The UK will be worse off in EVERY Brexit scenario

[Omega10]

That's not what sovereignty means though. Even if it's a loss of absolute power to withdraw (which, obviously, is debatable), it seems like a clear gain in domestic sovereignty to withdraw from the EU. Whether that's worth it is also obviously debatable. I frankly don't have any real opinion on the matter since it seems complicated, I haven't studied it much, and can see upsides and downsides, but it's not obvious to me that Brits shouldn't prefer domestic control to international reach.

What you wrote here pretty much describes how I feel about the whole Brexit situation. And one of the reasons I lurk on this thread a LOT. I am trying to understand the ins and outs of just what the heck is going on, and what it means.

Right now, I am pro-Remain, mainly because the Brexit people basically bailed on the project once it passed. A well through out well planned Brexit could very well have made Brexit an asset, and maybe even a huge asset, for UK, for pretty much the reason you summarize here (it seems like a clear gain in domestic sovereignty to withdraw from the EU).

But Brexit had to be done RIGHT, with well thought out plans to maximize the benefits of this increased sovereignty, plans to minimize the impact of the loss of power in EU activity, and plans to renegotiate or replace all of the trade deals that become void once Brexit happens in full. From what I can tell, none of this has been done. Winging things as big and complex as Brexit tends to have VERY bad unintended side effects.

[Spectral]

What you wrote here pretty much describes how I feel about the whole Brexit situation. And one of the reasons I lurk on this thread a LOT. I am trying to understand the ins and outs of just what the heck is going on, and what it means.

Right now, I am pro-Remain, mainly because the Brexit people basically bailed on the project once it passed. A well through out well planned Brexit could very well have made Brexit an asset, and maybe even a huge asset, for UK, for pretty much the reason you summarize here (it seems like a clear gain in domestic sovereignty to withdraw from the EU).

But Brexit had to be done RIGHT, with well thought out plans to maximize the benefits of this increased sovereignty, plans to minimize the impact of the loss of power in EU activity, and plans to renegotiate or replace all of the trade deals that become void once Brexit happens in full. From what I can tell, none of this has been done. Winging things as big and complex as Brexit tends to have VERY bad unintended side effects.

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with that. It doesn't seem like there are very many actual policy experts willing or interested to take a pro-Brexit stance, which seriously handicaps the chance of it being well-handled. I can't really judge how much of that is reputational and how much is that experts mostly just think it's a pretty bad idea, but if there isn't an incredibly vigorous effort to handle renegotiations and other policy points on exit, it's going to just cost a bunch of money and soft power without much to show other than a vague feeling that at least the faceless bureaucrats in charge are a little closer to home.

So, yeah, I'm tentatively pro-Remain out of deference to expertise. I just don't think I'm really in a position to evaluate the arguments all that well. The economic estimates in this thread's OP are actually a smaller effect than I would have guessed based on priors, which is why I mention that I can see how someone would view it as a worthwhile cost.

[Mormolyce]

this graph only tells one tiny part of the story. For one it is about asylum applications, and Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled so of course the UK gets low application numbers.

if we look at the last 10 years NET migration has totaled 2.7 million people. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/sta...ion-statistics

You'd better hope it is, like most European countries the UK's total fertility rate is below replacement levels.

These figures cover all immigration and emigration though, so you've suddenly shifted from asylum seekers to regular immigration. Which is much, much larger.

[Shadowmelded]

That's not what sovereignty means though. Even if it's a loss of absolute power to withdraw (which, obviously, is debatable), it seems like a clear gain in domestic sovereignty to withdraw from the EU. Whether that's worth it is also obviously debatable. I frankly don't have any real opinion on the matter since it seems complicated, I haven't studied it much, and can see upsides and downsides, but it's not obvious to me that Brits shouldn't prefer domestic control to international reach.

