Skip to main content

Why Britain voted Leave

The trouble with an in/out referendum is that there are many different issues which all get conflated into one binary decision. It’s a bit like voting for Labour/Conservative, when you may not agree with everything one particular party does. It would be utterly wrong to paint the majority of Leavers as racists. Although I voted Remain myself, it is important to understand and respect the people who voted Leave.

There are some very good, and very valid reasons for voting Leave:
  1. We do not agree that the United States of Europe is the right direction for Europe, and we do not want to be part of it. Further integration is undesirable. 
  2. The European project is doomed to failure, perhaps by a debt crisis. Best just to leave a sinking ship. 
  3. We have no control over our borders, either from Eastern Europeans, Turkey, or from other migrant crises from Syria. 
  4. Our sense of identity is fundamentally British, not European. 
  5. We have our own values, which are distinct from European values, and different views on the direction of Europe. 
  6. We are being bullied by the Germans and French. 
  7. In the long term, our opportunities for trade will be better served outside of the EU. 
  8. We risk losing our sovereignty entirely, because the EU parliament is above the UK parliament. 
  9. We are unhappy with the state of current politics, and feel that some kind of change is needed. 
  10. The EU is inefficient and bureaucratic. 
Notice that none of these objections are remotely stupid or racist, although I do disagree with them.

Many lies and mistruths were told by the Leave campaign, and none of their facts and numbers withstood any scrutiny. The media were very weak at calling out these lies, with the papers biassed by Rupert Murdoch and a general nationalistic sentiment, and the BBC desperate to appear impartial.

The Remain were a largely fact-based campaign, whose statements I believe will be largely upheld in the long run. Because Remain ended up fire-fighting all of these lies, it came across as very negative campaigning. Remain could offer little more than the status quo.

However enough people believed these lies to swing the referendum.

Nevertheless, I disagree with the main points:

1) There are many global challenges which require coordinated responses. Tax havens, the environment, global warming, human rights, negotiations with Russia, China and the USA. These all require large coordinated efforts, where operating as a bloc is much more effective.

2) The Euro can simply start printing money like any other fiat currency. The fact that they have resisted doing so so far is actually a sign of strength not weakness. The fallout from Brexit will show how strong the EU actually is. The debt crisis is a concern, but leaving the EU won't help the UK.

3) National borders are inconvenient, and the migration between the EU to the UK is two-way and beneficial. In terms of refugees, we really should have a better answer than letting them drown in the Mediterranean. Eventually the Syrian conflict will come to and end. Leaving the EU won’t necessarily fix this.

4) The EU is all about tolerating various senses of identity, and in no way seeks to impose its own. Quite the contrary, the EU strongly defends freedom of expression, be it religion, gender, sexuality or nationality. The trick the EU pulls off is to promote tolerance.

5) What are the EU values? They are freedom: freedom of movement, freedom of expression, free movement of goods and services, free movement of money, privacy, human rights, a right to private life, protection of the environment, and a general sense of justice and equality. If the UK’s values differ from that, then it’s for the worse.

6) They will be able to bully us even more once we leave the EU.

7) It is fantasy pure and simple. The economy is not a zero-sum game, and cutting off trade with one part of the world doesn’t suddenly enable trade with another part of the world. The short term effects of losing access to the common market will be very painful indeed, and the recovery is likely to be to a much lower level. The EU is far more ethical than other potential trading partners.

8) The fact that we could withdraw from the EU proves our sovereignty. We are a union, not a dictatorship, and the EU is democratic. We influence others just as much as others influence us.

9) Something must be done; withdrawing from the EU is something. I don’t know where to start with this one.

10) Only about 5% of its budget is bureaucracy. Given the size and complexity of its operations, I think that’s pretty good. The alternative is that each government individually duplicates these efforts with endless international summits and treaties - sounds far less efficient to me.

Remain was trying very hard to get these points across, but somehow the message was lost. In the UK, we have a very negative view of the EU, and don’t appreciate the good that it does.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin! Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics. Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morali