Eu Referendum - Tumblr Posts
EU Referendum
Introduction
Today, the United Kingdom made a decision to leave the European Union, which we have been a part of since 1973 where we joined the European Community. It was a close decision, 51.9% elected to leave and 48.1% elected to remain, with a voter turnout of roughly 72.2% (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis). This result has made me very angry, and very scared for this country. My issue isn’t that people voted Leave, I respect that a decision has been made and I’m not going to have a go at people for that decision. But there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. I’ll give each section a header and put a TL;DR at the end, as I’m going to get quite long-winded and probably boring.
Background Information
A bit of background for anyone not familiar with the issue. The European Union, founded as the European Economic Committee in 1957, was a result of the aftermath of the Second World War. The majority of European history consisted of countries at war with each other, but after the devastation of the Second World War, it was felt something had to be done to prevent more bloodshed. The fundamental ideas of the EU were to have a free market - no more custom fees between countries, shared food production to prevent starvation among poorer citizens (initially leading to a surplus of food), job opportunities throughout the EU, freedom of movement, a shared military in case of further war, support in the event of financial crises, and for a lot of member countries, a shared strong currency. The United Kingdom held a unique position in the European Union - while not being one of the founding members, it held a special status. We were subject to lower levels of immigration than most member states and had greater border control, we maintained the pound over the euro, and other such benefits. While it can be difficult finding relatively unbiased sources, the history of the EU is detailed on sites such as http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm, while the special status of the United Kingdom is discussed in sources such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35616768 - I thoroughly recommend doing individual research as well, but here’s a few sources to attempt to validate any points made.
This Should Not Have Been Decided Via A Referendum
First of all, this decision should not have been put to a referendum. Referenda suffer from the same fundamental flaw of democracy that cannot be avoided - they treat every single person as equal. That means that someone who has spent weeks and months researching both sides of the argument and coming to their own conclusion is treated the same as someone who voted for a joke (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-man_uk_576cf8e4e4b08d2c5638ee29). This means the result is less likely to be founded on facts and more likely to be founded on public perception, which is inevitably warped and the campaigns on either side didn’t help the issue (that point will come later).
This Referendum Should Not Have Happened
Secondly, the country shouldn’t have been put in a position where we had to have a referendum on this. To anyone who isn’t aware of the source of the referendum, in the general election back in 2012 there were considerable numbers of Conservative voters who were being tempted to defect to the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, a far right group led by the infamous Nigel Farage. In a bid to hold on to these politicians, David Cameron promised that there would be an EU referendum if he managed to hold office. He did, and thus the referendum took place (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/what-is-brexit-why-is-there-an-eu-referendum-a7042791.html). Placing the future of an entire country in potential jeopardy in an attempt to hold on to power is frankly fraudulent and selfish, and thanks to this the future of the country could potentially be at stake.
The Issues With The Campaigns
However, regardless of whether a referendum was the correct choice or not, it couldn’t be avoided. So looking past this to the next issue, the two campaigns themselves. The shared fault in both campaigns was their tactics. Instead of laying out the pros and the cons of leaving and remaining, looking at hard facts and allowing people to draw their own conclusions, both campaigns resorted to lies, misinformation, false promises, scaremongering and insults to those in favour of the other. There is frankly too much at fault with each campaign to list it all, but let’s have a look at a couple of issues on both sides.
Leave - Misinformation
To look at the Leave campaign first. One of the most common statistics quoted was that the UK spent about £55 million per day ($75 million for American readers at time of writing according to Google currency conversions) on the European Union. This amounts to a figure of £18 billion ($25 billion) per year, which seems like a vast amount of money. But this can be broken down quite comfortably for the misinformation it is (https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/). Firstly, there is already a rebate of £5 billion ($7 billion) before any money actually comes back. Secondly, the EU spends billions on the UK - £4 billion was spent on the UK last year, for example. So the cost is being vastly overstated. Then, even if the initial cost is considered: last year the government public spending amounted to roughly £750 billion ($1000 billion, or $1 trillion) (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/). This means the amount spent initially on the EU was 2.4% of the annual spending budget. To put this in simpler terms, the average UK household income in 2015 was £25600/$35000. 2.4% of this is roughly £615/$841 a year, or £51/$70 a month. That’s the equivalent of an expensive phone contract - as a proportion of budget it’s tiny.
