Brexit puns I’ve learned off by heart: Some thoughts for a referendum
The referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, for me at least, seems to hinge on three main issues: the economy, immigration, and the notion of 'taking back control' - or rather, sovereignty. But control for whom? For me, that was the question that pushed me to choose Remain, after I'd made the exhaustive choice to read through this entire list of puns.
If we choose to leave tomorrow, we give a mandate to Gove, Johnson, and Iain Duncan Smith, whether we intend to or not. We enable far-right politicians with a wide range of problematic views. That’s worse than the kind of politics peddled by Brussels. Furthermore, we encourage an unsustainable viewpoint on immigration: that it can be altered by leaving an organisation that will nevertheless have control over us. We will be subject to accepting a majority of the EU's rules if we wish to trade with it, and the degree to which immigration will actually change may well be negligible. I can agree that immigration has its ups and downs, but if we’re looking to reduce it, leaving will likely do little. The government can limit immigration from outside the EU as much as it likes, and yet the attitude there is mostly laissez-faire.
The claim that we will take back control if we leave is largely countered by the fact that we will lose our seat at the table and then be forced to opt in to many of the EU's scruples anyway. Saying that we should do leave because the undemocratic nature of the EU limits our ‘national sovereignty’ is, again, a fallacy. The European Parliament is elected by proportional representation, and the European Commission has one appointed member from each member state. The UK can veto any law it doesn't particularly like. One nasty example of this was the UK's recent choice to impeach a European directive on reducing air pollution. It failed to pass purely thanks to British lobbying, proving, in a single case, that despite what you might think, the EU is indeed a progressive entity. And as for democracy, the House of Commons is elected by first past the post, which is deeply misrepresentative, and the House of Lords is an unelected chamber with veto power. Surely that's actually worse than the much vilified EU commission? To put it in the words of Green MP Caroline Lucas, "The EU needs to be more democratic, more representative, more accountable - but then again, so does Westminster".
The argument over the economics of Brexit is scant. There is no previous incidence of such an exit from such an institution, and as such, we shouldn't be looking for examples but rough predictions, and even then, it is fair enough to take them with a pinch of salt. The truth of it is that Brexit will cause a loss in the immediate quantity of jobs available in the United Kingdom, because of the number that rely on exporting and others linked to the EU. Inevitably, this will have a multiplier effect. Those clamouring to leave cannot show us what the UK post-Brexit would look like, whom it would trade with, or how, and leading economists, biased or not, agree that Brexit is unwise. It is also incredibly unlikely that leaving would net us an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. An exit from the EU also prompts the creation of multiple new, shadowy trade agreements on par with TTIP, which Europe is actually helping us defeat. The Conservative government wants TTIP and all its flaws (corporations fighting the government and its people in crony courts with a high chance of success), but the EU, most notably France, doesn't.
Therefore, it seems that it is in the United Kingdom's best interests to remain in the European Union, with the guarantee, shakily acquired by Cameron, that there will be no EU 'super-state'. However, it is hardly in the EU's best interests for Britain to remain. The UK's response to the migrant crisis, its multiple rejections of more progressive EU legislation, and its refusal to ultimately 'join in' to the same extent as nations such as France or Germany, owing mostly to its 'island mentality', makes it seem as though the UK does not suit the European Union, no matter how much it stands to benefit from staying in.
A large enough victory for Remain, more troublingly, could give a mandate to the European status quo: a European Union that, thanks to greats such as Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, is on the surface progressive but at heart largely neoliberal and backward. Whilst horrifying, at least populist, far-right parties such as UKIP give the people a voice - far more so than European presidents acting in the interests of lobbyists. Even if the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK, the sad truth is that most democracies nowadays invariably favour crony capitalism, that is, systems benefitting those with the most wealth to influence said systems. It seems only valid, then, that the best situation is a slim victory for Remain, to show that the modern European Project needs reform.
This raises another issue, however: a slim victory will likely not highlight progressive change that need to be made, but the more populist hinges of the Leave campaign - which brings us back into concessions over immigration and so on and so forth.
It seems, then, that while the EU doesn't deserve the UK, the UK deserves the EU - but it is unlikely that we will leave this referendum with the EU we want, or even the schematics to get us there. The crux for me is that staying in at least gives us a chance. Given a more progressive Prime Minister, and a populace braced for the best kind of change, we could be a truly excellent reformer of the European project. No matter what "rationalists" might want you to think, leaving the EU because it's been skewed partway through isn't a justification for leaving it. Abandoning your family as a teenager in the hopes that you'll find a better one on your way out the door is a mistake, especially if you only did it because your dad was a grumpy pedant and your mother kept telling you to eat your vegetables. That might sound like a joke, but the metaphor isn't entirely unfounded.
We need hope in our political institutions for them to succeed. Hope was the founding principle of the European Economic Community, and it was just the same for the UN and the League of Nations before it. We held out hope that nations would cooperate, modernise, and reform. A brighter future is possible; we just have to be prepared to work for it, from the inside out. That's why I still believe we're stronger in. Cosmopolitanism always trumps selfishness - and on that note, I'll leave you with a famous quote from metaphysical poet John Donne; I'm sure you'll recognise at least some of it.
