Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think the UK has done the right thing.

Then why were you against a Leave vote?

Good afternoon!

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, if Ireland mistook the EEC for a purely economic endeavour then we are as guilty as the UK of not reading what's on the tin (ie in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome)

It's not about if Ireland "mistook" anything. Just because something is in the Treaty of Rome (which is incredibly lofty reading in places, it includes the weasel phrase "an ever closer union" in its preamble).

The point that different countries joined for different reasons is manifest. My point is very simple. Not all countries joined for the same reason. That's obvious.

I don't agree with your argument that all of the countries joined for the same reason that Germany did.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The customs union was established in 1958 and was a key component of the EEC which the UK joined freely. Nothing to do with Maastricht.

You need to read my posts as a whole:

Britain never had a well articulated reason for joining the EU. This is why David Cameron's government failed to give a well articulated reason to stay in the EU to the British voters. Britain wasn't going to gain in terms of capital investment, perhaps in trade, but trade deals could have been done without the EU. EEA membership would have been the offer if the UK had rejected Maastricht (as I believe it should have done). Undoing EEA membership later if they wanted to would have been less cumbersome than Brexit now.

The point about Maastricht and agreeing to further integration without a public vote stands.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

You need to read my posts as a whole:


The point about Maastricht and agreeing to further integration without a public vote stands.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You argued there that the EU limits what states from negotiating their own free trade deals with third parties. I'm simply stating that this has always been the case since the UK joined the EEC. i.e. If British political philosophy was fundamentally opposed to this idea, then they would never have joined the EEC.

Good evening!

I won't reply to absolutely every block of text line by line, but I'll comment on some interesting bits in passing.

Calina wrote: »

Ironically, the vast majority of people I have heard voice this kind of opinion have also demonstrated that they do not really understand either the EU or the history of certain decisions around it. If you're familiar with the concept of subsidiarity, you'll be aware that binding decisions are generally not made about domestic matters and that domestic matters broadly remain with the most appropriate local authority. John Major was responsible for that by the way

But that being said, the UK is a member of the UN, NATO and the WTO. It's grand with pooling sovereignty as a concept really. Plus some people want to join EFTA too.

On pooling sovereignty - I think my argument against comparing the UN and NATO and the WTO is that they have very different functions and that none of these organisations required the same amount of control to be given away as the European Union required.

I think this is a nuance in my position that I conceded to murphaph a few posts ago in good faith. Yes, collaboration is good, but it depends on how much control an organisation asks you to give and on what the possibilities are for change later when circumstances change.

Calina wrote: »

I have mixed feelings with this. As far as I know, the generations with some experience of WW1 and WW2 broadly voted to stay in the EU although the next generation after them, also over 60 tipped in the other direction.

But this however is not a rational reason for committing an act of utter economic vandalism on itself.

I don't agree that leaving the EU is economic vandalism given the opportunities that become open to Britain as a result. I suspect you know this is my position, so there's probably not much point going back and forward on this particular point.

However, I think the political philosophy point is important. It explains the psyche of the leave voter and also the overriding philosophy of the nation at large.

I think the reason why Cameron had to phrase the referendum as a cost benefit analysis is because he knew he had no overriding reason for Britain's continued membership of the EU. Therefore the campaign was fought on "project fear". I think that's a fair point.

Gordon Brown did slightly better at invoking the national memory of World War 2 in a video in the shelled out Coventry Cathedral. But, again, this isn't Britain's reason for joining the EU. It joined much later. It's Germany's reason for being in the EU. That's why it didn't register with the British public.


This is a point worth thinking about. Political philosophy matters and it explains a lot.

Calina wrote: »

The UK has signally failed to exert reasonable controls on those immigrants it can control. Anyone who thinks they will control anything post Brexit is naive in the least. The point is, every country does exert control on migration. The UK hasn't even bothered to apply rules under EU legislation which could limit EU numbers.

I think I agree with you, but when we're looking to the referendum we need to think not just about what the Government has done. The Government was in favour of EU membership in 2016, so it isn't an accurate reflection of a leave voter.

There's also more complexity in this. Non-EU immigrants aren't the same as EU immigrants in a number of respects.

They are subject to controls on wage, and on qualifications. They are not available for low skilled visas in the current environment. They need proof of earnings above a certain amount. There are of course people who come on student visas and break the rules, but there are lot more restrictions on what part of the economy they actually work in.

