Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cyclefree’s analysis of the Remain campaign
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cyclefree’s analysis of the Remain campaign
While there has rightly been analysis of an often incoherent Leave campaign, perhaps some scrutiny is needed of some common Remain tropes – those focusing on why we should stay rather than why we should not Leave – and what they might mean for the referendum result and the UK’s longer term relationship with its European neighbours.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
PS just saw Mr Llama's contribution on the previous thread. Lunch and diamonds are indeed a girl's best friend!
One question- how do you think other Europeans see the British position? Do they simply not get why we are not interested in following a model based on the Napoleonic code as modified by the Prussians?
As an aside, it has always rather irked me that the 'British values' we are legally obliged to teach in schools are quoted straight from the Droits de l'homme. The irony that they were restated on Gove's personal order is delicious.
He is the wimpy chancellor.
We are of course indirectly ruled by the U.S. but that's a different problem.
But I think one reason is that while they are taught English they do not really know very much about English history and law and culture (beyond the obvious - Shakespeare, Dickens say) nor about English political history and theory and philosophy. The pragmatic, muddled approach to life - which is an English characteristic - is not something they instinctively understand or have much innate sympathy for.
And Britain has itself not engaged intelligently with Europe for the last half-century so that has led to irritation.
This really could be another thread!
Sad that we cannot understand each other better. Maybe I should go teach abroad to do my bit. Might turn them all into rabidly anti-British fanatics though
Thank you CF
For me, the first point is why I'll probably be voting leave. My view is that the Leave campaign is incoherent, messy, and paranoid, and does not deserve to win. (I will add that the Remain campaign is better, but not by much, and has different flaws).
However, the EU is heading in a direction that the UK does not seem to head in, and it seems to have no desire to accommodate us (or, I believe in the medium-long term, the other non-Eurozone states). And perhaps they are right not to: they've probably got a different set of objectives.
But that leaves our relationship with the EU in a difficult state. The Eurozone states will need further integration to fix their problems, and we do not seem to want to be part of that integration. Therefore something will have to give.
Rather than have another referendum in a few years, if it needs doing, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.
That's why I'll probably vote Leave. It's a shame that the Leave campaigners have spent so long convincing themselves that Cameron wouldn't give them a referendum, that they're so poorly positioned when he did.
Leave is what we don't know - even those campaigning for it don't agree on what it is.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/645386/David-Cameron-EU-renegotiation-Lord-Ashcroft-poll-Brexit
Perfect analogy from a superb post.
Some years ago I had to look after a group of young visiting European students (Italian, Spanish, Austrian) at Cambridge. I remember vividly them being baffled and bewildered at the resistance they encountered among the students (and staff) they came across.
For them the idea of the EU as a process leading to a United States of Europe was a given. They simply couldn't understand why the British they talked to were unenthusiastic about it or why they wouldn't accept that political union was what the EU was about.
The more scurrilous (and more effective) ones are that our economy will collapse (by leaving an arrangement we pay for), our security will be put in jeopardy (by leaving an organisation with open borders), and we'll have migrant jungles (by leaving an organisation that has invited the world in to its borders). It's doublespeak at it's finest, but you don't get points for truth.
Excellent article by Cyclefree, and the follow up post on 'how others see us' is good too.
Some years ago I had to look after a group of young visiting European students (Italian, Spanish, Austrian) at Cambridge. I remember vividly them being baffled and bewildered at the resistance they encountered among the students (and staff) they came across to the idea of European political union.
For them the idea of the EU as a process leading to a United States of Europe was a given. They simply couldn't understand why the British they talked to were unenthusiastic about it or why they wouldn't accept that political union was what the EU was about.
This is what a trade agreement with the EU means. But Leave have no argument other than a scare based on refugees from the Syrian Civil War.
I think that co-operation between states is a very good thing. I'm all in favour of it. I don't think that co-operation necessarily involves or should involve political and economic integration forced on people from above according to some centrally devised plan.
I disagree on several points.