Leave - False Promises, Lies And Scaremongering
Another issue of the Leave campaign was some of the promises made. One such promise relates to the above point - the above spending is often quoted as £350 million ($480 million) a week, which the Leave campaign promised would be spent instead on the NHS. However, when the news broke this morning, Nigel Farage (not a member of the official Leave campaign but a heavy advocate) showed that this promise was false (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/). Another broken promise relates to immigration. It is a wide held belief among some groups of voters that the UK has too much immigration (according to http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics the net in-migration was 330,000 people last year). One issue with this is that the UK has higher migration from non-EU countries than it does due to the EU (figures also listed in the above link), so leaving would not remedy the issue. Another issue is that this equates to 0.5% population group, and the reason the UK can’t cope is an infrastructure issue as most countries have natural population growths exceeding this. But putting those issues asides, the Leave campaign promised to reduce immigration in the result of the UK leaving the EU. However, as discussed on https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/leave-campaigners-suggest-pledges-may-not-upheld/, leaving will not in fact cut EU immigration. There was also the scaremongering of claiming that large numbers of refugees migrating to the UK are in fact members of ISIS/Daesh - I haven’t provided a figure here as they vary and are inevitably pure speculation, but this is a thinly veiled threat to the public; if you remain in the EU, you will suffer as a result of terrorism.
Remain - Misinformation
The Remain campaign was no more innocent of these flaws. One claim quoted by the Remain campaign stated that the European Union makes households £3000/$4100 richer on average per year. The study that produced this figure (http://news.cbi.org.uk/cbi-prod/assets/File/pdf/CBI%20EU%20literature%20review.pdf) is itself comprised of a range of studies conducted over two decades, with different aims and methodologies. Relating these studies, which are each subject to their own uncertainties, presumptions and centres of focus (some focus on the past, some on an ‘independent’ future, some not even on the UK), would be an invalid method of drawing a result. The truth is, no-one knows how much the UK benefitted from the EU - not all benefits are quantifiable, and those that are can be subjected to different analysis to give different values, and thus we cannot say with any form of certainty how much people benefit. Any future predictions about the economy upon our Leave vote also cannot be considered without more than a pinch of salt. Economics, especially involving the FTSE or any form of change, are extremely volatile and predicting the future is extremely tricky, plus finding an unbiased source is near impossible as companies and experts are funded by people on both sides.
Remain - False Promises, Lies And Scaremongering
It is more difficult to pin down any false promises for the Remain campaign - not because they made none, but because any promises made were made long before the referendum - these include further discussions to improve our position in the EU, never resorting to the EU and reducing immigration. These promises have been made by multiple political parties attempting to gain seats, and are not tied to the Remain campaign itself. One promise made, however, was that being within the European Union will create 790,000 more jobs by 2030 (http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts#AdPj6S4isTxpROWz.97). This promise is like many of the others - it attempts to predict a future that is too unstable, and it doesn’t fully account for all factors because it cannot be done - migration and population growth cannot be accounted for, the number and type of jobs available cannot be accounted for, the global economic situation cannot be predicted, etc - this figure is a false promise designed to entice voters. The main area where the Remain campaign suffered was its numerous attempts at scaring voters into voting their way. One such instance was the claim that resulted from banks and financial experts that the event of the United Kingdom leaving the EU “could result in 6% lower GDP over two years, the loss of 820,000 jobs, a 4% fall in average incomes, a 15% collapse in the value of the pound and £39bn added to government borrowing.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36362047). George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, also threatened an emergency budget of £15 billion ($21 billion) in cuts and the same amount in tax rises in the result of Brexit. These last minute claims were made to try to scare the public - not only did this not work, it most likely resulted in an increase in Leave voters. The economic predictions stated by David Cameron are all cautionary and are further attempts to predict the future, while Osborne’s budget was nothing more than a threat to those thinking of leaving. Such a budget would not be necessary for at least two years and potentially never necessary, and threatening to immediately impose such a budget did not sit well with voters, be them less knowledgable on the subject or experts in economics or government policy. The budget would be a budget, and it would be voted out before it even began. One final factor is the claim made by Jeremy Corbyn that there will be no upper limit in EU immigration (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/19/jeremy-corbyn-there-is-no-upper-limit-to-eu-migration/). This claim further alienated voters from both sides - while some may not feel there is any issue, a huge number of voters are scared at the prospect of too much migration, many feeling the effects as the competition for jobs increases further. This competitive environment may not be a result of migration but it is one factor of many, and it is one people cling to in their fear and anger - when the leader of the Labour Party, one of the two main parties, claims there is no limit to migration, people tend to be angry with this and go against it - this meant Labour, who were expected to vote Remain, were more in favour of Leave than expected and may have swayed the very close result to a UK exit.
