11 ms·

Without wanting to poke a hornet's nest, I think a problem with the Brexit debate all the way through has been the bizarrely black-and-white arguments. If you s

Without wanting to poke a hornet's nest, I think a problem with the Brexit debate all the way through has been the bizarrely black-and-white arguments. If you step back and think about it, the idea that an issue as vast and complex and EU membership would have every single legitimate and well-informed argument pointing in the same direction seems a bit silly. There are plenty of rational reasons that someone might have come down on the Remain side before but swung the other way now. The EU has arguably proved several of the major criticisms made by the more reasonable Leave supporters correct since then. There was criticism of the democratic deficit. Now we have Ursula von der Leyen running the show and (figuratively speaking) no-one is quite sure how she got there. There was criticism that the EU was excessively bureaucratic, litigious and slow-moving, and that member states were fair weather friends. Then we saw the handling of the COVID/vaccine and immigration/refugee issues. And the more extreme predictions of British life as we know it coming to an end haven't happened either (at least not because of Brexit). Of course, there are also plenty of rational reasons that someone might have come down on the Leave side before but now think it was the wrong choice. Several of the major warnings given by the more reasonable Remain supporters have also proved to be well founded, particularly in terms of the immediate consequences of the extra trade barriers and the limitations on free movement of labour. I'm not taking any side here, just pointing out that both sides had legitimate points to make before Brexit that have subsequently proved to be largely correct, and that someone who didn't expect that might have changed their view in light of that information, in either direction. It's perhaps worth remembering that the older generation who voted more in favour of leaving in the Brexit referendum were much the same generation whose younger selves voted to stay in once before. Obviously the nature of what is now the EU had changed a lot in the meantime, and so had the balance of public sentiment within that demographic. It might be surprising if such a large shift had occurred in just a few years now but the basic premise that some people might have changed their minds since voting on Brexit is plausible enough.

me_me_me 5y ago
> Of course, there are also plenty of rational reasons that someone might have come down on the Leave side I have followed brexit a bit in media and online debates, i have not heard a single good concrete argument for leaving. For brexit arguments were just empty platitudes about freedom, choice and independence, but when asked about specific law that is issue, or what they would do with new freedom, there was always a silence.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  Again this has been the big problem with the quality of the Brexit debate all the way through IMHO. There were credible arguments on both sides but the media and the official campaigns on both sides just got hung up on the sound bites and slogans and bike shedding. It was hugely disappointing and led to the kind of horrible bipartisan politics we've seen in the UK ever since.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    Go ahead give me one good argument for brexit, I would love to hear at least one tangible concrete argument.
    - Silhouette 5y ago
      I heard quite a few. Again I stress that I am not taking sides here or saying I fully agree with every point, just giving some examples of reasonable arguments for balance since arguments the other way have been widely discussed anyway. The EU has a democratic deficit. It is a legislative and executive body where those with the most power are selected so indirectly that they have little personal accountability. Many EU Commissioners are career politicians who have become unpopular in their home state and have been given the job as a golden ticket. The EU is systemically flawed as a financial arrangement. It has a currency union but only limited tax coordination and this will inevitably lead to internal conflicts during times of economic pressure such as the Greek situation. The EU is a protectionist trade bloc. In the short term, this means membership is good for free trade within the bloc but bad for trade across its border. An example is that there is fresh produce we can source from either EU or African suppliers but the latter are artificially expensive if we have to impose the common tariffs, which reduces competition and so harms our consumers. The UK has been increasing its international trade for a long time but the EU has represented a decreasing proportion of that trade as a long term trend even with the bias that membership creates, so remaining in the bloc is the wrong side of the line to be on in the long term. The EU does not have a good track record of negotiating international deals on behalf of its members. It has so far failed to establish comprehensive FTAs with many of the largest economies outside its own members and while its size is an advantage in negotiations, it also has to reconcile the sometimes contradictory interests of its many members, which can cause problems as illustrated by the CETA process. The EU is bureaucratic and slow, and its philosophy of trying to unify everything creates many bad regulations and interferes with free market economics in ways that can be detrimental to members. Its handling of VAT and many digital/technology issues are recurring examples where it may do more harm than good to some member states or their people or businesses. The EU has an expansionist agenda whether openly acknowledged or not. It has seen considerable scope creep since the last popular vote to stay in and it has a track record of trying to bypass popular consent or seeking that consent repeatedly until it gets the answer it wants, so not leaving now also leaves us committed to an uncertain future.
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> There was criticism of the democratic deficit. Now we have Ursula von der Leyen running the show and (figuratively speaking) no-one is quite sure how she got there. There was criticism that the EU was excessively bureaucratic, litigious and slow-moving, and that member states were fair weather friends. Then we saw the handling of the COVID/vaccine and immigration/refugee issues. And the more extreme predictions of British life as we know it coming to an end haven't happened either (at least not because of Brexit). Much like how criticism of Darwinian evolution doesn't automatically support arguments in favour of creationism, let alone "prove" it - neither does (quite legitimate!) criticism of the EU automatically make a case for leaving the EU. My impression is that those newspapers were basically making that argument: "the EU sucks, we should leave" - it was never "the EU sucks, let's make it better". > It's perhaps worth remembering that the older generation who voted more in favour of leaving in the Brexit referendum were much the same generation whose younger selves voted to stay in once before. Indeed, and this does perplex me - but again, consider that the arguments for Leave were nothing like the arguments for not joining the EU back in 1973. Also, don't forget the public's near limitless capacity for political amnesia.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  I agree there was plenty of silliness in certain parts of the UK press, though there was also a more reasonable point made that the people advocating change from within had had decades to make progress and had not successfully addressed the criticisms being made so their arguments looked unconvincing. Once Cameron came back with what most people seemed to consider token concessions at best despite being in possibly the strongest negotiating position a UK PM would ever have, the reform from within advocates had little wind left in their sails. I agree that political amnesia is a strange phenomenon. On this kind of issue, that can shift the balance of popular opinion either way over time.