1. A cursory reading of any EU treaty will show that the European project is one of greater economic and political integration and the aim is to move ahead at warp speed. Any opt-out we have achieved is not a sign of reform, but is instead an exception, granted through gritted teeth to a troublesome UK.
It is to Dave's discredit that he uses the term "reformed EU". If he used the term "a reformed relationship between the UK and the EU" he would be more accurate although he might lose some waverers. To say that we can't reform the EU, therefore, is slightly tilting at windmills.
2. As you and I have discussed at length, the issue is whether we think we will have more influence at the table, QMV and all, in trying to amend and adapt EU rules and regulations in our favour, or whether somehow (no one has explained how) we would have more influence if we had no input at all.
When the EU-wide rules about selling widgets are drafted, your argument seems to imply that we are better off having no input into those rules and that we should make our own rules. But of course our widget-makers would have to comply with those EU rules if we wanted to sell widgets into the EU. It makes no sense.
3. The EU is a supranational political entity and we would certainly take a long hard look at it if we wanted to join today. However, at its heart is the single market and we would also have to ask if the greater good is achieved by efficient access to the single market as an existing member, or whether we would be better off by starting from scratch in our negotiations for access (or accept 2nd class access with EEA/EFTA).
4. I agree, Dave oversold it. But, again as has been done to death (but we seem to be doing Brexit to death, so hey) - he has codified our "no ECU" status in EU law, he has safeguarded our financial services from eurozone discrimination, and he has got us an opt-out from the single rulebook. These issues are critical.
He also got some fluff on competitiveness and some frankly ridiculous concessions on benefits for non-resident dependents. But it is the first three of these points that really are key. It's a shame he didn't try to sell that.
5. I haven't heard that argument (but of course haven't heard every remain argument). A bit of hyperbole in a political campaign...who'd have thought it...?
1. I don't think anyone claims that there has been a big reform of the EU itself. But we have got major opt-outs and the big change in the renegotiation was a formal acknowledgement by our EU friends that we are not heading for the same destination as they are. Yes, the EU will continue to centralise (we want it to, for that matter, so that the Eurozone can work better), but increasingly without us.
2 is just wrong. We actually have a lot of influence in the EU; that's why, for example, it is so strong on disallowing state aid. The Leavers have convinced themselves otherwise, but no-one ever explains why they reach this conclusion except to quote some meaningless statistics about how often we lose votes - statistics which 'show' that Germany has little influence either. If you believe that, you'll believe anything! Instead, you should look at the work of Simon Hix, who has looked at this issue in great detail and with academic rigour:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/11/16/uk-influence-in-europe-series-is-the-uk-at-the-top-table-in-eu-negotiations/
3 is easy to explain. We might well have preferred an EEA-style deal, or to have had a Singapore-like position relative to our big neighbour. It's certainly possible to imagine a better arrangement for the UK in relation to the EU if we had never joined. But we start from where we are: moving to an EEA-style deal, for example, may not be worth the cost, and other scenarios are no longer practical because both the UK and the EU have developed together - for example, in our very tightly integrated car industry.
4 I won't reopen - we've discussed it often enough.
5 Yes, I agree is pretty much nonsense, although to be fair it's in response to an element in some (but not all, or even most) of the Leave campaign which does seem to see anything which happens in Europe (not even in the EU) as bad.
It's irrelevant to the question of whether the UK should remain in the EU, however.
http://mobile.english.rfi.fr/europe/20160220-no-special-dispensation-britain-cameron-brexit-deal-hollande
In the IN case we would have a very small influence (1/28th if we are generous) over the regulations that are made over 100% of our market for goods.
In the OUT case we would have less influence still, but still not zero, over the regulations of the 21% of our exports that go to the EU, and 100% say over the regulations applying to the other 79%
(Obviously in non-EU markets, non-EU regulations may apply, but at the moment they apply IN ADDITION to the EU regulations)
We may well have little or no influence outside. (I would only say that influence is a function of many factors and not simply membership.) But to pretend - as some Remainers do (politicians mainly) - that by being a minority of one in a large organisation we have or will have any sort of meaningful influence is, frankly, deluded. I think that this is a case of people letting their hopes determine their analysis of the facts, a case of people saying that because - as a significant contributor, large country, broadly successful economy, etc etc - we ought to have influence, therefore we do have it.