The Issues With The Result
Finally, we reach the last twenty four hours. Despite the campaign faults on both sides, that part of the process cannot be changed and the result has been made. The UK will be leaving the EU, and the aftermath of this decision is already being felt. This has led to its own issues.
Ad Hominem Arseholes
This issue has been widespread throughout the campaign and is now growing worse. Instead of being reasonable and discussing issues, hundreds of thousands of people are resorting to insults and hatred of anyone who voted against them. On the Leave side of things, they are claiming that Remain voters are unpatriotic, sheep, ignorant lefties, are happy to be enslaved by Brussels, etc. On the Remain side, they feel that Leave voters are selfish, racist, xenophobic, ignorant, threatening and uneducated. Highlighting immigration issues, claiming that people with degrees (implied to be intelligent) vote for Remain, etc, have exaggerated these issues. There is also a divide between young and old voters. A YouGov poll (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-results-age-data-young_uk_576cd7d6e4b0232d331dac8f) showed that for voters between the age of 18-25, 75% voted remain and 25-49 year olds had 54% Remainers. On the other hand, 50-64 year olds were 44% in favour of Remain and 39% of over 65s voted to Remain. This means that the young feel their future has been irreparably damaged by people who won’t live with the consequences. The young voters claim the old are out of touch, racist, stuck in their ways and selfish for damaging the younger generation after they had everything handed to them on a silver platter - the older generation feel the younger is short-sighted, lazy, obnoxious and stupid with no real world experience and no real opinion on something they’ve never been outside of. Voters of all ages and both sides are taking this referendum as a chance to attack other people for holding different beliefs, tearing apart friendships, families and long standing ties. But these ad hominem attacks won’t benefit anyone - they make the country more likely to suffer in future as people fail to work together through Brexit. People are forgetting that the people they are attacking are also people - brothers, sisters, friends, children and parents. In some cases, its their brothers, their sisters, their friends, their spouses, their children - but people are too busy being angry to recognise the harm they are causing out of anger. And people are angry - it was anger at the EU and the government that caused the referendum, the same anger that caused the Leave campaign to emerge triumphant. People are angry that they feel unrepresented and cannot remain part of something they believed strongly in. People are being blinded by preconceptions and anger, and are showing the world that as a nation we are (at least at the moment) terrible to each other.
The Economy, The Government And Unity
Figures are already flying around in the twenty four hours since the vote came through. Let’s look at a few. First off, the pound fell by 9% to $1.34 to the pound in the hours following the result, the lowest since 1985 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36611512). However, what many places are failing to mention is that there was heavy investment in it just before the referendum, increasing its value from $1.44 to $1.49. When this temporary increase is ignored, the drop becomes less significant, more akin to a 6% or 7% drop. It becomes even less significant when it has been noted that by noon it had already gained 4% back and is already almost back to normal at time of writing. After any large decision, currencies drop in value, they always bounce back - how the pound will vary in future is unpredictable, especially in the first twenty four hours - the UK won’t have fully left for at least two years from the triggering of Article 50 (which details the process for leaving the EU), and this won’t happen till October at the earliest (this point is significant and will be discussed shortly). But making assumptions based on the initial outcome of a referendum is never going to go well, and quoting past financial situations to attempt to make it more newsworthy won’t change the future.
On the other hand, people are claiming, somewhat foolishly, that British industry will make a return. The reason this is a foolish claim is as follows. When Britain joined the EU, we were pioneers in industry - we kickstarted the Industrial Revolution, we were leaders and thus we were centres of industry. We produced the best product as we had more experience, and we had more competitive prices as we were established. However, in 2016, countries both within and outside the EU have greatly overtaken the UK. It costs companies more to set up shop in the UK, it costs more to employ our workers, it costs more in terms of health and safety, we have fewer resources, produce lower quality products and it costs more to sell them. The market size has also dramatically dropped for the UK - as part of a common market there were over 500 million people, as its own market there are only 50 million, so companies are less inclined to trade with us as well. But this is again speculation, however making claims of the return of the good old days are naive and highly improbable. One claim that cannot be denied is that students will not benefit from this - science will have reduced funding, exchange opportunities and job opportunities will be much lower due to the loss of free movement between twenty seven countries, and universities will not miraculously gain more places or funding and thus competition and fees will either remain the same or increase in all likelihood. So all is not as good as some Leave voters would like you to believe.
