The Scottish case for Brexit

By | | , ,
Comments Off on The Scottish case for Brexit

I’ve heard tell all over the place that Scotland is very much against Brexit. Now I don’t know how true this is I doubt anyone does – but regardless I’d like to present the Scottish argument for Brexit*.

Taking Responsibility by moving all Governing Powers to Britain

You would like to get the opportunity to move more responsibilities to a more local British Democracy instead of accept the fate of Brussels plans? With all the powers moved to Britain, we can make a fairer Britain.

Britain has the resources and finances

Britain has the resources and finances to become independent. One of the early myths created by the Remain Campaign has been debunked. Britain has what it takes to become independent and the British people will be better off financially.

Believing in the creation of more jobs

With an ever rising energy and electricity demand in Europe, Britain could be one of the global leading suppliers. Britain has many natural resources that allow sustainable energy for which more jobs are created.

Believing that Britain and The EU have opposite Political and Social views

We love Britain and we love Europe. Why should both suffer from having to compromise political decisions to please both sides? Let’s respect each other and go our own way. In doing so, we’ll become better friends and neighbours then we are ever going to be in a forced political marriage.

Understanding that NO may lead to changes for worse

Change is going to happen, whether you vote Remain or Leave. By voting Remain, you will have less control over the changes that are going to change, because the power that makes these decisions is still in Brussells. A Remain vote will be seen as an act of ‘no confidence’ in the current British Government. A Remain vote may also be used by the EU to withdraw powers from the British Government.
So by voting Remain, not only will things be changing, things might be changing for worse.

Britain is a country

It shouldn’t surprise anyone to say that Britain is a nation. As such, it should have it’s own voice among other nations as an independent state. It should take responsibility for its own decisions and how it’s run.

It’s not about building borders but working with other countries

There’s already a border between Britain and the EU, and it won’t change much if we become independent. Independence isn’t about becoming an isolationist state looking out for number 1, but taking a seat at the family table with our own voice. No one in Britain is advocating ignoring the troubles facing the world with regards to climate change, poverty, war and famine. Quite the opposite in fact.

Independence would give Britain the opportunity to project a welcoming, open and peaceful ideology to the world. To stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends against war, militarism and extremism of all kinds.

Just because the Union is 71 years old, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reassess it

Presumably you would remortgage if the economy changed? A business partnership would re-assess their agreements at regular intervals and likewise, if you and your partner (like, hugging and kissing partner, not your business partner) realised you wanted different things, then you might have a chat about where your relationship is going.

If anything, the very fact that the EU is 71 years old is a perfect reason to reassess the agreement. Times have changed and the world is a very different place with different challenges. 71 years ago Europe was recovering from a vicious expansionist military aggression and economic war. Now it’s coming to the end of the process of breaking that Empire up so that the individual nations may have their own voices and make their own decisions. It might be that the EU is the next part in this process.

Smaller democracies/states adapt quicker

A small, efficient state is more adaptable than a larger state, economically and democratically. We will be better able to grow and change during challenging times.

For the opportunity

Independence isn’t full of facts and certainties. It’s full of opportunity, right up to the fucking brim. Frankly, it’s overflowing.

We are being given the opportunity to put everything up for discussion about how a modern, democratic nation should be run. Everything. It might not come on independence day, but with independence our Parliament can go on to discuss everything – monarchy, currency, Europe and everything else. On the day after a Leave vote we start discussing what our democracy looks like, what our constitution will look like and what our bureaucracy looks like. We can really do things differently.

Independence is normal

Of all the nearly 60 countries who have become independent from the UK, none have requested to rejoin. 30 countries around the world have become independent nations since World War 2 and again, none have reverted back to their former union since.

Let’s be a normal, independent nation.

And there you have several very sound Scottish arguments for Brexit – more to follow.

* Arguments cherry picked from:
why vote yes for Scottish Independence
and
11 Common sense reasons to vote yes

0

So many bad arguments

By | | ,
Comments Off on So many bad arguments

In less than a month we’re going to have to vote to decide if we stay part of the EU or not, the campaign from both sides feels like a repeat of the Scottish referendum or a Gilbert and Sullivan number ( “full of words and music and signifying – nothing” – Tom Lehrer). Both sides are making claims about how we’ll be this much or that much better or worse off depending on how we choose – despite most economists not being able to predict a damn thing in normal conditions let alone after such a big change. How much better or worse off we’ll be in the short-term really doesn’t matter as the decision is being taken for the long-term, so will we be better or worse of in 50 or 100 years, and if you think you can predict that just look at the inventions and changes that filled the 20th century, but both sides keep banging on about the short-term economy in the hopes of scaring people one way or the other.

