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?

Small/Jas, I confess that I have not had the benefit of education and that my linguistic and critical thinking skills are undeveloped, but I'd like to think I still have a voice. I've tried to put my question in the best way I can and I feel that the onus is on those more learned to try to understand what I have tried to express. I weighted the risks of a breakdown of the EU heavily. I though if we came out then processes would begin to become more self sufficient and thought this would stand us in good stead if disaster struck the EU. I thought we would still be impacted but we'd have had some breathing space to implement rescue plans (that is not the correct terminology but I don't know what else to call them). I realised there would be an economic hit but weighed this also against EU implosion. I realised there was a real risk of the banking sector being affected but again, I though if the EU were to break up then passporting arrangements would have to change anyway. So, in writing that I am see that most of my thinking was based on looking past the status quo and thinking EU is in trouble, best out. Whike others must have looked at the EU as it was/as it is/as it might be in their opinion.

"I weighted the risks of a breakdown of the EU heavily."

Why do you think the EU is likely to breakdown?

Essentially you have made statements above without actually quantifying any of them

"I feel that the onus is on those more learned to try to understand what I have tried to express."

No it is down to you to explain your reasoning clearly.

I don't see how a UK with exemption from giving to bailouts through the EU is any better off outside of the EU. As it is our largest trading partner any major disruption of the EU would have negative consequences for British business and the economy, further to this as the EU is the largest or second largest market/trading partner for many other world countries an imploding EU would be very disastrous for their economies too and a global economic crisis would be the outcome. There is no escaping from it.

Essentially in or out of the EU the UK is no better off, however remote the probability of the EU fracturing is. Conversely the economic risks to the UK economy of hard brexit are not only extremely probable but almost entirely self inflicted, and extremely damaging.

I saw the risk of the core EU imploding as close to zero. Why? Because, the main countries at the centre - Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain - are totally committed to it. I also believe that the vast amount of smaller countries - Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Poland - etc recognise that they have so much more influence in the world together than apart. Yes, there is an economic crisis in Greece, because their government falsified accounts to join the Euro, but next to no Greeks want to resort to the Drachma.

There are problems in America - poverty in Detroit, Caufprnian fiscal crisis, illegal immigration from Mexico - but no one seriously expects the U.S. to break up.

Personally, I believe in coopoeration to work through issues rather than running away. I blame this on the grooming of relentless negative news stories by the right wing press.

Small, I gave my reasons in my OP.

If you actually type 'civil war' into google and look at the first result, that might explain the spike in searches this year.

Excellent!

samosajosa in answer to the question on another thread, I've said many many times on these threads my reason to Remain was I saw no benefit in leaving.

But boul the important question that brings is which side are you on ?

My vote was guided by two things.

Firstly my knowledge of global politics, economics and trading patterns. I looked at what competitive advantages the UK has in international markets, and they are the ones that TM mentioned in her conference speech, and the impact on our economy of leaving the EU along with the impact on international sentiment on the UKs trading relations with the rest of the world. In all those sectors, our higher education, tech and science sectors, financial services (the crucial only source of trading surplus) I could only see benefit in staying in the EU and only damage in leaving it. The first three are already experiencing significant negative impacts from the damage to the collaborative networks and we have not even actually left the EU.

Contrary to the leave campaigns rhetoric the growing economies in the world rely on trading with neighbours and have similar de facto if not actual geopolitical and trading blocks. Other parts of the world were making it very clear they wanted to deal with a strong united EU. It was clearly nonsense to think trade with eg China was going to compensate for the loss of trade with the EU when the UK accounts for less that 2% of their trade and they were making it clear they want a trading relationship with a united EU .

As to the risk of the EU imploding I am quite sure the risks of other major world economies imploding are far greater, China has defied all the normal rules of economic stability for decades (and I don't actually believe it is not going to continue to do so) but the apparent probability of it imploding is far greater and if it does we will feel the impact in the world economy to just as great an extent as if the EU collapses with us in or out of it (and in was going to reduce that probability). I don't come from a perspective that says the world owes the UK stability / prosperity, we are linked with the rest of the world and so much better to be linked in partnership with neighbours with whom we share common political and economic values.

My second and most important reason was that our young people, the ones who will be working hard to pay for our pensions and healthcare, and are going to have to deal with the fall out for decades, wanted to remain part of the EU. Frankly when most of those who voted to leave are pushing up the daisies, along with me, they will be living with the consequences of a decision they did not want. That is a pretty fundamental moral issue to my mind.

what would totally agree and the moral issue is something that's normally ignored by Brexiters. Millions of young people are being robbed of the rights acquired at birth, to study and work in the EU. That's unjustifiable. I work in education and many of my students just missed the vote because of their age. They say their future is now uncertain and why should they be expected to pay old people's pensions when old people have decided this!
justchanged, yes! Something that Leavers continue to misunderstand is public mood in Europe. They assume other European countries also hate the EU, when in fact, there is a huge amount of pride in the European project mainly among young people. Young Europeans are typically highly educated and value the freedom and integration. You go to any town or village in Europe and will see the EU flag proudly displayed alongside their local and national flags. Once again, a lot of arrogance from UK. Other countries don't have a really popular gutter press tells them about bendy bananas and evil immigrants That's just not the case either.

I'm an EU national and used to admire UK's tolerant, open society that worked so well at attracting the brightest, most creative people from Europe and beyond. I have to say that I have no doubt at all that the rest of Europe have now left UK behind as modern, forward thinking liberal nations. It's very sad but it is how the rest of the world now sees this country.