They are also subject to controls on duration of stay in a way that EU nationals aren't. Most people I know on a Tier 2 visa are only allowed to stay in the country for 2 years. Most of these visas at least in IT are bound to employment. If the employment ends then they are asked to leave the country.

The visas tend to be subject to control on how much access they can have to the welfare system in a way that EU immigrants are not.

So a non-EU migrant is a very different migrant to the EU migrant for these reasons.

EU immigration has been overwhelmingly a good thing. I personally only support very light control on low wage labour. I also think the UK Government needs to start including training schemes for British nationals in these lines of work to even the playing ground. Cheap EU labour has made the British government lazy in this regard. This is the reason why a Tier 3 visa for low skilled workers was never introduced for non-EU nationals, and it's also another reason why I think they are not comparable by and large.

Immigration isn't a matter of mere numbers, there are nuances involved. An immigrant who can stay for 2 years is very different to an immigrant who can stay indefinitely.

Calina wrote: »

The UK is a representative democracy with no history of referendums on the scale of Ireland. Decisions of this nature are and have historically been taken by Parliament acting in the interest of the people with a recognition that sometimes the interests of the people may not align with what is popular. The public is regularly consulted via election in terms of who they wish to act on their behalf.

Yes, and no. There is a flaw in the British parliamentary system. The referendum was a necessary adaption to the system to deal with particular issues. It can mean that political parties can ignore particular issues, and it means they can become blind to the will of the public on particular issues. There's a role for referendums in British politics and I think they aren't going away.

On the European Union there is precedent for referendums since the 1975 referendum. It should have followed that all European Union or EEC matters should have been put to the people. My point about Maastricht is that the British public could have been consulted on this far earlier and it could have found a more appropriate relationship much earlier instead of having to do this rather painful unravelling now.

Calina wrote: »

The ECSC which is the fore-runner to all of that was not a German invention. It was dreamed up by Jean Monnet and announced in a speech by Robert Schumann, a French foreign minister. In the context of its time which is five years after the war, it was a big risk.

The UK and people like you bring up Germany constantly. But the underlying rationale was to lock countries together in trade so that they wouldn't fight it out in war. What the UK ceases to recall is that it joined EFTA and left it to join the EU because ultimately, trade dictated.

I'm only bringing up Germany as an example to say that not every country joined the EU for the same reason. My basic underlying point is that Britain did not have a good reason for why it was a member of the EU. It wasn't communicated in the referendum and all we got was scaremongering as a result. Germany on the other hand does have a clear explicable reason for being in the EU and it permeates down to its people. This did not happen for the UK. I wonder if perhaps this was down to the fact that it joined the EEC very late after Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain's membership initially due to it's cultural closeness to the United States. This perhaps explains the UK's enthusiasm for NATO.

Calina wrote: »

And yet Britain found a reason to leave EFTA and join the EEC in 1973. And held a referendum on the matter in 1975 which resulted in staying. Providing a counterweight to France and Germany is a very good one though, and one which the UK often fulfilled.

Yes it did find a reason that worked in 1975, but I suspect the reason was largely economic. The EEC in 1975 was a very different thing to the EU in 2016. I don't think Britain ever had a reason that was as deep rooted as Germany's.

You can claim that Britain being a "counterweight" is a reason, but it isn't a deep rooted reason that people can get a hold of. Being a counterweight in an organisation isn't in and of itself a reason as to why they should be a member to begin with or a reason that grips a nation.

I think you can see where I'm coming from. It's a point about political philosophy.

Calina wrote: »

But Britain did not reject Maastricht and do not forget that they were involved in negotiating Maastricht as members. They had the opportunity to influence. It wasn't, as it were, done to them.

I suspect had John Major put it to the people there would have been a better result. I think we need to distinguish what particular Governments thought about the EU and what people thought about the EU. They are both different things.

The flaw in British parliamentary democracy produced an effect where people could vote for particular parties for wider reasons but still have this construed as being pro-EU because being pro-EU was one particular policy of the party. They may and I suspect did vote for the Tories and Labour in their particular day for different reasons.

This is why the referendum is a useful tool in British politics, and it is why it needs to continue being a tool. It is an evolution, but it is the right step forward for the British constitution.

Calina wrote: »

The UK's difficulties at present are self inflicted via the Brexit vote.

Yes they are self-inflicted to a degree, but you need to understand the point.

The only reason why there are painful things to unravel is because of the amount of control the EU required.

Take trade policy as one example. People have argued on this thread on occasion that Britain doesn't have a trade negotiation competence and this makes negotiating trade deals difficult.