me_me_me 5y ago

> Of course, there are also plenty of rational reasons that someone might have come down on the Leave side I have followed brexit a bit in media and online debates, i have not heard a single good concrete argument for leaving. For brexit arguments were just empty platitudes about freedom, choice and independence, but when asked about specific law that is issue, or what they would do with new freedom, there was always a silence.

Silhouette 5y ago
Again this has been the big problem with the quality of the Brexit debate all the way through IMHO. There were credible arguments on both sides but the media and the official campaigns on both sides just got hung up on the sound bites and slogans and bike shedding. It was hugely disappointing and led to the kind of horrible bipartisan politics we've seen in the UK ever since.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  Go ahead give me one good argument for brexit, I would love to hear at least one tangible concrete argument.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    I heard quite a few. Again I stress that I am not taking sides here or saying I fully agree with every point, just giving some examples of reasonable arguments for balance since arguments the other way have been widely discussed anyway. The EU has a democratic deficit. It is a legislative and executive body where those with the most power are selected so indirectly that they have little personal accountability. Many EU Commissioners are career politicians who have become unpopular in their home state and have been given the job as a golden ticket. The EU is systemically flawed as a financial arrangement. It has a currency union but only limited tax coordination and this will inevitably lead to internal conflicts during times of economic pressure such as the Greek situation. The EU is a protectionist trade bloc. In the short term, this means membership is good for free trade within the bloc but bad for trade across its border. An example is that there is fresh produce we can source from either EU or African suppliers but the latter are artificially expensive if we have to impose the common tariffs, which reduces competition and so harms our consumers. The UK has been increasing its international trade for a long time but the EU has represented a decreasing proportion of that trade as a long term trend even with the bias that membership creates, so remaining in the bloc is the wrong side of the line to be on in the long term. The EU does not have a good track record of negotiating international deals on behalf of its members. It has so far failed to establish comprehensive FTAs with many of the largest economies outside its own members and while its size is an advantage in negotiations, it also has to reconcile the sometimes contradictory interests of its many members, which can cause problems as illustrated by the CETA process. The EU is bureaucratic and slow, and its philosophy of trying to unify everything creates many bad regulations and interferes with free market economics in ways that can be detrimental to members. Its handling of VAT and many digital/technology issues are recurring examples where it may do more harm than good to some member states or their people or businesses. The EU has an expansionist agenda whether openly acknowledged or not. It has seen considerable scope creep since the last popular vote to stay in and it has a track record of trying to bypass popular consent or seeking that consent repeatedly until it gets the answer it wants, so not leaving now also leaves us committed to an uncertain future.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago

> There was criticism of the democratic deficit. Now we have Ursula von der Leyen running the show and (figuratively speaking) no-one is quite sure how she got there. There was criticism that the EU was excessively bureaucratic, litigious and slow-moving, and that member states were fair weather friends. Then we saw the handling of the COVID/vaccine and immigration/refugee issues. And the more extreme predictions of British life as we know it coming to an end haven't happened either (at least not because of Brexit). Much like how criticism of Darwinian evolution doesn't automatically support arguments in favour of creationism, let alone "prove" it - neither does (quite legitimate!) criticism of the EU automatically make a case for leaving the EU. My impression is that those newspapers were basically making that argument: "the EU sucks, we should leave" - it was never "the EU sucks, let's make it better". > It's perhaps worth remembering that the older generation who voted more in favour of leaving in the Brexit referendum were much the same generation whose younger selves voted to stay in once before. Indeed, and this does perplex me - but again, consider that the arguments for Leave were nothing like the arguments for not joining the EU back in 1973. Also, don't forget the public's near limitless capacity for political amnesia.

Silhouette 5y ago
I agree there was plenty of silliness in certain parts of the UK press, though there was also a more reasonable point made that the people advocating change from within had had decades to make progress and had not successfully addressed the criticisms being made so their arguments looked unconvincing. Once Cameron came back with what most people seemed to consider token concessions at best despite being in possibly the strongest negotiating position a UK PM would ever have, the reform from within advocates had little wind left in their sails. I agree that political amnesia is a strange phenomenon. On this kind of issue, that can shift the balance of popular opinion either way over time.