6 ms·

As an English European, this is the biggest defeat of my political life

28 points by mercer 10y ago

nabla9 10y ago
It's political defeat, sure. Otherwice I don't see how anything changes. Britain gets similar deal as Norway has. Not in a EU, but member of EEA (European Economic Area ) and EFTA (European Free Trade Association). There will be free travel, Britain will still pay for EU. Britain can even be participatory member in many EU institutions. The only difference is that Britain has no vote. Since Britain has always been the one to rebel against and drag it's feet in EU, this might actually speed up decision making in EU.
- dc2447 10y ago
  It's very dangerous to assume the UK will get the same sort of deal as Norway. Norway has some unique cultural and exononomic attributes that are very different from the UK. Whilst it is in the interest of the EU to have a trade agreement with UK, the UK does not have a strong negotiating position. Why would EU member states do anything to help a country that is destabilising the entire EU project.
  - achamayou 10y ago
    Britain is quite unlikely to keep their rebate if they go this route, so they'll end up spending more on the EU than they currently do.
    - Aeolos 10y ago
      The UK was paying 0.3% of their budget for control of 9% of the European Parliament. Following the Norway model, they will keep paying a similar amount of money but control 0% of the parliament. Excellent choice, my dear Britons, excellent choice.
      - NetTechM 10y ago
        Hardly a majority at 9% though, in most cases 9% is just as good as 0%. lol
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    Because we're stronger together, that's why it's in the interest of the EU to keep the UK in its area of influence.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      EU influence is precisely what has just been voted out. Presumably the EU has to offer sweeteners to keep the UK close.
      - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
        > EU influence is precisely what has just been voted out. I said "it's in the interest of the EU to keep the UK in its area of influence." and I don't remember the EU voting to kick out the UK, but quite the other way around. The EU will work towards keeping the UK close and rebuilding any lost synergies. The problem (for the UK mainly) is that they won't do it at any cost. That means no sweeteners at all. The UK can take it or leave it, but they will not be getting anything better than what they had - and they will keep all the obligations they had (free movement of people and other regulations they wanted to "take back"). Unfortunately that might just grow UKIPs electoral base as they'll feel legitimized to keep blaming the EU for any UK issues. This is what happens when you (Thatcher - if you don't know her just remember she was Pinochet's friend) create a non-working class with nothing to lose that lives out of benefits and then you proceed to destroy state education - you initially get them to vote you in exchange of your charity, until they feel entitled to charity and someone really populist comes around and channels their anger "because you threaten to reduce benefits or the immigrants are taking them... and their jobs, which hasn't existed since the 80s". The UK is dangerously steering towards a fascist state and the only way to stop it is to improve education, which no recent government has been taking seriously. Note: In case someone is looking for a flamewar, I'm not saying everyone that voted Leave falls into the demographic described above, but it is a very important demographic inside the UK and especially in North England, Wales and other impoverished areas.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        I follow you until here: > Unfortunately that might just grow UKIPs electoral base as they'll feel legitimized to keep blaming the EU for any UK issues. How would the UKIP be blaming the EU once the UK is out? Whatever the deal the EU offers, good or bad, it's a deal which will be accepted by the UK, a sovereign state. It will not be imposed. Hard to see how they can blame the EU for defending their interests, since I assume the UK will be doing the same. The only possible explanation here is that the EU is able to force the UK to accept a "bad deal". But that directly contradicts the UKIP narrative, that "the UK is a strong nation, and all regions around the world will be ready to sign deals with it".
  - nabla9 10y ago
    >Why would EU member states do anything to help a country that is destabilising the entire EU project. It's not help. It's for the benefit of everyone. The whole point of EU is that it's not zero-sum game. Britain's negotiation position is weakened, but other EU countries want to get access into British markets just as much as Brits want to get into EU markets.
    - random_upvoter 10y ago
      > Britain's negotiation position is weakened The EU isn't in the greatest shape either. In the past, it was always Britain vs. Germany and France because Britain was the problem child. As from now, Britain has more possibilities to align closer to Germany OR France -- which may possibly divide the partners, especially because German-French relations have been strained in recent years. The time of Mitterand and Kohl holding hands like lovers has gone.