This is true, but it isn't an argument for EU membership. It simply shows us just how integrated Britain was into the EU. It is painful to resolve, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do.

I think you can see the logic?

Calina wrote: »

However, Ireland has a joined up constitution which requires certain matters to be put to referendum and when it runs those referendums, the discussions tend to be reasonably indepth and not trial by tabloid.

The UK has a representative democracy and its constitutional law, such as exists, provides for delegation of decisions of this nature. It is not grown up to have referendums which a population is not accustomed to and which are not necessary.

Ultimately, the fact that the UK negotiated an agreement, agreed to it, and you claim, should now not have done that because it's hard, isn't it, is not a grown up position to take.

Firstly - it is a grown up decision to realise that membership of a bloc wasn't suitable and to take action to address it in the best way possible.

Secondly - as explained above referenda are a fairly modern evolution of the British constitution, but they are a necessary one for the flaw I described above about determining why people voted for party X or party Y. I think referenda are here to stay and I don't think we can reject them from Britain's constitution. There should have been a precedent on European integration that required the Government to put these decisions to a referendum. The law was altered late in the day by David Cameron to ensure this due to the feeling there had been over the Lisbon Treaty and how it wasn't put to the public despite the fact it was a major treaty change to the European Union.

Claiming that Britain is grown up or not grown up is a matter of opinion. It's one that I happen to disagree with you on in this regard.

Calina wrote: »

Except it won't. A great deal of activities currently pooled with Europe will have to be replicated in the UK. The 8 billion additional funds depends on an all other things remaining equal basis which is an unwise assumption given that a substantial amount of trade may move out of the UK and tax take may fall. The one thing I think is reasonably clear is that the UK will not have a lot of spare cash knocking around.

On what basis do you say this?

It's a fairly basic argument. Concerns about EU funding are pretty much moot.

The UK gives about £13 billion to the European Union after the rebate. It receives £4.5bn for CAP and other domestic priorities. Even in the hypothetical scenario that it doesn't get the additional £8 billion (I think it will get a lot of it) the £4.5bn can be ensured. Yes, of course it is a matter for the British government for how it is spent, but the idea that Britain is going to lose out without "EU funds" is a fallacy. It will be able to spend the same money.

I don't agree with you on Britain's prospect for trade either with the EU or with other countries. There's no point going round and round in circles as to why. I've been very clear.

Calina wrote: »

Research funding depended on EU in the UK because the UK authorities are incredibly stingy. Additionally, Cornwall and Wales have been given zero comfort that their regional funding will continue post Brexit. The farmers, likewise, have been told they will have to "earn" their keep. In a country which already cannot feed itself.

Again, why do you think the UK will not be able to use at the very least the £4.5bn that it currently receives from the EU today.

I do see the "EU funding" issue as a huge fallacy. I'd love to know why it is actually a concern. It is true that Britain won't spend the money in exactly the same way Brussels would, but it will be able to contribute to research funding and agriculture.

I don't see why people think the UK needs the EU as its nanny to look after its own money and its own priorities. This comes down to technocracy versus democracy again I suspect.

Calina wrote: »

The UK is currently looking for a hard border. It just thinks it can have an invisible one. This is part of what happens if you want to be outside a customs union and single market. The EU doesn't demand a hard border; it is a logical outcome of a decision to leave a customs union.

As it happens, the UK is in the process of a major customs IT project which was projected on the basis of continued EU membership. The vibes I get is that scaling it may be difficult.

An invisible border is by definition not hard. I think we all agree that there will have to be some form of checks, but if technology can be used to make the border more open I think that's a welcome contribution from the UK and I think it should be welcomed. It's much much better than having hard border posts on the border. Rules of origin checks amongst other things can be done further in land. Traffic can go in and out of Northern Ireland with relative ease and vice versa.

Criticising the UK no matter what it does isn't a reasonable position. I want to read the policy in detail when it is published, but from what I hear I think it sounds like a very good proposal.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Pedantic point.

Germany never joined the EEC or the EU. It was West Germany that joined. East Germany and West Germany became Germany and East Germany became members as a result.

Would East Germany have voted to join the EU? Would West Germany have voted for it? They were not asked, so a moot point.

You reply to a pedantic point by making a pedantic point.

My point wasn't about whether or not Germany voted to join the EU. My point was about the reason why Germany is a member. You need to re-read what I said if you don't understand my point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria