UKC

I am going to vote Remain.

Apologies for another EU vote post - but I am interested in nuanced counter arguments to the below.

For a while I was on the fence, the EU is far from perfect, of course, there is a lot that needs to be improved but, the key reasons i wish to stay are as follows.

1. Individual governments are far more easily bought and corrupted by big business, or media organisations, than a community of countries

2. Environmental legislation is ineffective if carried out by only one country, and when it an environmentally damaging businesses or industry can just hop across one border with little impact to their business, they are not going to change

3. We cannot, and no-one really ever has been able to, solely trust their government with protecting theirs, or other’s, human rights. Single governments are too fickle and will base decisions around popularism or their own political requirements. With the rise of far right politics throughout Europe it is not worth going down this route.

4. Geopolitically the EU is important, acting as one to manage Russian aggression, China’s global influence and provide some balance a super-power dominated world

5. Even if they do not adhere perfectly to some aspects of EU law, the checks and balances provided by the EU on the less-developed countries within the EU are beneficial to society as a whole; enabling prosecution of organisations and people for breaches against EU laws, laws that may never have been passed in the respective country due to their political climate

6. The gradual reduction of corruption that the EU can deliver will be a key driver in social mobility throughout Europe and further afield

8. The EU gives somewhere for us to go when you have politically motivated or unfair judgements delivered by our own high-courts. Despite the media, do not think this does not happen to perfectly decent people with perfectly fair cases.. This delivers a beneficial effect of reducing corrupt or politically motivated cases making society fairer as a whole.

9. When our government decides tries to take away our human rights enshrined by EU law - they find it very difficult

10. When massive international businesses want to say how things work there is a body that controls a market big enough that they actually have to listen and engage with governments in an environment that is harder for them to buy a decision (compared to say, the US).

We really do need a central consumer champion with the power over a huge area (think about it when in a year’s time you can roam with your mobile anywhere in Europe for no extra cost)
If we want to tackle the less savoury and wholesale tax evasion we cannot do it as a little island - if anything we will probably try to enable the opposite to make us more interesting to business (plenty of examples of this)

Essentially we are in a globalised world - if we want our values to survive we need to be big enough to do so

----

The main arguments for 'Leave', for me, were as follows;

1. Low income workers have no leverage against large numbers of people who will always work for less

BUT.. Our politicians can always put up our minimum wage, then employers will look for the best employees not the ones who will work for the least - in turn enabling low paid staff to spend more time out of debt, and be better consumers for creation businesses, rather than purely extraction businesses like banks who gain significant profits from the chronically poor

It is not like low-wage payers can’t afford to - see Sports Direct for an example of a needlessly exploited workforce - unless ‘need’ is an extra £64m for the CEO while staff are paid less than the minimum wage.

2. EU laws suck, I didn't vote for them

I agree that the expansionism and federalism is not really a good thing - yes the EU needs some reform - and at least it needs to move more slowly and be kept in check - but it is our politicians job to do this.. Our Government is not as helpless as they like to seem in these situations, the EU can be a useful scapegoat.

More importantly.. if we leave and we have a trade agreement to access the single market, say like Norway, then we STILL have to abide by the same laws anyway - but we will actually be helpless then. We will not be able to work against things that will really negatively affect our country or economy.


3. The EU is un-reformable - leaving might shake it up and force reform

BUT.. it might just pretty much destroy it.

I like freedom of movement, I want to travel through Europe at will, I like that I can go and work anywhere in this amazing continent, (let’s face it, over all, our Island is not really the best places to spend all our time) I think the cultural exchange is invaluable to the UK as an island people with a tendency of cultural insularity (especially outside of London).

To be the country that destroys the EU and its benefits would be a real shame. Plus I hate those straight bananas - or was it bent ones? Whatever - bananas are just a big yellow distraction from the things that matter.

--

SUM UP

The EU is good for the world, good for consumers, good for human rights, good for reducing corruption and good for its resilience against big business's money.

Leaving will give us few tangible benefits - and those that we perceive - could mostly be fixed by our own government by delivering appropriate policies and legislation.

Leaving just does not make sense (!/?)