      - nabla9 10y ago
        >Britain has more possibilities to align closer to Germany OR France This does not make any sense to me. Does anyone else think that way? I think you are just freely fantasizing.
        random_upvoter 10y ago
        I'm just skeptical about this supposition that a firmly united Europe is going to wipe the floor with the UK. This is not some 5 million people nation that you're going to boss around a bit. The UK has one of the longest running systems of government in the world with a diplomatic tradition going back to the power games of 19th century Europe. It has strong ties to the Commonwealth and the United States. While negotiating with the EU it only needs to look after its own interests. Opposite the UK stands the EU consisting of 27 nations, all with their own interests, many of which have to deal with their own eurosceptics at home. There's been mounting discontent about the domineering role of Germany. I believe that things may become very interesting.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
- tallanvor 10y ago
  I'd be very cautious in assuming this. I suspect that Germany and France in particular are going to try to figure out how to make sure the UK gets a deal that will make other countries think twice from leaving again. That's assuming that this actually happens, of course. David Cameron showed that, at the end of the day, he wasn't actually willing to invoke Article 50, and even Boris Johnson seems to be waffling now. And even if the UK does get the same deal as Norway, that means they'll have to abide by EU policies and regulations, but they won't get a vote in the matter - that's not going to be very palatable to the UK.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    Norway and the other EEA members only need apply trade-related EU regulations. More importantly they control their own external relations.
- santialbo 10y ago
  It's quite optimistic to think UK will become a EEA member like Norway. The EU is pissed at the UK right now and will not make it easy for them.
  - nabla9 10y ago
    >The EU is pissed at the UK right now and will not make it easy for them. There are attempts to anthropomorphize the situation to sell the news. There is no indication whatsoever that this narrative is true. In the end it's just another negotiation to get things going. Interests and offerings determine the positions. Working together gets UK and EU into where they both want and expands the pie.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      And one important factor - an “interest“ if you will - is to make cristal clear what are the beneffits of EU membership. So, if “trade with UK“ has weight 10, and “survival of EU“ has weight 1000 (the exact numbers will vary), you have quite an interesting point for your negotiations to start.
      - nabla9 10y ago
        Collapse of EU would be disaster for everyone. If UK suffers -900 and Germany -1100 there is nothing to bargain. Close trade ties with EU are net win for both sides. 70% of British parliament and even bigger percentage of those who are negotiating deal with EU voted against Brexit.
        gonvaled 10y ago
        A sweet deal for the UK is automatic EU collapse. So that's out of the table. A clean deal with the UK, which means tabula rasa, out of the EU and then a deal on equal footing, is the only acceptable deal. That could mean indeed a deal as Norway has, with the same rights and obligations. But I would argue that this is worse than what the UK had up to now. But what I was essentially arguing with my comment is this comment of yours: > There are attempts to anthropomorphize the situation to sell the news It is a matter of being "pissed off", in the sense that this has a big weight in the negotiations: the EU needs to make clear that there is no free lunch.
- zelos 10y ago
  There are going to be a lot of unhappy Leave voters if that happens, though. The main thrust of the Leave campaign seemed to be about immigration and controlling our borders.
jbb555 10y ago
Another butthurt guardian bad loser thinking that people voted "wrong".
- mtmail 10y ago
  "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
- rbanffy 10y ago
  It's the youth who voted against it that will bear the burden for longer. I am yet to hear a well reasoned argument for leaving the EU and what desirable consequences it may bring.
  - sremani 10y ago
    This is very troubling for me, esp. this narrative. Most young people did not give a damn, and those who voted, voted for IN. But what is expected in a democracy? only the Young vote counts. The IN crowd is acting like sore losers, and obviously in their frustration are attacking democracy and its founding principles.
  - hbogert 10y ago
    You talk of that youth aged 18-24y who voted remain 75%. Well you should know, that same youth did not show up as well as the other groups did. Less than 40% percent showed up. It's kind of funny, because if this group would've just shown up like the rest, it would've easily been a remain outcome.
    - random_upvoter 10y ago