On the leave side some very bright people are convinced we need a detailed plan as to how to exit and they’re convinced they have it. So convinced that they don’t have a link to it in an easy to find location you have to search the articles. Mind you they spend so much time telling us why everyone else is wrong and if only we’d listen to them it’s enough to make you lose the will to live, or at least giving a single fuck as to if we stay or remain. Outside of the likes of Spiked there aren’t many people making anything like a convincing argument as to why we should leave – certainly nothing principled that could act as a guiding principle for the direction the country should be taking over the next decades and centuries. Nope all about the current economy, and very current issues which is I suppose great if you want to try to herd people in a given direction by fear.

Of course the remain side is doing no better, they too tend to stick to arguing short-term economic issues. Well apart from when they’re insulting everyone that thinks the EU may not be the best thing ever by calling them racists, little-Englanders and in the case of Operation Black vote “implying” that anyone that wants to vote to leave the EU is a violent thug.
Thugs against the EU
Of course with so many of the great and good getting money from the EU, and the EU’s past history on referendum we can hardly expect a reasoned and fair debate on the matter. The remain side of course don’t need a plan as if we stay in its business as normal and the status-quo – or at least that’s what they’d have us believe ignoring the fact that with the EU there is no status=quo just ever closer union with the direction of the EU very clear and un-reformable. As I’ve mentioned before the main argument that many remainers put forward is that we currently have a government they don’t like and the EU curtails that government.

Given how poor the arguments are all round, I do start to suspect that the plan is to make everyone so bored and fed up that no-one bothers to vote. If there’s a low turn out or a close vote then they can deploy the Irish solution – if the vote is to stay case closed, if the vote is to remain then pour in more funding and say another referendum is needed as the result wasn’t clear due to narrow margin/low turn out/the wrong answer being given. It’s a cunning tactic and it’s worked before.

0

EU say tomato….

By | |
Comments Off on EU say tomato….

Given I’m rather in favour of leaving the EU (more of which later) I thought I’d look at some of the things been said by those who hold the differing view. Both sides I’m afraid are making a lot of capital out of the confusion between:

  • The European Union – the political body we’re discussing leaving
  • Europe the continent which we are rather adjacent to and that isn’t going to change
  • The European Court of Human Rights which has nothing to do with the European Union
  • The European Convention on Human rights which also has nothing to do with the European Union
  • Many other things which start with the word European or Europe

Just to look at a few examples I’m just going to use two sources – they’re typical enough.
First CrowdPac “Are You In Or Out?”, this is an allegedly neutral quiz to suggest where you stand and to encourage you to look into things in more depth. However it’s very difficult to be actually neutral as any scenario is laced with assumption, so here’s a few examples from their questions. I would also note that they swap between “Europe” and “the EU” quite freely.

2. Being part of Europe has helped us protect the environment.
Which Europe exactly do they mean, I know they’re simplifying things but many environmental issue such as say the Kyoto protocol are global so the EU is just one voice amongst many and we could sign up to such a treaty regardless of if we’re part of the EU or not. If they mean more local issues like beach quality, well could that not have been dealt with at a national level if people actually cared?

5. Being part of Europe has made Britain a better country.
Are they expecting us to tow the UK further out into the Atlantic? Regardless of the outcome of the vote we’ll still be part of Europe – unless of course it gets cut off by fog.

7. European cooperation is important to protect the interests of our children and grandchildren.
Because of course if we leave the political body that is the EU it will be impossible for us to cooperate with any of our continental neighbours on anything – despite the fact that we’ve done so for centuries?

11. Cooperation with other European nations on terrorism and security makes Britain safer.
This is basically a repeat of question 7 with added fear, why would we stop co-operating on such matters?

So so much for that, now for my next “random” source 10 points to consider about Brexit and the EU Referendum a blog friends of mine linked to.

1. We’ll have control over our own laws.
No. We won’t, we will still need to harmonise with Europe. The only difference between now and then is that at the moment we get to influence those laws. If we leave we just have to adopt them
Yet the remain campaign also claim that the EU doesn’t create that much law – so which is it? Also many of the regulations we adopt are from larger supranational bodies anyway where we already have a voice, except now the EU speaks for us. So much like Norway we could have our say at the top table rather than via the EU as middleman. Also apart from trade regulations EU law wouldn’t apply within the UK and we wouldn’t have to adopt it.

2. British courts can make the final decision.
More complex this one but, in short, no. They can’t. At least not any more than now. The European Court of Human Rights (the Daily Mule’s biggest enemy) has nothing to do with the EU. The European Court of Justice is the final arbiter of EU law (not national law)… see point 1.
So in part I agree with this, except remain supporters do like to conflate the European court of Human Rights with the Eu as well, and see my rebuttal to point 1.

4. We can control immigration.
In theory, yes, we could. We could pull up the drawbridge and fill in the tunnel too. But it won’t happen because we lose more than we gain.
Why do EU supporters seem to always conflate controlling with stopping immigration? I fear this says far more about them than it does about anyone that wants to leave the EU. A straw man argument at best.