So, all very well formed opinions And based on information available. Now, I also based my opinions on information I found - different but out there and This is my question if anyone would like to reply please: If it is so patently obvious to everyone that remaining in the EU was the best choice for moral, political, global, economic reasons, why was it in anyone in the UK's interest to publish data/opinions which contradicted it? No one wants to make themselves poorer in any sense of the word, do they? Why would Mervin King still be saying the £ rate is a positive thing? Why would the government even have offered the choice if disaster is without doubt about to befall us? I just don't get it.

The government offered the choice because the Tories were losing votes to UKIP and Cameron thought that if they lost some key seats to Labour then there was a chance of Labour winning a majority.

He promised a referendum expecting to be coalition with the Lib Dems not winning on his own outright. Against all polls and expectation the Lib Dem seats lost went Tory rather than Labour and this swung Parliament this way so he had to do it.

It was a political gamble that has gone wrong essentially.

"Why was it in anyone in the UK's interest to publish data/opinions which contradicted it?"

There is a strata of society which has always bristled at having to give powers up to Brussles but on top of these the EU for all its faults tends to have a broadly socially democratic and progressive policies and outlook.
Many true free market economics fans feel that removal of regulations and restrictions on business will allow them to make more profit. These are the people that own the papers, the ones who back the industry.
These factions have promised the earth and unicorns for all to al sorts of groups, and made them feel that their vested interests will be a priority.
They'll be disappointed and the free marketeers will make out like bandits at everyone's expense.

Mervyn King's £ rate anaysis is sound, until you work out that there are several factors that must be in place in order for the realignment of the BOP to happen. Look up the Marshall Learner condition, it must be met for this to happen, further things could get worse before they get better.

Its my real thought that if we are in dispute with our main export destination then we might not actually export more

I had many reasons for wanting to remain. The European Union began as a way to make war between the European nations impossible. I would prefer to be poor and live at peace in a nation that stands for tolerance and unity rather than be involved slightly less peripherally in a European crisis which has probably been worsened by our decision leave, but live in a country which is poor, in political and social crisis, and seen by the rest of the world as a xenophobic and deluded laughing stock (I read French newspapers. Not my opinion.)
The environment is also more important than anything in my opinion. And as a rich country we could at least be trailblazers in human rights standards and democracy. As a poor country we are unlikely to do so well.

To the government, the choice was so obvious that they didn't even contemplate an out vote. That is why there is no plan. Their assumption was, "we will have a vote to remain on 23 June." All their policies apart from those related to Brexit still assume we are where we were on the 22nd economically.

But that information was out there. It was published. It was freely available. That's how we know about it.

There's also the entire elephant in the room that governments for years have enjoyed using the eu scapegoat to blame their own problems on. The only way out of that would have been to admit they had been lying and they'd themselves had cocked up/continued with cock ups/covered up cock ups. Which politicians have a real issue with.

Ok. So if the Govt realise their gamble has not paid off, I could see that maybe they would hope that the legal challenge succeeds and they can say their hands are tied and we cannot leave Hotel California the EU. But if they know they are not going to leave, why the rhetoric since the vote, which must be alienating the EU and would be bad for us if we were to remain? Why take the charade this far? Surely if it's a clear cut certain economic disaster, they would not go through with it, hard or soft (not that these terms mean anything more than brexit does).

Because Pandora's box has been opened now: It's either the end of the Tory party if they admit this is crazy or the country's economic ruin if they go ahead. Express readers still believe the lies and riots and violence are possible - as Farage advised and hopes. Yesterday's Express was a worrying incitement to violence. Fox and Davis are deluded and actually believe their own lies now, they're fanatics but when it all goes tits up they'll be fine with their millions. Johnson is described by insiders as someone who only tells the truth "by accident". Still cannot work out if May is a zealot and not too bright, or knows that the only way out I this is a car crash that will turn public opinion against Brexit. As we saw yesterday, most MPs do think this is suicidal and are trying to minimise impact.

www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/politically-a-hard-brexit-is-soft-option-425078.html

www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hard-brexit-theresa-may-by-jacek-rostowski-2016-10

I think I might be right to be scared of what lies ahead regardless of whether we end up in or out. If court goes against the government, will it fall? Then what?

There is a fantastic thread here Westminstenders, with up to date info and commentary by Redtoothbrush who is great at summarising all the complexities that are taking place.

That Irish examiner article nails it

Ok, off to digest. Thanks

Hollandes writings, tumbling economic prospects, huge unemployment levels, reported high numbers of google searches in Europe about the threat of civil war

If you want to have a sensible, fact based discussion you need to bring some proper sources and evidence to the table, not vague alt-right the-end-is-nigh stuff. The EU's economic prospects are not "tumbling" (you're 8 years too late with that forecast, and apart from Greece the PIGS are growing again - as is most of eastern europe, rather rapidly in some cases),

There is no doubt that the EU has issues - many of them in common with other parts of the developed world (slow growth, inequality, high youth unemployment etc), others that are particular to the EU, like the banking and currency issues.

But as others have said, the risks are not at all symmetrical. We have a pretty good idea what the risks of a hard Brexit are - the last few days have provided evidence that the remain side erred on the side of caution in their pre-referendum forecasts. The pound has already fallen further than many economists thought it would, and we haven't even left yet. Likewise the threat of inflation has reared its head earlier than most believed.

The main "risk" of remaining OTOH is that things will carry on as they are.

There is some banking/ currency risk but the UK being outside the eurozone is somewhat protected from that anyway. And the exposure it has won't be lessened by Brexit, as Europe will remain our largest trading partner (and if it doesn't then you will have far greater problems to worry about, like putting food on the table).

Have only just seen the thread, as i dont often look on here

But i apologise, should absolutely have been hanging around to answer any questions. Its this whole having a life thing

I agree with mupperoon,

i do think now that the EU may well explode but i didnt think that before we left

I like to think we were a calming influence