In reply to natetan:

Yes you did, directly and indirectly. The UK government votes for or against any EU laws. And by a very large majority of cases it has voted to approve EU laws. It has voted against in about 8%.

And what everyone seems to have forgotten... you have MEPs. You may not have voted for them but that's your fault (Nigel Farage is one!!). They are the democratic process at work in europe.

You can absolutely hold the EU to account democratically

Anyway good on you for voting remain.

In reply to natetan:
Well done you got my first ever like on UKC.

In reply to natetan:

I saw the title and I thought of Jason Donovan, but he only had one reason to leave

I'll get my coat

In reply to mark burley:

I am honoured!

In reply to natetan:

Good to see someone else acknowledge that there is no absolute right or wrong answer to the EU question.
One of the most sensible interviews I've heard was with Martin Lewis, unfortunately this is only an extract as I can't find the whole thing but worth a listen
youtube.com/watch?v=tbqoRO0nxY0&

In reply to natetan:

>> ... I am interested in nuanced counter arguments to the below...

No you aren't! None of the 10 'in' points you cite a 'but...' counterpoint. All three of the 'out' points do. And I say this as someone in favour of 'in'. At least be f*cking honest pal.

In reply to Willi Crater:

You are right, however they were the reasons that I was intending to vote Leave a couple of weeks ago.

However, after more thought and research, I could not substantiate them enough - the counter point is the basis for the deconstruction of my original thinking.

In reply to Willi Crater:



That's a bit harsh. Surely what he means is he's interested in other people's nuanced counter-arguments to his first ten points. It's not really up to him to provide them.

Martin

In reply to natetan:

What happened to reason 7?

I think we should be told...



Ps fair points I think and contribute to why I lean towards remain. ..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Jesus Christ man. No one is meant to know about reason 7!

I assume the mods have been alerted for a thread clean up and you are now on an EU commission, MI6 & NATO watch list.

In reply to natetan:
No reason 7 and reasons 3 & 9 an 10 & 1 are the same.

So maybe this should have been called 7 reasons to stay and 3 reasons to leave!

In reply to natetan:

Shit I guess you're right. Against all that, what can I say.

In reply to natetan:
Thanks for setting out a non-rabid consideration of some of the issues. I was once on the fence, quite open to the idea of a successful UK outside the EU...then the campaign started and one side ridiculed themselves far more than the other (who had a fair crack too). In the light of the public discussion, it now appears that a UK outside the EU would inevitably descend into a pathetic laughing stock ostracised by the entire international community. The idea of those who engineered the Brexit actually steering a course for the UK through the international landscape is nothing short of absurd.

I'm not for the remaining EU in principle - but if we're changing strategy and heading into new territories I really do need people who appear better equipped to cope with such responsibilities than the average five year old to be at the helm. Just saying something sensible or believable on a radio or television interview would be a start, but sadly that hurdle has not yet been cleared. I feel I'm being offered the choice of an acceptable status quo or a catastrophic descent into bungled mismanagement of the very structures on which we as a nation exist by people who simply have no idea what the hell is going on. It isn't hard to choose. Perhaps Brexit have some masterplan... but if they see the people of the UK as a shiftable sludge of ignorance who can be easily manoeuvred with threats of Turkish invasions and bribes of hundreds of millions spent on the NHS gushing endlessly from Gove and Farrage's giant collective anus, then this is no place to start that journey. It's quite possible that we would be better off outside the EU in the long run, since much of the European project has fallen on its arse, lately. But the plan needs a lot more work guys, it isn't ready. Come back to us in a decade or so when as a team you can conduct a series of interviews in the media and not appear infantile and pitiful. And try to resist the temptation to distribute leaflets that appear to the casual observer to rely on the inherent human fear of people who look and sound different to themselves, in order to persuade us that we need big changes to top-level governance structures. And maybe have a go at explaining how this will achieve better outcomes for us in our lives. That's the argument I need to hear. The fear of Turkey and a fantasy NHS Eurpo-millions lottery doesn't cut it, and rolling out some vague principles about "taking back control" when I never felt any loss of control in the first place doesn't lift the bar any higher. VAT on fuel isn't really the killer issue in my life, the weight of the EU bearing down on me here is something I frankly hadn't noticed. Just one convincing example of how life would be better outside the EU would be a starting point. Come on guys, just try, give us something to think about and weigh up against the alternatives.