If we choose to leave tomorrow, we give a mandate to Gove, Johnson, and Iain Duncan Smith, whether we intend to or not. We enable far-right politicians with a wide range of problematic views. That’s worse than the kind of politics peddled by Brussels. Furthermore, we encourage an unsustainable viewpoint on immigration: that it can be altered by leaving an organisation that will nevertheless have control over us. We will be subject to accepting a majority of the EU's rules if we wish to trade with it, and the degree to which immigration will actually change may well be negligible. I can agree that immigration has its ups and downs, but if we’re looking to reduce it, leaving will likely do little. The government can limit immigration from outside the EU as much as it likes, and yet the attitude there is mostly laissez-faire.
The claim that we will take back control if we leave is largely countered by the fact that we will lose our seat at the table and then be forced to opt in to many of the EU's scruples anyway. Saying that we should do leave because the undemocratic nature of the EU limits our ‘national sovereignty’ is, again, a fallacy. The European Parliament is elected by proportional representation, and the European Commission has one appointed member from each member state. The UK can veto any law it doesn't particularly like. One nasty example of this was the UK's recent choice to impeach a European directive on reducing air pollution. It failed to pass purely thanks to British lobbying, proving, in a single case, that despite what you might think, the EU is indeed a progressive entity. And as for democracy, the House of Commons is elected by first past the post, which is deeply misrepresentative, and the House of Lords is an unelected chamber with veto power. Surely that's actually worse than the much vilified EU commission? To put it in the words of Green MP Caroline Lucas, "The EU needs to be more democratic, more representative, more accountable - but then again, so does Westminster".
The argument over the economics of Brexit is scant. There is no previous incidence of such an exit from such an institution, and as such, we shouldn't be looking for examples but rough predictions, and even then, it is fair enough to take them with a pinch of salt. The truth of it is that Brexit will cause a loss in the immediate quantity of jobs available in the United Kingdom, because of the number that rely on exporting and others linked to the EU. Inevitably, this will have a multiplier effect. Those clamouring to leave cannot show us what the UK post-Brexit would look like, whom it would trade with, or how, and leading economists, biased or not, agree that Brexit is unwise. It is also incredibly unlikely that leaving would net us an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. An exit from the EU also prompts the creation of multiple new, shadowy trade agreements on par with TTIP, which Europe is actually helping us defeat. The Conservative government wants TTIP and all its flaws (corporations fighting the government and its people in crony courts with a high chance of success), but the EU, most notably France, doesn't.
Therefore, it seems that it is in the United Kingdom's best interests to remain in the European Union, with the guarantee, shakily acquired by Cameron, that there will be no EU 'super-state'. However, it is hardly in the EU's best interests for Britain to remain. The UK's response to the migrant crisis, its multiple rejections of more progressive EU legislation, and its refusal to ultimately 'join in' to the same extent as nations such as France or Germany, owing mostly to its 'island mentality', makes it seem as though the UK does not suit the European Union, no matter how much it stands to benefit from staying in.
A large enough victory for Remain, more troublingly, could give a mandate to the European status quo: a European Union that, thanks to greats such as Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, is on the surface progressive but at heart largely neoliberal and backward. Whilst horrifying, at least populist, far-right parties such as UKIP give the people a voice - far more so than European presidents acting in the interests of lobbyists. Even if the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK, the sad truth is that most democracies nowadays invariably favour crony capitalism, that is, systems benefitting those with the most wealth to influence said systems. It seems only valid, then, that the best situation is a slim victory for Remain, to show that the modern European Project needs reform.
This raises another issue, however: a slim victory will likely not highlight progressive change that need to be made, but the more populist hinges of the Leave campaign - which brings us back into concessions over immigration and so on and so forth.
It seems, then, that while the EU doesn't deserve the UK, the UK deserves the EU - but it is unlikely that we will leave this referendum with the EU we want, or even the schematics to get us there. The crux for me is that staying in at least gives us a chance. Given a more progressive Prime Minister, and a populace braced for the best kind of change, we could be a truly excellent reformer of the European project. No matter what "rationalists" might want you to think, leaving the EU because it's been skewed partway through isn't a justification for leaving it. Abandoning your family as a teenager in the hopes that you'll find a better one on your way out the door is a mistake, especially if you only did it because your dad was a grumpy pedant and your mother kept telling you to eat your vegetables. That might sound like a joke, but the metaphor isn't entirely unfounded.
We need hope in our political institutions for them to succeed. Hope was the founding principle of the European Economic Community, and it was just the same for the UN and the League of Nations before it. We held out hope that nations would cooperate, modernise, and reform. A brighter future is possible; we just have to be prepared to work for it, from the inside out. That's why I still believe we're stronger in. Cosmopolitanism always trumps selfishness - and on that note, I'll leave you with a famous quote from metaphysical poet John Donne; I'm sure you'll recognise at least some of it.
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee".
Comments
Post a Comment