      One can wonder whether their remain vote is really wiser if they're not even wise enough to show up.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      It's much easier to mobilize people against something than it is to mobilize for something. A low turnout for the "remain" side was to be expected and makes the 75% all the more impressive.
rbanffy 10y ago
Among those who voted for leaving there must be someone able to articulate a valid and reasonable justification for that vote. I'm genuinely curious to hear that.
- ghayes 10y ago
  Not a Brit, but for one, it means Britian can control influx of immigrants and refugees. I'm sure that played into many people's votes.
  - Aeolos 10y ago
    Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market. The refugee situation is unlikely to change from the current status quo. Britain is already hosting fewer refugees than almost any other country in central or southern Europe.
    - internaut 10y ago
      > Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market. That's what is going to change. That is the primary motive for exit. Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are probably right in my view. Thinking otherwise is like believing that other people are able to move into your house without asking but you know, it's 'your' house on paper. That's something only an intellectual of the worse kind could believe.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > That's what is going to change. It will? Enlighten me, how will this take place? > That is the primary motive for exit. No, that was the primary motive for voters to vote for 'exit', unfortunately that is also the one thing that most likely will remain just as it is today. What will change is that the UK (or England, or whatever will be left of it) will be further marginalized, both on the European and the world stage. > Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are probably right in my view. Sad.
user_rob 10y ago
The EU is in a massive panic and stands to loose a lot more than the UK in money and structure than the UK if exit negotiations go badly. Therefore the UK is in a much stronger position and should just patiently refuse all proposals that involve paying the EU or allowing free movement; the EU will then need to agree quickly to stop the EU descending into chaos.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Not so fast. The EU has already accepted that the UK is gone. They are pressuring for negotiations to start, and refusing to do any kind of informal negotiation. It does not look like they are afraid of negotiating at all, which suggests they have a good position. The UK, on the other hand, ... I don't even know what the UK is doing. Are they even going to follow through? My impression is that the UK is going to drag its feet for years to come and not activate article 50 in a long time, until your internal political climate either forces a new referendum or general elections [1]: > Some, however, have warned Britain “may never” trigger the formal divorce process because the tight deadline for talks puts the leaver in a weak position. “I personally believe they will never notify,” one diplomat said. “The moment you push the button you’re in a stupid negotiating position.” In the meantime, the UK's role in the EU has been permanently damaged, and some important decisions are being taken [2]: > As shockwaves from the Brexit vote continued to spread, EU officials also said on Sunday the bloc was preparing to move its European Banking Authority from London, setting up a race led by Paris and Frankfurt to host the regulator. [1], [2] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders-crunch-talks-brexit-fallout http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leade...
  - user_rob 10y ago
    Interesting, but wanting a fast negotiation is a result of panic and the prospect of an economic downturn for the EU. Germany does not want a weak pound as it will badly hit their exports to the UK. The EU's best strategy is to quickly agree to free trade after Brexit and then re-structure the EU so that other countries don't quit. Alternatively non-EU European countries like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland etc could conceivably set up a more practical alternative trading union. In any event the currency and stock trading frenzy is over the top and mainly fuelled by the hyper-reality presented by the media, as in the end it is still likely that not much will change economically short or long term - for the UK! The UK will take its time - and it should - it will take time for the major European countries to understand their and the EU's fundamental ineffectiveness in solving major problems.
nojvek 10y ago
As an outsider trying to summarize the pros and cons: Remain: Pros: Free trade with Eu, cheap flights, move around Europe for jobs. Cons: no control on immigration, cheap labor stealing jobs, shitty eu rules. Leave: Pros: Control over pound. Control on immigration. Control on governance. Cons: taxes on eu trade, can't move freely for jobs. But the Uk was kind of special. They didn't have the euro. They weren't part of schengen zone. Apart from influx of immigrants they had a good deal right? Is the biggest leave argument the proposal to control who enters the border and not pay EU fees? That is a legit argument.