What I'm getting isn't flattering anyone, it's very embarrassing and bad. If the status quo really wasn't working, unemployment was sky-high, we were queuing for bread and potatoes round the block then desperation would enter the picture and maybe any way out would be worth a punt- but that's not where it's at.

I was going to respond to some of the points, but frankly I don't see the point. Unless I can envisage some kind of competent leadership through a very difficult period of the UK's political history, I'm letting this one go. This is one opportunity we really can do without.

In reply to natetan:

Point 4 for remain. What nonsense. NATO acts as a manager for Russian 'aggression'.

The EU has nothing to do with the USAF (and other member states') fighters based in the Baltic states, 'protecting' our borders. Or, if you're Russian, being 'aggressive' along their border.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Just one point alone that's worth mentioning (and few ever bother to mention): the food that's now available daily in our supermarkets is by far the highest quality and cheapest, i.e. best value for money, that we've ever seen in this country. It is probably among the best in the whole world.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Cheap food may be more to do with supermarket buyers screwing the farmers and paying, in the case of milk, less than the cost of production. It's not necessarily a positive.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

NATO is not the EU. Not even nearly.

We need to be realistic, the EU has delivered large damaging sanctions against Russia. This affects trade of various industries in varying degrees throughout the EU.

If we tried to do that as individual countries it would never happen. Some countries would say 'well we can't do that because we have jobs tied up with Russian export'.. and Russia would be able to enact punitive measures to single member states as retaliation. Essentially Putin would tell us to f**k off and take our 'bullshit inconvenient' values with us.

He would be able to continue his wholesale attempts to corrupt smaller Governments with oil and gas money. No one would be able to stop him and countries and people would be harmed. He would be able to wage harder nationalistic wars on border states and he would use his unscrupulous economic might (and gas supply) to bully the neighbouring countries into silence and inaction.

In reply to Ridge:


I was simply talking about the objective fact for the consumer, not the reasons. And I wasn't even relating it overtly to the EU, though I suspect it has got a lot to do with it. E.g, cheap imports from Spain, etc, every day.

In reply to natetan:

>1. Low income workers have no leverage against large numbers of people who will always work for less

Interestingly, cheaper labour from abroad can hold down wages here.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Although I suspect a benefit of the EU trade block is it's common standards for food and other products. It has delivered a reduction in iffy production practices (horse meat scandals aside.. and let's face it, a horse is just a fast cow )

For example, in S.E.Asia people really do not trust Chinese food products. Malaysia found dried seaweed was made of plastic, they were recently found to be filling prawns with silicon to make them more plump, better off HongKong citizens try to only eat food imported food.. part of the reason this happens on a vast scale is that there are markets they can shift this cr*p in to. If one country clamps down - they can shift it to another country instead.

The EU standards make this form of fraud much harder and therefore less profitable - it also enables more effective international prosecution of offending organisations.

In reply to Donald82:

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Low income British people can be told to f**k off if they ask for more money because there will be people willing to live 3 to a room and take the minimum.

I think that this can be fixed by domestic wage and employment policy.

In reply to natetan:



On the contrary, as we are constantly being told by the anti TTIPS activists, the EU is just as easily influenced by big organisations and that is much easier and cheaper to do than having to influence 28 different governments.

>
It is perfectly possible to reach agreements over the environment through mutually agreed treaties.

>
It is illogical and bizarre to assume that one big not terribly democratic government should be more protective of human rights than any other. For all its failings the UK has long been supporter of human rights. Looking at the swing to the extremes in numerous countries the EU is almost having the opposite effect.


A reasonable argument except that what the EU has actually done is inflame Russia through its overtures to the Ukraine.


>
So we put the tax avoider in chief, Mr.Juncker, in charge!!

The issue requires global coordination. If Europe can get its act together that may facilitate the process but it is neither a prerequisite not an end in itself.