The thing is though, we didn't really lose domestic control given how influential we were within the EU. Most decisions ended in our favour. The sovereignty argument is purely about feeling in control, not actually being in control. It's undercut by the irony that Parliamentary sovereignty has been reduced in order to ram Brexit through.

[Deleted]

You'd better hope it is, like most European countries the UK's total fertility rate is below replacement levels.

These figures cover all immigration and emigration though, so you've suddenly shifted from asylum seekers to regular immigration. Which is much, much larger.

that was my point...

I didn't even mention asylum seekers, I just pointed out that that graph has nothing to do with net UK immigration, and was irrelevant and disingenuous information in the context of the conversation.

[Deianeira]

I hear you brother.

You do realise that this has nothing to do with capatalism but more to the fact that there have been an explosion of orders from China in that the Swedish postalservice has to handle 100k or more packets a day as opposed to the 10-20k they usually get. Someone needs to handle all that mail and they need to store it somewhere and someone needs to pay for that hence the increase in handling. Generally i agree it sux but it was bound to happen im actually surprised it didnt happen sooner.

[Mayhem]

this graph only tells one tiny part of the story. For one it is about asylum applications, and Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled so of course the UK gets low application numbers.

if we look at the last 10 years NET migration has totaled 2.7 million people. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/sta...ion-statistics

I mean, ignoring that your argument here doesn't count since countries on that graph high up have no EU external border and therefore can't be the first country refugees reach, your NET migration is below several other EU countries who, probably by means of magic, all happen to be able to tackle the unbelievable hurdles of building houses and investing in infrastructure.

[Deleted]

I mean, ignoring that your argument here doesn't count since countries on that graph high up have no EU external border and therefore can't be the first country refugees reach, your NET migration is below several other EU countries who, probably by means of magic, all happen to be able to tackle the unbelievable hurdles of building houses and investing in infrastructure.

?

its not my argument, it is a European Court of Justice ruling, I am just explaining basic cause and effect. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand...

[Deianeira]

Don't get me wrong I love the European populace too. My desire is for devolution and self determinism, but also cooperation. From my perspective it is the protectionism and authoritarianism of the EU that has prevented the first part of that and is now preventing the second post-brexit. I think if the EU was just a trading block, the vast majority of the British would have no problems with it at all. The last thing we want is some strange sort of cold war across the channel.

With the risk of being called a marxist again, I will say it is hard to defend end stage Capitalism from the position of an ordinary citizen, without regulation it does end with huge monopolistic corporations that we are seeing today, that can consolidate and buyout their competition, with far too much power over governments. This is the globalism that we read about, and I really think it will end badly for the average citizen. So I fully agree that this international cooperation that you mention is sorely needed.

As for the 4 freedoms of movement, it is defined as workers, goods, services and capital. In theory I have no problem with these, though free movement of capital can be problematic if you have a large immigrant population, who often send money back to their countries of origin which is clearly detrimental to the overall economy of the original state, that that is a can of worms that I won't pretend to have an answer to. However there is a 5th part, which is people who are not 'workers'. In a country with one of the most generous benefits programs in the world, this is a huge draw to the UK over other nations. When you consider the cost of the housing market, child support etc. this can be a huge expense if immigration is not controlled.

As with all these things, I am no expert, just trying to explain my position as a layman. I don't actually see why the EU is needed for these 4 freedoms to exist. If a there is a need for a worker, and a worker available for that position, there should be very little bureaucracy needed to make that happen, but it should be managed and the worker should be able to support himself in their new country.

Just wanted to ask, what makes you believe that that will not happen if you have a more isolationist gov?

[Noradin]

?

its not my argument, it is a European Court of Justice ruling, I am just explaining basic cause and effect. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand...

So it is just unrelated trivia you felt like sharing?
Maybe you could underline the parts of your posts that are supposed to be relevant?

[Demolitia]

the UK is looking inward to make sense of their national struggle. The rest of the world will keep playing, naturally, and the UK will simply be dragged along where their interests meet (which essentially amounts to most of the time).