28 points by mercer 10y ago

It's political defeat, sure. Otherwice I don't see how anything changes. Britain gets similar deal as Norway has. Not in a EU, but member of EEA (European Economic Area ) and EFTA (European Free Trade Association). There will be free travel, Britain will still pay for EU. Britain can even be participatory member in many EU institutions. The only difference is that Britain has no vote. Since Britain has always been the one to rebel against and drag it's feet in EU, this might actually speed up decision making in EU.

dc2447 10y ago
It's very dangerous to assume the UK will get the same sort of deal as Norway. Norway has some unique cultural and exononomic attributes that are very different from the UK. Whilst it is in the interest of the EU to have a trade agreement with UK, the UK does not have a strong negotiating position. Why would EU member states do anything to help a country that is destabilising the entire EU project.
- achamayou 10y ago
  Britain is quite unlikely to keep their rebate if they go this route, so they'll end up spending more on the EU than they currently do.
  - Aeolos 10y ago
    The UK was paying 0.3% of their budget for control of 9% of the European Parliament. Following the Norway model, they will keep paying a similar amount of money but control 0% of the parliament. Excellent choice, my dear Britons, excellent choice.
    - NetTechM 10y ago
      Hardly a majority at 9% though, in most cases 9% is just as good as 0%. lol
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Because we're stronger together, that's why it's in the interest of the EU to keep the UK in its area of influence.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    EU influence is precisely what has just been voted out. Presumably the EU has to offer sweeteners to keep the UK close.
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      > EU influence is precisely what has just been voted out. I said "it's in the interest of the EU to keep the UK in its area of influence." and I don't remember the EU voting to kick out the UK, but quite the other way around. The EU will work towards keeping the UK close and rebuilding any lost synergies. The problem (for the UK mainly) is that they won't do it at any cost. That means no sweeteners at all. The UK can take it or leave it, but they will not be getting anything better than what they had - and they will keep all the obligations they had (free movement of people and other regulations they wanted to "take back"). Unfortunately that might just grow UKIPs electoral base as they'll feel legitimized to keep blaming the EU for any UK issues. This is what happens when you (Thatcher - if you don't know her just remember she was Pinochet's friend) create a non-working class with nothing to lose that lives out of benefits and then you proceed to destroy state education - you initially get them to vote you in exchange of your charity, until they feel entitled to charity and someone really populist comes around and channels their anger "because you threaten to reduce benefits or the immigrants are taking them... and their jobs, which hasn't existed since the 80s". The UK is dangerously steering towards a fascist state and the only way to stop it is to improve education, which no recent government has been taking seriously. Note: In case someone is looking for a flamewar, I'm not saying everyone that voted Leave falls into the demographic described above, but it is a very important demographic inside the UK and especially in North England, Wales and other impoverished areas.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        I follow you until here: > Unfortunately that might just grow UKIPs electoral base as they'll feel legitimized to keep blaming the EU for any UK issues. How would the UKIP be blaming the EU once the UK is out? Whatever the deal the EU offers, good or bad, it's a deal which will be accepted by the UK, a sovereign state. It will not be imposed. Hard to see how they can blame the EU for defending their interests, since I assume the UK will be doing the same. The only possible explanation here is that the EU is able to force the UK to accept a "bad deal". But that directly contradicts the UKIP narrative, that "the UK is a strong nation, and all regions around the world will be ready to sign deals with it".
- nabla9 10y ago
  >Why would EU member states do anything to help a country that is destabilising the entire EU project. It's not help. It's for the benefit of everyone. The whole point of EU is that it's not zero-sum game. Britain's negotiation position is weakened, but other EU countries want to get access into British markets just as much as Brits want to get into EU markets.
