men he employs). So, although he is a leave voter he is still a human being and a rather decent one. He is also the chair of a regional supply chain partnership.
The supply chain partnership is basically a partnership that helps to bring down the cost of procurement so that members (who buy the same products from the same groupings of companies in the partnership) can benefit from the economies of scale.
We had a discussion about Europe and I made the case that the Euro trading zone was not too dissimilar to the procurement partnership he chaired and promoted. By the end of the discussion he conceded that I had a point and although he was still a Leaver he felt that we should still be part of the single market and many of the trade links that we had should be retained as much as possible. He moved from hard to a softer BREXIT.
This has been one of the few proper conversations I have had about BREXIT with a Leaver. Mostly I’ve been shouted at, told to ‘go and get cancer’, told that I am just spouting ‘Left wing bias’ or have have been left with a stony silence after a few home truths have been gently delivered.
I know that the EU is not perfect – but neither is our own politics or economics which is actually in line with many member states of the EU.
Larry Elliott recently did a piece where he tried to set the record straight about the EU and workers rights and he was right to do so. To those who see the EU as captured by Neo-liberalism, Elliott’s article was a gift.
But hear this: the direction that Johnson and the ERG wish to take us is even more market fundamentalist, more extreme than any EU Neo-liberalist tendency.
It is fitting to note that too many Leavers do not seem able to consider this; and they won’t because the simple act of leaving is enough for too many of them.
Leaving solves everything apparently. Except of course, that it doesn’t.
To the last, precisely
Thank you.
PSR, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment (for once), there is no reasoning.
I have a family member who supports Brexit, and the agitation and unreasoning repetition of headline sound bites left me utterly bemused when I brought up the subject, but on any other subject he can still engage normally (a fairly robust debate, but without agitation or news headlines). If he just said that it would benefit him because it would be easier to dodge taxes, then fair enough, that’s a personal goal that might be fulfilled – but the Soundbite bollocks is total delusion.
I think of it as a type of radicalisation, and it’s just not fair on people. Insecurities are being exploited. I fear for their mental health. If you feel anger at someone challenging your opinion, there is something very wrong.
If you listen to the supposed reasons for brexit, I conclude what Leaver’s actually want is political reform in the UK, but that’s not what brexit will give them. The stability of being in the EU would allow us space to undergo real political reform. If all sides became aware this was the most desirable outcome for everyone – it is political reform (but not into a dictatorship, I mean proportional representation, GND etc) that would resolve most complaints people have – then there would no longer be the big divide. It’s the ‘becoming aware’ part that’s the biggest hurdle, and is unlikely to happen, sadly.
The anger when Leave delivers them nothing – and the Leavers even realise that we then have to negotiate with the EU – will know no limits
The conned person is very angry
Much obliged Contrary.
Aye Richard, they will be angry, but because of the lack of awareness, I doubt there will be any admission of having been conned. The anger will be whipped up by government/state and will be aimed at perceived people that thwart their intentions, as they are doing already, it’s kind of how they’ve always done it. Note the number of times you hear ‘civil unrest’, it rears its head on a regular basis, and the only people contemplating it is the government and media – to induce fear in the population (fear is good for easy manipulation), and foment agitation.
The state (I use that term to include all parts of government, including royalty etc) has long used these type of techniques – I think plantation has been used in all countries conquered or colonised, where other peoples are moved wholesale to an area needing subdued so resentment is then aimed at them instead of the ruling classes. Distraction. That the English state is using it on its own people is pretty horrific.
To get seemingly off-topic, I remember a few years ago there was maybe a poll or something, it was in the news anyway, that there was an identity crisis in England – I was a bit bemused by this, I don’t think any other part of the UK has the same – but after consideration and a bit of reading, I realised that for a while, the media and government had been pushing the idea of being ‘British’ more than they needed – and now I find that English people quite often avoid saying English or England, but use British and UK to replace them. I think the confusion of terms makes for confusion of culture, and causes dissatisfaction, and it’s why I get irritated at incorrect use, I am not being pedantic for its own sake, I am trying to make English people aware they are eroding their own cultural identity by mixing and matching the terms. This is something that has contributed to the insecurities that have been exploited in Leave voters to my mind.
