Thread for Remainers about EU

[Samosajosa]

The general view is that a vote to remain was a vote for the status quo. But there are rumblings - German and Italian banks potentially bringing about a financial crisis, Hollandes writings, tumbling economic prospects, huge unemployment levels, reported high numbers of google searches in Europe about the threat of civil war - that have the potential to cause the EU to implode. How did Remain voters evaluate that posdibility and conclude that there was no risk in remaining bound to a potentially sinking union?

reported high numbers of google searches in Europe about the threat of civil war, reported by whom?

It's going around online. I saw it in comments about an Economist article. Yes, hearsay/anecdotal....but things on SM are not all without a kernel of truth and once out there, tend to grow legs.

Cannot find that Economist article, I'd be interested in a link if possible. Just checked French and Spanish Google, and all I can find comes from very fringe/extremist sites, more interested in provoking discontent.
And yes, there is discontent in Europe, USA, and the rest of the world for many reasons. In my view, one of the main issues is the speed with which technology is changing the relationship between work and the individual as well as the concept of "work" itself. Governments face the immense challenge of trying to rescue those communities that have been left behind by these changes. The EU tries to face up to these challenges by supporting technology, research and education, and they are open to finding avenues for all the problems we face. Yes, there are many issues that need to be discussed and improved, like is the case with any organisation and any government. But I consider myself European, the EU champions liberal values, and its opposition in the shape of European populism as we see in Farage and Le Pen, champions the very opposite.

All fair points. So, your loyalty to the aims of EU over-ride any practical/financial concerns? (Re civil war - I had screenshot a couple of pages but not the one that specifically refers to it. I paid no notice - had my social media filter on- I'll keep a watch out.)

No, the EU has provided the longest political and economic period of stability Europe has even known.

Historically yes, but that was when memories of war were very much in people's minds. The original set up was very different from today's, in member numbers, levels of movement, and extent of political integration. With talk of 'punishing' a fellow member and ally, the lack of humanity shown to Greece, the rise of the far right, I am not as confident of its powers of peace keeping today. I am also rather amused that only one poster (thank you jaws) has chosen to engagegiven the level of demands for 'leavers reasons' that we usually hear. Interesting.

The error is in the title. If I'd labelled it a thread for leavers, all the (Remainers) usual suspects would be here

No - I saw the thread, read the initial post, decided it was goading and not worth the effort.

I think this conversation, reasons in favour of EU, is one we have been having in other threads for months. There are very active threads now that you might find interesting. Most posters have moved on to what's happening now, hence not many responses here.

you're right pretty, I thought as much

Pretty, fair enough. different strokes for different folks. I couldn't get past thinking about these things, I wondered how others did and I hoped to learn a little along the way.

as said samo if you are genuinely interested, have a read of the other threads!

From a personal perspective I was more worried about the likelihood leaving will have regarding a breakup of the British union and fall out of that than I was for potential of European civil wars. There's still massive questions hanging over the Belfast agreement which were never dealt with during the referendum ride up. There's always potential for these situations anywhere in the world though.

Jaws, It isn't a for or against the EU, I was asking specifically how the risks I flagged could be assessed as worth taking.

As a Remain voter I felt that there was less risk of the EU failing imminently and dragging the UK down - and I believe the risk would have been even smaller if we had chosen to Remain. I saw the risks of Leaving as being much more harmful to the UK. Mainly economic risks, but also security and social risks. Many of which are now turning into actual issues.

It's amazing that Remain voters are so often characterised as being "loyal to the EU" and somehow traitorous to the UK. I voted Remain because I thought it was the best thing for the UK.

Thanks Mag. I get that thinking.

Mup, your post to me is really interesting because it shows that many on both sides followed exactly the same thought process.

You know, I keep getting told how good the EU was, how we are stupid to want out etc, oh and I'm a massive racist. But, let's just boil it down to this: why was such a great club, with so many positives so easy to hate? If the benefits were so numerous why did do many only see negatives?? And the simple fact is that we were net contributors! It was always our money going on these EU projects, only it was often wasted on stupid stuff! Oh yes, let's build another sports hall in a city already brimming with them while the outlying villages have to catch a 40 minute bus to get to one. Or my favourite from a few years back in my town.... Pay an artist to yarn bomb some trees in an already popular wooded area, but left the children's play park in a run down state.

t's amazing that Remain voters are so often characterised as being "loyal to the EU" and somehow traitorous to the UK. I voted Remain because I thought it was the best thing for the UK.
Drives me nuts too. I've seen stuff recently about remainers being racist against the British/being traitors/etc. There were and are issues around the EU, no one in their right mind would say its in any way perfect, but weighing up the risks I still think what would be best for the UK is not hard brexit.

While I don't want this discussion to get back onto 2 sides blaming each other but Mag, both remain and leave are regularly cast as traitors, for 'doing down the country', just for different reasons.

How did Remain voters evaluate that posdibility and conclude that there was no risk in remaining bound to a potentially sinking union?

False question.

My Remain vote was based on risk assessment. The downsides and risks of Brexit being greater and much more likely in my view than the downsides and risks of Remaining.

Jazzy, with respect how can a question be false? I appreciate your reply although it is rather unspecific.

sam just because both sides were castigated doesn't mean any of it is right. The question you've posed plays straight into the hands of those splits sadly as it suggests people who voted to remain have concluded there was no risk in a failing EU. Many remainers and leavers will have considered that risk, just as many on both sides won't have thought about it at all.

My remain vote was based on risk assessment too.

The possibility of a civil war in Europe is extremely remote, there is as much chance of having one here.

The Italian and German banks? Well if the worst happens they will be bailed out using the new EU laws which stipulate that risks of bailout have been moved from Government to shareholders. Basically the new law stipulates that 8 per cent of a bank’s liabilities must be wiped out before any taxpayer support can be provided. This reduces the risk of a Lehman like situation or an RBS one, and means that if bailiouts are provided they will be smaller than in 2008.

"How did Remain voters evaluate that posdibility and conclude that there was no risk in remaining bound to a potentially sinking union?"

Well as the UK was guarenteed not to have to provide any money for bailouts through the EU there was some protection in there if there is a failure of the EU. Even outside of the EU if there is some kind of massive implosion we would still be liable under our membership of the IMF.

A failed EU inside or out would be a disaster for Britain, but the way you have presented it here is that out of it we are unaffected, which is either credulous or disingenuous on your part.

Also the likelihood of the EU imploding is also remote.

Using a risk/probability analysis there were far many more risks which are more probable from leaving the EU for the UK than remaining.

I'd write more but I want to see a response to this. Your original post however rather hyperbolic and not a firmly reality based analysis of the situation.

Jazzy, with respect how can a question be false? I appreciate your reply although it is rather unspecific.

You set it up as 'how did remainers decide there was no risk'. Which is operating from a false premise that one had to determine the risk was zero to be able to vote Remain. Which is nonsense.

I was hugely specific before the Referendum. Today, I'm too busy and too tired of futile debates. I looked at the pluses and minuses for each, and crucially the likelihood that those pluses and minuses came to pass. Remain won my risk assessment - the potential downsides of Leave seemed both greater in magnitude and staggeringly more likely.