  - random_upvoter 10y ago
    > Britain's negotiation position is weakened The EU isn't in the greatest shape either. In the past, it was always Britain vs. Germany and France because Britain was the problem child. As from now, Britain has more possibilities to align closer to Germany OR France -- which may possibly divide the partners, especially because German-French relations have been strained in recent years. The time of Mitterand and Kohl holding hands like lovers has gone.
    - nabla9 10y ago
      >Britain has more possibilities to align closer to Germany OR France This does not make any sense to me. Does anyone else think that way? I think you are just freely fantasizing.
      - random_upvoter 10y ago
        I'm just skeptical about this supposition that a firmly united Europe is going to wipe the floor with the UK. This is not some 5 million people nation that you're going to boss around a bit. The UK has one of the longest running systems of government in the world with a diplomatic tradition going back to the power games of 19th century Europe. It has strong ties to the Commonwealth and the United States. While negotiating with the EU it only needs to look after its own interests. Opposite the UK stands the EU consisting of 27 nations, all with their own interests, many of which have to deal with their own eurosceptics at home. There's been mounting discontent about the domineering role of Germany. I believe that things may become very interesting.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
tallanvor 10y ago
I'd be very cautious in assuming this. I suspect that Germany and France in particular are going to try to figure out how to make sure the UK gets a deal that will make other countries think twice from leaving again. That's assuming that this actually happens, of course. David Cameron showed that, at the end of the day, he wasn't actually willing to invoke Article 50, and even Boris Johnson seems to be waffling now. And even if the UK does get the same deal as Norway, that means they'll have to abide by EU policies and regulations, but they won't get a vote in the matter - that's not going to be very palatable to the UK.
- dingaling 10y ago
  Norway and the other EEA members only need apply trade-related EU regulations. More importantly they control their own external relations.
santialbo 10y ago
It's quite optimistic to think UK will become a EEA member like Norway. The EU is pissed at the UK right now and will not make it easy for them.
- nabla9 10y ago
  >The EU is pissed at the UK right now and will not make it easy for them. There are attempts to anthropomorphize the situation to sell the news. There is no indication whatsoever that this narrative is true. In the end it's just another negotiation to get things going. Interests and offerings determine the positions. Working together gets UK and EU into where they both want and expands the pie.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    And one important factor - an “interest“ if you will - is to make cristal clear what are the beneffits of EU membership. So, if “trade with UK“ has weight 10, and “survival of EU“ has weight 1000 (the exact numbers will vary), you have quite an interesting point for your negotiations to start.
    - nabla9 10y ago
      Collapse of EU would be disaster for everyone. If UK suffers -900 and Germany -1100 there is nothing to bargain. Close trade ties with EU are net win for both sides. 70% of British parliament and even bigger percentage of those who are negotiating deal with EU voted against Brexit.
      - gonvaled 10y ago
        A sweet deal for the UK is automatic EU collapse. So that's out of the table. A clean deal with the UK, which means tabula rasa, out of the EU and then a deal on equal footing, is the only acceptable deal. That could mean indeed a deal as Norway has, with the same rights and obligations. But I would argue that this is worse than what the UK had up to now. But what I was essentially arguing with my comment is this comment of yours: > There are attempts to anthropomorphize the situation to sell the news It is a matter of being "pissed off", in the sense that this has a big weight in the negotiations: the EU needs to make clear that there is no free lunch.
zelos 10y ago
There are going to be a lot of unhappy Leave voters if that happens, though. The main thrust of the Leave campaign seemed to be about immigration and controlling our borders.