“There was a time before the e.u…”
and the world was very different then. In the globalised world of today, sovereignty is the currency with which you buy international trade. Being part of the largest trading block on earth meant we were part of an organisation that could drive hard, hard bargains: as a smallish country with a deeply unbalanced economy, poor balance of trade, and deteriorated manufacturing, who will be just desperate to replace the peerless deals we had, our negotiating strength can best be summarised as ‘bend over and assume the position…’
“they want to trade with us…” but even those businesses which trade most with us, say unequivocally that the benefits of the single market outweigh those of the lost trade with us. Why do leavers so consistently ignore this consistent message?
Exceptionally hard to answer the last unless they have no business experience
I suspect many have none at all
Professor a great cogitation! I missed the previous post for familial reasons and Rugby WC over the weekend. My views below may have been stated but since we are all contributing please see if you find anything worthy in the following – sorry it is long. I’ll try not to repeat my previous posts.
You write:
‘Brexit comes down to three things. They are a sense of sovereignty; a desire to control immigration and a wish to have control. To some extent they all amount to the same thing: a desire to ring-fence Britain.’
That is true but I suggest they are still ‘proximate’ reasons.
The ultimate reason why people had a smorgasbord of proximate reasons is very simply, AUSTERITY.
(I see that you pointed that out in the previous piece.)
A politically imposed unnecessary austerity for longer than WW2. Which people reasonably accepted because of the great financial crash.
Then the people were told that their sacrifice was not resulting in a restoration of their finances because their share of the ‘pie’ was smaller because of the villainous EU.
———
This is what I thought and posted in November 2016 on the Guardian in an conversation with a Leave voter – 3 years ago:
‘From before the referendum, my position was – I don’t mind how people vote as long as they vote.
Because whichever way it goes they shouldn’t be left wondering if they should have.
I encouraged all in my sphere to register, to engage in debate and make up their own minds and get into that voting booth.
It didn’t matter to me if they voted In/Out/or drew a cock!
Although if asked my opinion I would give it.
My main concern was and still is to get an increased level of political engagement in this country as there once used to be, you understand?
And if there is one thing the referendum succeeded in for the population as a whole, it was the high levels of registration and the nearly as high levels of turnout.
If all who registered had turned out it could have been a ridiculous dead heat with just a few thousand deciding one way or the other.
It was so close as it was, to say 50/50.
I don’t think leavers are stupid/ignorant/uneducated/racist/xenophobes.
I don’t think remainers considered the havoc caused by austerity in many communities.
I believe most made a considered or heartfelt decision.
I do think there was lots of media misinformation and some outright lies on the leave side – especially in conflating EU immigration with all immigration that’s ever happened.
I think the remain side took it for granted people would see through that.
I do know that it split families, couples, friends and relatives in 50/50 too. With a lot of them engaging in a vote for the first time or for a long time in their lives!
A total success for democracy in my book. Because the only thing that matters is that people realise their vote will count.
I’m also happy we are having this conversation – because this story is not about the EU (which actually gives us more protection in then out!) it’s about the NHS and socialist values – Free education and decent affordable housing and utilities – It’s about making sure we have a choice of voting for a socialist govt (butt out Blair and rebel PLP) and making sure there is the same high level of registration and turnout or more at the General Election.
Then we can make real history and set an example for the socialist cause across Europe an
——-
That was three years ago! Since then, I have discerned that in addition to Austerity, fail safes were put in place to ‘get’ the result of the referendum, in addition to the illegal targeting of voters via social media. Indeed the exact close result, so that it would not look suspicious.
I believe there was ‘ballot box stuffing’.
I believe the vector was Postal Votes.
Here is a graph showing the number of PVs this century – note the steep rise.
https://blogsmedia.lse.ac.uk/blogs.dir/8/files/2019/03/josh1.png
‘Overall, 86% of the 8.5 million postal ballots issued during the EU referendum were counted in the final vote.’
https://fullfact.org/europe/missing-eu-referendum-votes/
8.5 MILLION postal votes were sent out !
A million were not RETURNED.
I haven’t been able to get the data sets for specific count areas via the Electoral Commission site to dig to the granular level. If anyone can direct me to these I may be able to prove or disprove my conjecture.
——–
Finally just incase you haven’t come across this and your interest in Jersey, the arguments for membership of the then EC for the Channel Islands were pretty comprehensive and may elicit deja vu! Enjoy.
https://www.jerseylaw.je/publications/jglr/Pages/JLR1310_Johnson.aspx
Thanks DG
A better question would be what changes anybody would make to the EU if they had the chance.
Its an imperfect institution that convenience should keep us a part of. One cannot deny that separatists are growing throughout the continent though!
I think that’s a good idea
Your starter?
I would create a new system of democracy and possibly evolve the national veto to a direct democracy style platform.
It really would create gammon right across nation states if the people saw the national interest differently all the time.
Thanks
“….what changes anybody would make to the EU if they had the chance.”
I know what I’d like to see. I’d like to see an EU that England could sign-up to rather than want to leave.
It would be a union in which there were sufficient commonly accepted basic standards to facilitate trade across the whole region, support the principle that all individuals were entitled to the same legal protection (respect for human rights) and in so far as possible free movement of people to live where they choose and are able to make a decent life for themselves and their families. It would certainly not be all the same – it would support and encourage a wide diversity of the disparate cultural traditions of the peoples who make up the nation states, but without them becoming fixed in aspic as museums. (unless that is what a particular nation wished to become – there have been periods when it has been flippantly suggested that the UK is turning into a museum of the industrial revolution :-)).
Within the right framework, Scotland would be an independent nation, so probably, would Catalonia, the Basque Country (?), Bavaria (?), and other German regions too perhaps; there are separatist movements and sentiments across much of the EU and within an over arching ‘umbrella’ of commonality I see no good reason why many should not enjoy the freedom to be largely self governing. But the framework has to be right to allow it to happen. Obviously we haven’t got it nearly right yet.
We are social animals living (most of us) in large settlements, but we do not live in huge barns and hangars we live in our separate houses and small family groups within those settlements and have commonly accepted standards for how we behave when we go outside this personal space into the street.
I see no good reason why the EU should not reflect that pattern of society on a macro scale. I do not go into my neighbour’s house and re-arrange the furniture, and I expect the same courtesy from my neighbour, but we have a common interest in not heaping our garbage in the front garden.
I know that’s very simplistic and idealistic, but really that’s how most of us live and it would be …..(?) ‘nice’ to live in an EU that reflects that fairly widespread desire of individuals and ‘tribes’ to be as free as is consistent with other people’s freedoms.
We’d have to become better at spotting psychopathic, and sociopathic individuals and learning how to keep their impulses in check and dissuade them from pursuing political ambitions.
I rather like that
Transparency. This page is old but there are some good ideas here:
https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2016/03/24/transparency-in-europe-now-signshare-the-petition-today/
As a postscript, perhaps I should add that I realise there are no specific policy suggestions in the above, but I make no apology for that. If we could agree on some set of underlying principles that set out of a vision of where we intend to get to – what sort of EU we wish to create – it would make achieving it more likely.
Rather like Brexit, the EU cannot be all things to all people it needs a common vision to bind it or we work against each other and that will inevitably be destructive.
I totally endorse Andy’s suggestions. There urgently needs to be a new vision for the EU with a workable, democratic structure that member states can buy into without sacrificing their regional identities and local democratic control.
Not for the first time I recommend revisiting E F Schumacher’s ‘Small is Beautiful’ and ‘The Breakdown of Nations’ by Leopold Kohr. While both these progressive economists would undoubtedly be highly critical of the current EU set-up (especially the Euro) I see no logical reasons why their concept of smaller states could not be part of a wider union in order to better deal with the current & anticipated global challenges.
I also accept this is an oversimplification of what would require complex and radical changes but, as Andy proposes, it could be a realisable vision for the future – a ‘blueprint for survival’. Now where have I heard that phrase before!
PS: I’m surprised the UK Green Party hasn’t been more pro-active in developing such ideas – or have I missed something?
I am not aware of you missing anything
Can a leave voter tell me exactly what they have won?
Or, what did they think the prize to be won is/was?
With actual evidence to back it up.
I’ve been asking this question since before the referendum. I’ve yet to receive a reply.
Join the club….
In Leavers’ nostalgia for the past, they forget (if they ever knew) that Britain was then referred to as the ‘Sick man of Europe’.
I note that the Economist sees the UK ending up back there if it leaves
https://www.economist.com/buttonwoods-notebook/2017/07/19/britain-back-to-being-the-sick-man-of-europe
[…] it is. Brexit is not about anything per se, unless, that is, it is about 'getting it done'. As my recent enquiries have shown, no one really knows why they want Brexit. What they know is what they do and do not […]