I think the opposite is true. We punch under our weight in the EU.
The real issue for me is whether we would punch at or above our weight outside, even accepting that there will be costs, probably some quite significant costs, to us of our departure.
Puerto Rico Primary @PuertoRicoPoll 3h3 hours ago
@realDonaldTrump Morning Puerto Rico @GOP Primary Poll is in The results 36% #Rubio 34% #Cruz 21% #Trump 6% #Kasich 3% Other Trump needs 20%
Marco was touted to approach 50% here.
50% gains him all 23 delegates, otherwise it'll be more or less a wash.
Did you not read what you linked to?? There is a mutual non-discrimination clause between eurozone and non-eurozone members. That is to prevent, as @Charles rightly points to, the ECB trying to repatriate EUR business to the eurozone.
So I am flatly correct.
For an informed view, see here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2015/nov/02/is-uk-winner-or-loser-european-council
Second, I don't see - and of course I may be wrong as I can only go on what I see and read - any sort of effective alliance-building within the EU. When push comes to shove, it seems to me that some of the more minor countries, however sympathetic they may be to some of what Britain says, will follow the Franco-German axis.
That is the motor around which the EU revolves (apologies for the mixed metaphors). There cannot be three in this marriage. And we are (at best) number three.
The head of the household has gone in and renegotiated the contract. He's taken the new deal back to the rest of the household, some of whom are happy, whilst others are unhappy. Whilst he's happyish with the new deal, he's allowing the rest of the family a say on the new deal.
An excellent article, with the killer bit of realism for leave at the end there.
"What would life be like if we left" is most likely to remain a theoretical question.
Wouldn't read too much into it though, he's been the only one bothering with Puerto Rico. Demographics a touch different from upcoming mainland contests.
Chance of Rubio getting any sort of momentum from this with today's Nancy Reagen news: Zero.
Remainers need to make a cogent argument that can put British people at rest with their identity. That has so far not been attempted.
The argument we hear from the 'Leavers' is how we should be able to do what we like unfettered.
Who is "WE"? Our Tory government? I've never voted for them in my life! I can't think of a politician I respect less than Boris and he's the tip of the iceberg
The more benign forces that temper their influence the better I like it.
Cyclefree gives some very valid reasons why TORIES might want THEIR Tory government to be given a free ride unfettered. I think she should consider that this view is far from universal and even if the lawmakers in the EU are as unattractive as our own (which I don't believe them to be) at least there's safety in numbers
Your piece on prospective pension changes in the Budget a few weeks back was superb, I am certain you could make a great case to Leavers like me.
Fair to say it's not a target for him.
It reflects very poorly on him that he chose instead to try and rush through a pseudo-renegotiation.
Want to re-nationalise the railways? Not a chance when we are in the EU.
Want to reverse Tory VAT introductions on home energy costs - Nope, not allowed.
Want to offer direct support to industry like Steel? Nope, against the rules.
The fact that we have had fairly centre or centre right Governments (whether Tory or Labour) since 1979 has tended to hide the fact that there are large areas of left wing Labour policy that would be stamped on by the EU before they even got as far as the Queen's speech.
The whole point of leaving the EU is that it would be up to our elected Government to decide the best way to run the country and the electorate could choose their MPs on that basis. At the moment you really have to ask why, for large areas of policy, we even bother having MPs at all.
I'm not going to be hanging out bunting if Remain win.
That's what I expected Cameron to do.
Still can't quite believe either the crassness of the deal or the bullying attempts to make people accept it.
Like many I probably could not provide a formal list of all things I would like reformed, but that famed direction of travel, and the contemptuous dismissal of deviating from it in anything other than vestigial fashion, indicates the EU has no genuine intention of changing paths and never will, and that it sees any suggestion of less power as such a deviation to be avoided unless they have no choice. Being forced into that choice, even if successful, only leads to resentment, eating at the heart of the project to the benefit of no side on this issue.