Calling any Brits out there.

[peter]

We are shortly to be faced with a vote as to whether we should or should not remain in the EU and I absolutely have at this point no [reasoned] idea as to whether I should vote to stay or leave. The discussion to date in the media has been flawed by scare-mongering and self-interest and it seems there is little likelyhood of anr real quality debate emerging from which a sound judgement could be made.

There is no need for me to state the obvious in respect of the importance of this decision, and the effect that it will have [either way] on the future of our country as a place for our young ones to grow up and live in cannot be over emphasised. For this reason I'm trying to get to grips with the opposing alternative futures and do my best to get my vote right ....... but boy it ain't easy. For this reason I'd like to hear you guys views [and any non-Brit ones of course] and the points perhaps, for or against retaining membership in the different areas [economy, security etc] that are most effected. If we could debate these pro's and cons here, it might be a real help [hopefully not just for me] in actually getting through the trees in order to see the wood.

[I'm Murrin]

So I started a brief reply and ended up rambling on for quite a while. I don't expect all my thoughts really hold up, since I'm not all that knowledgeable on the subject after all.


I'm very much in favour of staying in, but then again I'm someone who tends to be extremely distrustful of nationalism and patriotism and could be considered a bit biased by that.

I don't believe the arguments about sovereignty entirely hold water. It's entirely possible to have a federal system where each state largely has control of its own laws under an overarching framework (look at the US for example). Perhaps a little more could be done to engage the citizens of the EU in the democratic process so that those overarching laws feel less like they're being externally imposed. But that problem largely just stems from xenophobia, since the EU is made up of nations with distinct identities, languages, and a history of conflict with each other. Time, cooperation, and more sharing of culture (which'll happen naturally through the free movement of people) are the only things that'll fix that.

Migration is obviously a harder issue. I'm in favour of freedom of movement, personally; I'm sceptical of the whole nation state thing anyway, as it's only an accident of birth that you belong to a particular nation and you should be free to choose where you live. But when things are skewed too far it causes localised problems; if the EU was more economically homogeneous then internal migration wouldn't be so much of an issue, and immigration from non-EU countries would be less concentrated on the wealthier countries, though still something of an issue. This is something that, ideally, time and closer integration could achieve.

Both of those are long term issues that the EU will have to grapple with anyway if it wants to continue, with or without Britain.

It just seems to me that the most relevant issues to Britain's immediate situation are those of trade and world standing.

Leaving the EU means leaving the common market, and ending all of the favourable trade agreements that the EU has with other nations. Britain would have to renegotiate every little detail, not just with the EU but with all those other countries whose treaties are with the EU and not the UK specifically.

We can point to a few nations in Europe who chose not to join, but wanted to still trade with the EU, and what happened? They had to sign up to follow EU standards, to allow free movement, and to pay into the EU budget, in return for access to its markets. They don't have to follow all of the EU's rules, but they do have to follow some, simply so that they can keep trading with them, and they don't have any influence in the bodies that make those rules. People who are in favour of leaving keep talking up how Britain is different, Britain is too important, so of course the EU will allow us to keep all of our current trade agreements, full access to the market, without having to concede anything. This seems unlikely - the EU isn't going to be happy if we leave, and they're likely to make an example of not giving us everything we want.

There's a big question of what the EU will look like in decades to come. It could fracture and fall apart. But it also could make it through the current issues, pull together, and become even stronger. If it does so, a Britain on its own outside the EU won't be in an advantageous position; it may take some time, but it's likely that eventually, Britain will decline in favour of its much larger neighbour. The US has already made suggestions that it would be more likely to favour the EU than an independant Britain.

And finally, if Britain votes to leave the EU, it's almost a certainty that Scotland will vote for independance. I'm in favour of Scottish independance, really, but it's one of those things that'll leave Britain even weaker and less in a position to influence international affairs. Long-term, I suspect a vote to leave will be a vote for Britain to finally realise what its place is: a tiny island nation in a very big world.

[I'm Murrin]

It occurs to me that my support for Scottish independence kind of runs against my support for Britain staying in the EU. I guess what I support is the idea of those who want to have their own independant government having one within the larger EU? I don't mind the idea of the EU members breaking down into smaller units which control their own laws, all still within the federalised framework.

[Avatar]

Murrin, that was a damn good post. I think you convinced me anyway.

And in contrast to your closing paragraphs, a UK that stayed in would be in a strong position to influence the direction of the EU.

I don't know if I'd go quite so far as a "federal" government (although I suspect it's inevitable at some point), but yes, good reasoning.

--A

[peter]

Thanks Murrin. That's a soundly reasoned and clearly expressed argument that keys pretty well with my own thinking. I live in a part of the country that has benefited much from EU financial assistance and where such immigration as we have experienced has not been an abrasive process as it would seem to have been in some other places. Again, I concur in my distrust of nationalism, excessive patriotism and the xenophobia it can lead to, and all of the above would seem to make me a shoo in for the 'in' box, come the day.

I read a fairly telling piece the other day about how Putin must be secretly rubbing his hands together at the thought of a Brexit, and how a significantly weakened EU following such a scenario can only be a fillip to his plans, both economically and in terms of increasing Russian influence politically in the region. In the news yesterday the top NATO bod was saying how Russia was 'militarising' the European immigration crisis in order to destabilise countries of Europe faced with dealing with the influx of destitute families from the war-torn region. Again such security considerations will have to be a big factor in the decision making process, and at this stage the onus must be on those who would have us leave to convince us that our security situation would not be significantly damaged (and that of Europe and NATO as well) by our doing so.

The question therefore begs itself, why the question. Why is not the in vote a clear choice for any sensible thinking individual - and why has this situation arisen at all. The reason I suppose is that as the news shows us on a daily basis, there are many sensible and clear thinking individual's who don't see it this way - and we are bound to give them a hearing. As I said above, I live in a provincial region that has much to thank the EU for, but still there is a huge swathe of the local opinion that is for leaving. The immigration crisis, even though it impinges little on us here is a huge bugbear to people (undoubtedly the biggest influencing factor in people's thinking), and the rural 'anti' sentiment runs high too. Can (I ask myself) we trust the 'suits' from big business when they tell us of the damage that leaving would inflict on business and the economy: do they perhaps really mean the damage it would inflict on them. As much was stated on television yesterday when one leading outer said that the profit-line of hedge-fund managers should not be the criteria upon which the future of the country was decided. And what of Cameron: is he not in the pocket of business with his eye to the future (his own) also? Who is to be trusted in this skein of self-interest and manipulation. So yes - while I sit most easily in the above position, neither can I turn my back on the arguments of the other side without due consideration.

[peter]

[later]

One of the key areas of difficulty presenting itself to the voter is the differing views of the opposing sides on the future prospects of UK trade within Europe following a Brexit vote. Many influential figures, not least former Chancellor's Lawson and Lamont, see an exit as in no way posing a serious threat to future trade in the region. In their view an exit would mean simply the releasing of the UK from the [in their opinion] damaging effects of being bound into political union with Europe, while still allowing us to trade within the block on the basis that 'Europe needs our trade as much as we need theirs'. Also we would [they say] be freed to trade in the world markets in a way that is currently not possible, and the bennefits of the latter will easily outstrip any minor slowdown in European trade caused by our leaving. This is naive, say the 'inners'. Europe is bound to make us pay a penalty for leaving, and the resultant fall in trade would damage our future prospects for decades to come. Building trade ties from scratch as an independant country on the broader world stage would take years and in the meantime we would shrink to the level of a 'bit' player in a league way above our pay-grade.
At this point it is difficult for the non-expert to see which of these positions holds most water. The concensus opinion of 'the establishment' would seem to favor the latter, and it is upon this uncertainty that they are making their 'big play' for staying in. The 'leap in the dark' argument is currently more solid than the 'step into the light' one of the 'outers'.......but in some ways this seems to me like capitulating to a course of action on the basis of negative reasoning [because leaving might hurt us] rather than taking a risk on a different course for a positive one [because it might actually be better for us].

In some ways for me, I think it might actually be benneficial to go right back to the beginning and remember why the 'Common Market' was put into place in the first place; having suffered the devastating effects of two wars of atrition it was seen as a way of tying the states of Europe into a union that would so yoke them together that any future prospect of hostilities would be unthinkable. In a Europe that is looking increasingly fragile we must really think the unthinkable and consider the possibility of a UK exit pushing an already belegured continent that one stage further toward chaos. And with chaos abounding in Europe, history tells us with many vivid examples where that inevitably leads.

[wayfriend]

[Icarus Unfallen]

Eh, don't fret about 'im...'e's 'armless.

[Savor Dam]

Considering the chaos potential of trends on this side of the pond, I think peter has a point about this not being the moment for a Brexit to nudge Europe in that direction.

[Avatar]

No right-thinking individual would refuse a cup of tea.

Why is not the in vote a clear choice for any sensible thinking individual...

Peter, you have answered your own question. They key word is sensible.

Also, people are afraid, they feel marginalised, etc. In times of uncertainty, nationalism gets a boost, and since the entire process is an emotional/psychological one, rational thought often gets superseded.

I'm very surprised that the "pro" side assumes that there will be no reaction from the EU. That's very self-centred thinking, isn't it?

--A

[peter]

Well, they base it Av on a belief in the critical importance that trade with the UK holds for the rest of the block - and a further belief that they will do nothing to impede this important trading link. It sounds a bit over optimistic to me and one commentator went so far as to say that on the contrary, they would rather make an example of us in order to dissuade other countries from following a similar path.

There is little doubt a Brexit would rock the EU to its heels: this might be of less importance at a different time in world history, but as Savor Dam observes, this is probably not the time to be introducing more instability into the world system. If parochial considerations are not tempered with a broader view in the forthcoming vote, this may indeed be the result.

[wayfriend]

Side discussion, maybe, but: the notion that a nation fights against losing it's sovereignty when it joins a union is a bit suspicious to me. At the end, it's a we vs. they issue - "we" should rule our nation, "they" should not. Which ignores the room elephant fact that "they" become "we" when you join them. Well, okay they say, it's because local rule is better, we know our own people, etc. However, ask if their nation should be split into smaller pieces by the same logic, and suddenly the arguments reverse. Now everyone understands the value of shared burdens and shared prosperity. In the end, I see the whole argument as really whether or not one can brook the differences of other people in other places, or whether one is touched by xenophobia. Well, Scotsmen and Welshmen and Britishmen formed a nation together - it took a century or eight, but it happened. Apply that lesson to the EU: it's not going to be perfect in 20 years, or maybe even in 200, but it will pay of in the end, if the premise is valid: that a larger single "nation" will fare better than several dozen small ones.

[peter]

I think there are fundamental differences in the starting conditions together with special problems (like everyone wanting to move to a few high wage paying countries) that make the EU a somewhat different case than the USA, but yes - your post pretty much sums it up WF. The 'if' at the end is the nub of the matter though, and the outers are making a good fist of arguing the opposit (less than half the FTSI Top 100 companies elected to endorse the 'remainian' position when approached to do so, top economists seem broadly agreed that the benefits and detriments of leaving about balance out and it appears that our NATO membership and the clear benefits of EU cooperation on security matters with that will over-ride any security concerns resultant from leaving) - and their message is being hammered home with vigour.

[Avatar]

Ah well, whatever happens will happen, and you'll have brought it on yourselves, whether it ends up being good or bad.

Democracy. Gotta love it.

--A

[aliantha]

The EU is essentially a financial/economic construct, isn't it? The governing body in Brussels basically has control over trade and the currency, and that's pretty much it. Yes?

Murrin, your musings on Scottish secession make it sound like the UK leaving the EU would be the equivalent of the sun setting on the British Empire.

[I'm Murrin]

There hasn't been a British Empire for a very long time. People still like to act like there is, though.

And the EU touches pretty much everything in a way. You have to meet certain criteria for membership, and generally if they pass legislation it means the members have to make their laws fit the EU rules; those touch everything from industry regulations and labour laws to human rights to financial and environmental targets.

[JIkj fjds j]

The EU is essentially a financial/economic construct, isn't it? The governing body in Brussels basically has control over trade and the currency, and that's pretty much it. Yes?

Yes, that's pretty much it.
I barely follow current affairs, so can't really comment on the why or wherefore's of the upcoming Referendum. However, my view of the EU is that it was originally designed to be an economic muscle strong enough to challenge any global market.
The combined population, work force, and hence, economy of a United Europe might even surpass that of the US! (Although I haven't actually run the numbers and may be way off the mark there.)

If Britain is considering leaving the EU then it only goes to show that in this current global climate the original ideal is sadly a fundemental failure.

There hasn't been a British Empire for a very long time. People still like to act like there is, though.

The British Commonwealth may not be as grand and pompous as the old British Empire, but it's still around. You can still see Lizzy's smiling face on bank notes from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ... and surprisingly, Scotland too.

[Avatar]

The combined population at least of the EU is more than double that of the US, so on the mark there anyway. And yes, the Commonwealth is still something of a trade power at least.

Interesting point that it is the legacy of imperial colonialism. With 53 member countries it's pretty extensive. And I certainly haven't seen anything suggesting that it is used against those countries?

--A

[peter]

Rune is correct in his assessment of the beginnings of the EU as a trading partnership, but it misses the underlying point that it's purpose was as a preventative of further European wars - wars to which an unshackled Europe is particularly prone.

[I'm Murrin]

Yep, one of the stated goals of the EU was closer political union, to prevent further wars like we saw in the first half of the 20th century. Britain never bought into that part of it, though, it was just the other countries.