This, to me, is the main positive outcome of Brexit. The Government will have to take its responsibilities in the eye of the public opinion.

[Demolitia]

Were refugees really a significant issue for Brexit? I thought the issue was dealing with immigrants.

Depending on who you ask, everything seems to be. Housing, unemployment, the NHS, immigrants and asylum seekers, the weather and warm beer are all Juncker's fault.

- - - Updated - - -

Will it? They've been blaming the EU for everything for more than a decade now whenever it suits them. What will change now? The narrative can remain that the bad EU is to blame for everything.

But this time the EU won't care anymore, and will not wonder when it will have to deal with the UK's next tantrum.

[Demolitia]

Does that matter? Did it matter at any point? Did the tabloids informing those voters ever care about the EU's response for any reason other than to grossly misrepresent them?

I mean I am asking again, how many people in the UK know how much of his wishlist Cameron brought home after negotiating around the EU and how much the EU did to avert Brexit? Do they know that the UK got it written and signed that they can easily opt out of any further integration the EU seeks among members? I doubt they did. I wonder if it would even matter. Fact is remain fucked up its message as well. You do not counter fear with fear. You counter fear with hope.

Not many. Then again not many people know anything about the EU in the first place so no, it would not have mattered.
I'm not sure if the "counter fear with hope" would have worked. They tried to counter bullshit and lies with reason and experts, and then the other side called it fear-mongering.
If we learned anything from the US elections and Brexit, is that loud bullshit and simple catchy sentences are more efficient than good rhetoric and well supported arguments.
I wish you were right, but I just don't think it works on a short campaign for such a complex topic.

[Mayhem]

?

its not my argument, it is a European Court of Justice ruling, I am just explaining basic cause and effect. This really shouldn't be difficult to understand...

Yet you still ignored the graph and geography.

[Slant]

this graph only tells one tiny part of the story. For one it is about asylum applications, and Refugees seeking asylum in European countries must do so in the first country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances, the European Court of Justice ruled so of course the UK gets low application numbers.

if we look at the last 10 years NET migration has totaled 2.7 million people. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/sta...ion-statistics

And now suddenly that's a problem? Someone got spooked by Syria, methinks.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you still ignored the graph and geography.

In his head, Sweden is right next to the hypothetical EU port of immigration.

[Demolitia]

I suspect this is why the EU gave Cameron an official "out" from an future integration; so they can pursue such integration without constant UK vetos. Ofc they are leaving instead which is even more effective at that but I repeat, they DID give him in writing, that the UK can opt out of any further integration if they so choose.

And my point remains, sovereignty is about control. These days interdependence means there is no meaning in absolute control because that means isolation. You will be forced to negotiate or seek consensus or you can be left out. Being inside the EU means you can negotiate with any other power on the planet from a position of strength and it means that you have significant control of what the EU does (because you can Veto almost anything of import in the EU and you can negotiate for anything lesser in the Parliament if your MEPs actually bother to show up). This is significant soft power and an absolute greater level of control in strategic terms than a simplistic notion of sovereignty.

It's not just that big things can be vetoed and small things go to parliament. The whole legislative procedure is a trilogue between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, every step of the way until everybody is happy and it is ready for approval. You can't have much more say and control than that.

[Mayhem]

interesting enough, EU 8 immigration (the one they don't want) was steadily dropping, while EU 14 was steadily rising.

Oh, another thing the general british public had no real knowledge about, i'm so surprised, is everyone else surprised? I'm surprised.

[Demolitia]

Oh, another thing the general british public had no real knowledge about, i'm so surprised, is everyone else surprised? I'm surprised.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Mormolyce]

interesting enough, EU 8 immigration (the one they don't want) was steadily dropping, while EU 14 was steadily rising.

You and your facts. This isn't about facts! It's about feeli... I mean, sovereignty!