So what do you think, you'll suddenly be barred from Chamonix?!



You have got this completely upside down. Personally I think your implication that "big business" is inherently bad is pretty silly, but beside that the EU is a community of countries and politicians that generally have a much lower standard of public probity than the UK. All it does is put them in one place which makes it easier for them to be influenced and corrupted. Electorates globally and in the UK are demonstrating their anger at what they regard as corrupt, self perpetuating elites that ignore their concerns. The EU represents one of the worst of these because it has so signally failed to engage with the populace.
When the EU trade commissoner Cecilia Malstrom can defend her unpopular policies on the grounds that “I do not take my mandate from the European people” how can think that the EU is democratic and protecting our interests?

Your argument basically comes down to "I don't trust the democratically elected UK government so i want to defer to another organisation". But you have provided no real argument as to why the EU government should be any less corruptible, or more honest or reliable. In reality its labyrinthine institutions and processes make it extremely difficult to hold to account.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Although these come from the same structural basis I feel that the benefits are so broad that it is fair to identify key areas - especially as these are areas that would be affected should we leave.

In reply to Postmanpat:

A really good reply - thank you

Some thoughts below..


It is right the EU creates trade agreements to better connect world markets, and it is right that when member states feel they are poorly done that they do not go through. 12 years in, they haven't got it to work, and they probably won't until it is more reasonable.


Technically possible but on-the-whole much less likely when too much self interest is involved.


I am not sure the EU is wholly to blame for this. There was also an international financial crisis (not the EUs fault). A massive refugee crisis - the worst since WW2. And on top of that societies tend to swing left to right and back again as a matter of course.


Yes Russia does not like encroachment or western power anywhere near its borders - which basically means they still feel like they own the baltic states. It is not fair on these independent countries to not have autonomy over their own future because of this.

And in terms of inflaming Russia? He invaded a neighbouring country and annexed land - not sure how much more a Russia can be inflamed. Putin wants to be inflamed to further his us-against-them agenda so Russia will be inflamed whatever happens (do not forget he did the same in Georgia).



True - but it is almost impossible to tackle simply as a bunch of politically and legally unconnected smaller states.


I have dual Irish citizenship so it won't actually affect me a jot in terms of movement - doesn't mean I don't care about what it will mean.


I really do not think big business is bad - but the power of big business and it's total willingness to use it to the fullest extent it can to influence Government's is bad. Yes the EU has not engaged with the populace very well - I agree this is pretty shit - although in some part that is our politicians fault.


I do not know much about this. But it seems she is a commissioner appointed by MEPs - on that basis she does. It is our MEPs job to make sure she does - although I doubt UKIP MEPs will be doing anything productive.


I think the argument is far, far broader than this.

However on this point, by nature the EU moves more slowly. It is harder to whimsically push through politically motivated legislation in the way it can be done in individual parliaments. There are more interests at stake and more people watching.

In reply to natetan:

Sorry, I didn't make my point very clearly. It's that cheaper labour abroad can hold wages down in Britain, without actually coming to Britain.

In reply to Donald82:

Ah yes

In reply to Postmanpat:

Here's a couple of reasons why the EU might be more likely or better able to deal with some things than a UK government. First, the financial sector in the UK is huge compared to GDP, so it's likely to be able to exert more influence. Second, the EU's better able to deal with collective action propblems like taxing large corporations.

Now, you could argue that influence of the fiancial sector is good/in GB's interests. Or that tax's are too high, and tax competition between countires is good. That's fine. But you can't argue that this is a simple question of democracy and who we trust to put in charge of us. There are structural advantages (as well as disadvatages) of agreeing to international agreements like the EU.

In fact, the whole I believe in democracy, standing on our own two feet spiel is based on a pretty infantile understanding of democreacy, and no doubt some underlying jingoism.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You can't justify which way around it is. An excellent, competent UK government outside the EU could do better than the EU. But that's not on offer, is it?

In reply to Donald82:

>
Why on earth do you think it's about the financial sector? Do you think the manufacturing sector, or the media ector, or NGOs don't lobby governments? They do so your point doesn't add up to anything.