jbb555 10y ago

Another butthurt guardian bad loser thinking that people voted "wrong".

mtmail 10y ago
"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation" (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
rbanffy 10y ago
It's the youth who voted against it that will bear the burden for longer. I am yet to hear a well reasoned argument for leaving the EU and what desirable consequences it may bring.
- sremani 10y ago
  This is very troubling for me, esp. this narrative. Most young people did not give a damn, and those who voted, voted for IN. But what is expected in a democracy? only the Young vote counts. The IN crowd is acting like sore losers, and obviously in their frustration are attacking democracy and its founding principles.
- hbogert 10y ago
  You talk of that youth aged 18-24y who voted remain 75%. Well you should know, that same youth did not show up as well as the other groups did. Less than 40% percent showed up. It's kind of funny, because if this group would've just shown up like the rest, it would've easily been a remain outcome.
  - random_upvoter 10y ago
    One can wonder whether their remain vote is really wiser if they're not even wise enough to show up.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    It's much easier to mobilize people against something than it is to mobilize for something. A low turnout for the "remain" side was to be expected and makes the 75% all the more impressive.

rbanffy 10y ago

Among those who voted for leaving there must be someone able to articulate a valid and reasonable justification for that vote. I'm genuinely curious to hear that.

ghayes 10y ago
Not a Brit, but for one, it means Britian can control influx of immigrants and refugees. I'm sure that played into many people's votes.
- Aeolos 10y ago
  Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market. The refugee situation is unlikely to change from the current status quo. Britain is already hosting fewer refugees than almost any other country in central or southern Europe.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > Free movement of workers is a prerequisite for access to the single market. That's what is going to change. That is the primary motive for exit. Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are probably right in my view. Thinking otherwise is like believing that other people are able to move into your house without asking but you know, it's 'your' house on paper. That's something only an intellectual of the worse kind could believe.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > That's what is going to change. It will? Enlighten me, how will this take place? > That is the primary motive for exit. No, that was the primary motive for voters to vote for 'exit', unfortunately that is also the one thing that most likely will remain just as it is today. What will change is that the UK (or England, or whatever will be left of it) will be further marginalized, both on the European and the world stage. > Not being able to control your borders is giving up a sovereign right typically by conquered peoples. That's how the British see it and they are probably right in my view. Sad.

user_rob 10y ago

The EU is in a massive panic and stands to loose a lot more than the UK in money and structure than the UK if exit negotiations go badly. Therefore the UK is in a much stronger position and should just patiently refuse all proposals that involve paying the EU or allowing free movement; the EU will then need to agree quickly to stop the EU descending into chaos.

gonvaled 10y ago
Not so fast. The EU has already accepted that the UK is gone. They are pressuring for negotiations to start, and refusing to do any kind of informal negotiation. It does not look like they are afraid of negotiating at all, which suggests they have a good position. The UK, on the other hand, ... I don't even know what the UK is doing. Are they even going to follow through? My impression is that the UK is going to drag its feet for years to come and not activate article 50 in a long time, until your internal political climate either forces a new referendum or general elections [1]: > Some, however, have warned Britain “may never” trigger the formal divorce process because the tight deadline for talks puts the leaver in a weak position. “I personally believe they will never notify,” one diplomat said. “The moment you push the button you’re in a stupid negotiating position.” In the meantime, the UK's role in the EU has been permanently damaged, and some important decisions are being taken [2]: > As shockwaves from the Brexit vote continued to spread, EU officials also said on Sunday the bloc was preparing to move its European Banking Authority from London, setting up a race led by Paris and Frankfurt to host the regulator. [1], [2] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leaders-crunch-talks-brexit-fallout http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/europe-leade...
- user_rob 10y ago
  Interesting, but wanting a fast negotiation is a result of panic and the prospect of an economic downturn for the EU. Germany does not want a weak pound as it will badly hit their exports to the UK. The EU's best strategy is to quickly agree to free trade after Brexit and then re-structure the EU so that other countries don't quit. Alternatively non-EU European countries like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland etc could conceivably set up a more practical alternative trading union. In any event the currency and stock trading frenzy is over the top and mainly fuelled by the hyper-reality presented by the media, as in the end it is still likely that not much will change economically short or long term - for the UK! The UK will take its time - and it should - it will take time for the major European countries to understand their and the EU's fundamental ineffectiveness in solving major problems.

nojvek 10y ago

As an outsider trying to summarize the pros and cons: Remain: Pros: Free trade with Eu, cheap flights, move around Europe for jobs. Cons: no control on immigration, cheap labor stealing jobs, shitty eu rules. Leave: Pros: Control over pound. Control on immigration. Control on governance. Cons: taxes on eu trade, can't move freely for jobs. But the Uk was kind of special. They didn't have the euro. They weren't part of schengen zone. Apart from influx of immigrants they had a good deal right? Is the biggest leave argument the proposal to control who enters the border and not pay EU fees? That is a legit argument.