5. Staying in makes terrorism more likely.
One of the more facile claims, this is so brilliantly stupid that it is almost genius. Staying in the EU makes us a hotbed for terrorism whilst leaving means we’re all safe. There you have it! The only problem is, it’s not true. First of all, see point 4 above. Then consider that terrorists are just like multi-nationals – they don’t respect national borders, they don’t play fair and they don’t care about you.
Now the EU supporters do also like to claim that leaving the EU would make terrorism more likely – so both sides like to play this card. I personally doubt that leaving or remaining in the EU will have that much impact on terrorism. At least not whilst both the UK and the Eu tends to not have honest discussions about the problem and stick with a policy of appeasement and ignoring it. The problem here is not the EU so much as our glorious leaders.

6. We’ll renegotiate free trade deals to replace the EU.
We won’t. Certainly not quickly at least. We’ll trade with the EU as a member of the EEA so we get pretty much the same as now but we lose the power to influence any future changes. Again, see Norway. And the US has already made it clear it has no interest in a FTA with a newly isolated and rapidly sinking UK. But if you believe we can do instant deals why don’t you start with Scotland. As it will undoubtedly leave if the UK leaves the EU. As eventually will Northern Ireland. And then Wales… starting to feel like the ugly kid at the school disco yet?
So many assumptions here I really don’t know where to begin. Mind you I am still confused why Scotland would want to fight for independence to then just subsume itself into the EU – if anyone can please explain that to me? As to those trade deals we currently have a trade deficit with Europe so they stand to lose more than we do, and many of the exports counted as going to the EU are actually bound elsewhere it just they transit the EU so get counted there in official figures. All that said this is a short-term argument, lets decide our countries future for decades or centuries to come based on a few years of possible trade difficulties.

7. We’ll be strutting our stuff as world power again.
Newsflash! The UK is a world power. It has a seat on the UN Security Council. It punches enormously above its weight on the international stage. This is in part because of its connectedness to Europe and its power within the EU. Leave and what are you left with? There is momentum building to review the UNSC membership, what do you think are the odds that an isolated UK will still be there?
We do have a seat on the UN Security council and many other work bodies, all of which the EU would like take over so there will be a single EU representative speaking for everyone. As a nuclear power and a country willing to support UNSC resolutions I’d say our chance of keeping our seat are pretty good. That said here the argument seems to boil down to “we already have a seat, if we stay in the EU we’ll lose it if we leave we might lose it anyway”.

9. The EU is incompetent, badly run and a drain on resources.
Yes. It is. It is beyond incompetent in many cases. But we’re stuck with it one way or the other – leaving does not change that. It might be hard to change it but at least it’s possible from the inside (now more than ever). What can we do from outside? It’s also worth pondering that many of the problems with supposed-EU dictates lie in the local implementation (remember, it was the UK’s fault it didn’t impose the moratorium in immigration in 2004, as Germany and others did).
A point of agreement that the EU is badly run. However “we’re stuck with it” that surely is the entire point of this vote? If we’re outside then we’re less concerned if it’s badly run, in the same way that I’m not too worried if my next door neighbour is managing his finances badly. I can choose to help or not, but his credit card bills don’t cost me. I would though also agree that local implementation of EU diktats is an issue, but then if we leave the EU we don’t have to implement them so problem solved.

10. What’s it ever done for us anyway?
Nothing much. Other than working time directives and other ways that protect your rights at work, protect your children. Then there’s consumer protection and European peace. Not to mention the wholesale transition of Eastern Europe from volatile authoritarian states into thriving democracies. Maybe you don’t care about any of those things. But you should.
So much here to debunk, and so much that has already been debunked. The appeal to imposed legislation is anti-democratic as it implies that no UK government would have done those things on their own – it’s again an appeal to a body that can impose it’s will on a democratic national government which is fine until that body no longer does the stuff you want. Many of the things that protect our rights etc stem from the European convention on human rights which we’ve already established has nothing to do with the EU. European peace has quite a bit more to do with NATO and are the remain supporters really claiming that the moment the UK leaves Europe it will once more descend into war? (OK they do seem to be on occasion). But really given how unimportant the UK is painted as our leaving should cause a conflagration on the continent and I doubt we’ll invade them, so is the argument actually “leave the EU and the EU will invade”? If so that seems rather like a protection racket. I also question just how much of a role the EU really has had in Eastern Europe moving towards democracy.

The remain campaign seems to me to try to have it’s cake and eat it. Claiming both that the UK is insignificant, but if it leaves the world will end and the UK is important but if it leaves it’s a small spent force that everyone will ignore. I would though agree with the parting comment of the article:
We’re being fed a diet of half-truths and outright lies based on short-termism when the real issues are not just complex but fundamental to our economic and geopolitical future.

This is absolutely true for both sides, and probably more so for the remain campaign than for leave, it also ignores the more important questions that are above the purely pragmatic economic and realpolitik – what price democracy, what sort of future do we want, what direction is the EU really going in and do we want to go along with that?

0