What a weird reaction. A silly caricature of the argument, ignoring most of the points,and then a bit of abuse.

Do you actually believing that arguing that a single country (Scotland, for example) us able to govern itself effectively is necessarily an appeal to jingoism?

Do you think the argument that a fully fledged representative democracy, the government of which can be changed by the popular vote, and is subject to the scrutiny of an independent judiciary, may work more effectively than a complex and weakly accountable "government" largely disengaged from the populace, is necessarily "infantile".

Of course the arguments may be incorrect but personally I'd hope people might try and refute them rather than caricature them and resort to abuse.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


It is if we choose to vote for one.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>


I am not sure anyone would disagree with that proposition but ;

That is not what this referendum is about, it is not about a government.

It is about whether or not the UK should remain within an association of independent countries and abide by the rules of that association or abrogate the Treaty of Rome and associated treaties and leave.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The EU is more likely to restrain the financial sector than the UK by iteself is. Just one thing the EU might do better than Westminster for structural reasons.

I don't think it's necessarilly down to jingoism. I think jingoism plays a big role in support for Brexit. Much more than in support for Scottish independence, but it was there too. I can't know for sure, but expect it plays a part in your views.

Yes, that argument's infantile. The fact is that this about how we, an independent nation that's free to choose the international agreements we agree to, make international agreements. Your argument overstates the influence of the EU overwestminster, and it presents a false dichotomy between one government and another, and between more or less democracy. My feeling is that the argument appeals to an underlying sense you have of 'us' and 'them'.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think we need some candidates first. The only people I would deliberately vote into government (Paddy Ashdown, Ken Clarke*, David Milliband*...) are not standing by ready to form a government, and notably they are all vehemently pro-EU.



*Major barriers to overcome, but I would compromise.

In reply to Donald82:

>
And for the reasons I have explained abut you have ignored it might just as well be less effective at retaining.

>
Well thanks, but you are in no position to know.


Ah, so you actually prepared to make a case, albeit a rather vague one. You really need to stop makingrepsumotions about people.

In reply to Postmanpat:

sure. I'm giving it as a reason why the EU might have advantages for structural reasons. The idea being to refute simplistic twaddle about greater demoracy. There may be disadvantages too.


Well, I think you can get a fair idea from argung with people on the internet.


I'm not making a case here for or against staying in the EU. I'm trying to explain why your case for leaving is childish.

I think a bit of presumption is called for here. Lots of people who pertain to being respectable people hold pretty horrible views. Quite a few on UKC. To be clear, in your case, I just think your views are probably influenced by a bit of them europeans, and us brits. Jingoistic is probably a bit strong, so I'll take that back. Other's though, seem to think Farage bringing migrant aids and cologne refugeess into the debate is fair game. Which I think is pretty disgusting.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You are right, every sector, including the third sector, lobby Governments.. for better or worse.. although generally the most effective ones have nice revolving doors, attractive 'retirement' positions for civil servants and can pay significant amounts to hire the best connected lobbyists and donate to party funds. The financial sector is pretty on the ball here.

In reply to Donald82:

It is not really ideal to call people infantile or childish to describe their valid observations (if it is what they observe then it is valid) regardless if you are in agreement or not. This just goes to further create polarisation - which stifles debate.

In reply to Donald82:

You'd be wrong. If I have a gut resentment that colours my view it's against arrogant, elitist, patronising politicians and career bureacrats, which would include Cameron and Osborne and most of the Islington Labour party. I don't resent Joncker because he is from Luxembourg. I resent him because he appears to be an arrogant dick.
Which is not to say I have any time for Boris, who is a dishonest charlatan, or Farage, who is a saloon bar show off.

In reply to natetan:


I think you'll find that NGO and charidee land provides some pretty nice landing pads.

=

In reply to Postmanpat:


I guess it's a dilemma if you want to vote leave, but can't handle the reality of the consequences. I'm not in that position btw, I haven't heard a single compelling reason to vote leave.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Maybe - but comparing £40bn (UK 3rd sector size) vs UK financial services with £20,000bn on their balance sheets. Which one is going to have the most/best...