The government, however, is not necessarily as stable. Despite claiming that he would lead the country through whatever decision it made regarding the EU, in the hours following the Leave victory David Cameron resigned (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-live-david-cameron-resigns-as-uk-shocks-the-world/). This resignation of the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party means there are effectively three main candidates for his replacement - Boris Johnson, a right wing politician who has used this campaign in an attempt to become Prime Minister, a man who while Mayor of London failed utterly to reduce pollution (his introduction of ‘green’ hybrid buses over the original bendy bus did not aid traffic, the environment or the city - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/davehillblog/2011/dec/22/boris-johnson-hybrid-london-buses-environmental-performance details how it did not help the environment, 9500 people a year die from pollution in London according to https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study and exceeded its yearly emission limits in four days as detailed in http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/how-london-exceeded-its-entire-2016-eu-pollution-limit-in-just-one-week/423657/) - former Education Secretary Michael Gove, a man who was ousted from his last position by a unanimous vote of no confidence (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/apr/02/nut-no-confidence-michael-gove) - and Home Secretary Theresa May, who would most likely be the best bet but failed to cut migration below 100,000 as promised and is thus not a favourite amongst a portion of Leave voters. The most likely winner of this is Boris Johnson, which would cause a lot of harm for this country. A vote of no confidence has also been raised for Jeremy Corbyn, and while this is not by any means a certain end this demonstrates the divide in labour as a party. While these two parties are so divided, UKIP is on the rise, and a far right party that doesn’t believe in climate change, would reduce gay rights, is based entirely on a policy that has already happened and is lead by a man who can’t even win a seat in his own constituency is far from a good option for the country. At best, this divide will help parties to reconcile with their alienated voters, more likely it will lead to yet more ineffective leadership, more alienated voters and this time the damage will be greater than previous leaders. However, this is again speculation and must be taken as that, there is no more certainty in politics than there is in economics, but what cannot be denied is that there is a great divide in parties and voters.
Finally, unity. Scotland is again vying for a referendum (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36621030), and voices in Northern Island are calling for reunification with the Republic of Ireland (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-northern-ireland-eu-referendum-result-latest-live-border-poll-united-martin-mcguinness-a7099276.html). Both regions voted for Remain by a large proportion and yet they are being forced to leave thanks to the votes of Wales and large portions of England. While these are politician claims, which should not be trusted, they are very likely to echo the sentiments of the people - these regions cannot be part of the EU as they wish while they are part of the UK, and thus leaving seems a likely option. Scotland failed in its last referendum, but this decision may push enough voters over to the other side for us to lose Scotland. Some people may be wondering why this matters. A lot of the agriculture and fishing we prize, along with tourism, are centred in these two regions, and Scotland is home to the North Sea oil reserves. While oil has become less valuable in recent times, it may be set to rise again, and if Scotland does separate and become part of the EU it is likely that they would emerge triumphant in any dispute over the oil. It will also reduce the market size even further and potentially reduce the value of our currency, thus making it more difficult for England to come out on top in this.
The Future
We have no idea at all what will happen here. We don’t even know all of the past, let alone the future. All we can guarantee is that the next few years will be very difficult and there are lots of risks - there are potential payoffs but we have to work together for those to happen. The whole campaign, before, during and after, has been fraught with issues and have led to much anger on all sides. I will not even try to cover how angry and how scared I am for the future, and there are millions in the same situation - however, I have tried to present both sides fairly and with sources, unlike some, which is one of the issues. But all we can do is get past our anger and work together to make the best of the situation we’re in, whether we wanted it or not.
Too Long; Didn’t Read
It shouldn’t have been a referendum as they’re based more on perception than fact.
A referendum shouldn’t have been called in an attempt to keep one man in power.
Both sides campaigned through lies, misinformation, scaremongering and false promises rather than fair discussion of pros and cons, meaning votes weren’t truly educated and may have caused a wrong result.