(Stats from Govt reports)

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I don't know what you mean. I very much doubt that Boris will be PM. He's very unpopular in the parliamentary party. And if he does, I'm voting on a thirty year time horizon, not five.

In reply to natetan:


>
Financial, but real point to Donald was about manufacuring, media and other commercial sectors.

Stainforth:


UK food isn't cheap, you just pay for it in two stage. The UK sends money to the eu, where 40% of the total eu budget is CAP. Payments. Then some money after paying various civil servants wages reaches the farmer. Then you buy it from a supermarket and pay below the real value of food.

It can't be hard to see a more obvious solution.

I'll ignore the other down sides of food miles, freshness and using up precious ground water in third world countries etc...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Can not be any worse than a Osbourne v corbyn choice in 2020, with some mystery contender from the libdems if they ever come out of hiding (hoping).

In reply to Postmanpat:


Who will be then?


The problem as I see it is that if we leave, we need a competent team to manage the process. We have a bunch of clowns, and for this reason if we leave it will be a disaster. What happens in the next few years is crucial, I don't understand how you can brush this aside so easily.

In reply to summo:


Oh yes it can! Have you seen the state of the Brexiters? The problem is that a post-Brexit government's incompetence would be amplified massively by the instability of the situation: the stabilisers removed from the bicycle and the terrified toddler careering out of control down the driveway and onto the main road. I won't be able to watch, it will be too painful.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
I don't know! I suspect Theresa May come in as a compromise candidate and weak remainer (who been conspicuously quiet). Liam Fox as an outsider? Whoever it is will make a huge effort to reunify the party and keep the big guns within the tent.
Maybe Jezzer?

If your view is that almost whatever the failings of the EU, or even advantages of brexit, they are trumped by the difficulties of transition then, despite the claims of many remainers, nobody can ever leave.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I've been explicit in saying that the problem is that leaving would require competent leadership, and this is horribly, glaringly lacking at the current time in the UK. This is a serious issue. But it could be different elsewhere or at another time.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Or put less rhetorically, the short term costs of big changes like this are high, so the long term benefits of changing/costs of not should be high and relatively certain before you do it. In this case they're clearly not so....

In reply to natetan:

(I think that this can be fixed by domestic wage and employment policy)

you are very green if you think this is going to happen.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


If Brexit wins I predict Boris will be very statesman and say Cameron is the right made for the job leading the party forward etc.. knowing full well Cameron is stepping down. A back room deal between them, so Boris then takes over leadership nearer the time etc.. It is better for Boris to let Cameron/Osbourne be involved in EU exit negotiations, so he has someone to blame in the future. I would never under estimate Boris, beneath the joker are probably some calculating tactics and longer term plan.

In reply to summo:

It isn't Boris' silly mannerisms that frighten me when I think of him as PM, or as pivotal in the UK's future. I don't think he's stupid, I don't fall for his act. My problem is that I do not believe for a fraction of a second that he will act in the best interest of the UK, only his own.

If we leave, we have no one capable of executing an effective transition plan. All the competent politicians and bureaucrats are pro-EU, because the evidence is clear that we gain more from being in the EU than we lose (Balance of Competences etc.). People who do not believe in what they are working on do not do a good job. And of course, people who act out of self-interest and misguided ideology do not do a good job. People who cannot understand or evaluate evidence do not do a good job. When they are bald faced liars too, that really makes matters worse!

In reply to Donald82:


A great summation

In reply to summo:

Not sure he is particualrly clever or calculating to be honest. Osborbe is.. Bojo comes accross as a bit lazy to me.

In reply to natetan:
Good effort by the OP.

What is clear from internet discussions here and elsewhere is the appalling level of ignorance about anything political. The obvious conclusion is that the reason this is the sh1ttiest country in northern Europe because that's what the stupid Brits deserve.

If we vote to leave then it will get a whole lot sh1ttier. Not because we leave, because that won't be happening any time soon, but because our domestic politics and management of our economy will totally stall for years on end while our politicians, who do not want to leave, pass the blame back and fore between them, never actually doing anything about either leaving or running the country.