The news and the government are all exaggerating sources and trying to base an unpredictable future on short term uncertain situations.
There may be issues with stability but only if people continue to be divided and attack each other rather than work together with the situation we’re in.
I’ve obviously not covered all points as there are far too many, but if there are any that anyone feels I should include, or any good sources for anything unsourced, or any corrections to anything I’ve said, please say!
EU Referendum
Introduction
Today, the United Kingdom made a decision to leave the European Union, which we have been a part of since 1973 where we joined the European Community. It was a close decision, 51.9% elected to leave and 48.1% elected to remain, with a voter turnout of roughly 72.2% (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis). This result has made me very angry, and very scared for this country. My issue isn’t that people voted Leave, I respect that a decision has been made and I’m not going to have a go at people for that decision. But there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. I’ll give each section a header and put a TL;DR at the end, as I’m going to get quite long-winded and probably boring.
Keep reading
Brexit: Thank you for the Hate...
I’ve read tweets and posts about the results of the UK referendum on the EU, and as far as I can see it has simply encouraged racism and caused panic.
I can almost see why people voted out and are being hateful. I’ve studied history and I know that throughout history scapegoats are in high demand when times get tough. Humans simply can’t accept that things are bad and that it may be their fault, so they blame someone who is an obvious outsider.
What astounds me though is that we are in the TWENTY FIRST century. Blindly blaming people is what the early modern Europeans did with witch hunts. It was shocking that people accepted the use of Jews as scape goats in the TWENTIETH century, and we are now in the TWENTY FIRST century. Has the human race progressed so little that it is no better than it was in the Middle Ages? A time that we deemed humanity to be completely backwards and less advanced?
Why are people still so blindly hateful? There is nothing that makes me different from someone whom I have never met who lives on the other side of the world. We both need to breathe oxygen, we both need to eat, we both bleed when we are cut, we will both form a scar when the cut heals. We are both related to our past generations and future generations to come. The only differences may be in skin, eye or hair colour, or in the language we speak, or in our faith, or in our traditions. But those are all on the surface. If you look past that- if you accept them- you can understand.
People complain about immigrants only speaking their language. When a British person goes abroad, it is rare that they learn the native language. People say immigrants stick together and don’t mix or integrate themselves. Neither do Britons when they go abroad. The same principal applies to you, so don’t slander others for acting the same as you.
Why hate people from another country? There is a chance, a golden opportunity, to share culture and traditions, and language, and knowledge. There is a chance to broaden your horizons. So why hate?
Or we could take a closed border point of view. Kick everyone who’s not ‘British’ enough out.
Why don’t we go to the extremes? Let’s empty the museums of everything that is non British, because it’s not about the world anymore; it’s about Britain and British Pride. Empty the museums and the art galleries of non-British things, return the Elgin Marbles to Greece because we don’t like foreigners. And just like that the British Museum, the Natural History Museum, the Tate Britain, the National Gallery, every museum, every art gallery, every library, has one small room with only a few ‘British’ artefacts.
What should we purge next? How about food? No Chinese take-aways those aren’t British. No Kababs, no Curry Vindaloo, no pizza. Those aren’t British. MacDonalds maybe, that’s American, they’re white enough, they speak English; there are white racists there too.
How about products? Can’t have that car it was made in Germany. Can’t have that toy it was made in China. Can’t have that t-shirt it was made in Taiwan. Only British goods, for British people. But we’ve got nothing.
Let’s not teach our children foreign languages either, because those aren’t British.
Those. Aren’t. British.
That. Isn’t. British.
You could go on and on, until there is a mono cultural country that has no idea of the rest of the world, but knows they hate it.
It that what you want? A country built on hate? A country that has closed itself of to the world?
It’s now a few days post Brexit (which is a stupid word) and racism has already shot through the roof. So we’ve legitimised racism what’s next? Sexism? Homophobia?
Why are we moving backwards, against all the progress that has been made? Why? Why are we set on creating a country that hates you if you are not a straight, white, cisgendered male?
That’s not what Brexit has done, but it Has set us on that path. We need to change. We need to love. You cannot fight hate with hate. Love your friends, love your neighbours, love those who are cast out for no good reason, love those who have been wronged and help put it right. But also love your enemy… nothing annoys them more.