Originally Posted by
roger_ramjet
I like Bukovsky's analogy and there is a great deal of evident truth in what he says on the conceptual similarities between what the EU and SU were trying to achieve. I particularly like the "expand or die" aspect. The EU is a Ponzi scheme. His thoughts very much echo my left shouldered devil about the creation of a European Single State. Ramanag's fears about the economy rather echo those of my right shouldered angel. Hence my continued uncertainty over the route we are going down: but whatever we have chosen, we must remain committed to it, not compromise it and end up with all the bad aspects and none of the good.
Neither angel nor devil are emphatically persuasive - Bukovsky's fears may be illusory and perhaps more EU states than us will reject the single state scenario and so it wont happen: but the EU decision making is still basically made by unelected officials and dominated by Germany and their acolytes.
On the other hand, I think economically we would be better off remaining, despite the optimism of "new markets" put forward by brexiteers. There is uncertainty as to whether we will be better off in or out economically. On balance I suspect remaining will give us more economic certainty and stability - and it will be hard to reverse the running down of our production of physical goods that years of cheap imports and, subsequently, focussed european based industry specialisation have helped create.
These are the two counterbalancing issues that I think are important to the in/out debate. Note I say debate - the actual referendum result was determined in the main by a different fear factor, the quasi racist "free movement of labour" issue which seems to have swayed many - or at least enough in an already tightly balanced contest.
It may simply be that the twin issues of economy vs democracry/nationalism were too complicated for the man in the street to understand - and were probably ill explained and subject to a variety of mistruths from either side. But he could understand the "damned poles/romanians/czechs etc" argument because he could recognise them and scapegoat them, perhaps for his own shortcomings.
So I believe the referendum created a decision based on the wrong reasons. it may prove to be the right decision, but noone can argue it was for the right reasons.
The risks - to leave and undergo a difficult few years adjusting to a new trade environment, to perhaps see a rebasing of the our currency, sovereign debt rating and balance of payments. Perhaps an overall downturn in the level of economic activity, but long term this can be adjusted to and ultimately remedied.
To stay and perhaps succumb to the unitary state, the euro, the european army etc. Sure we can try to influence the direction of the U policy, but we will fail. We can only make a stand against the tide by leaving - Cnut didnt really stop it, and we are naive to think we could despite the "magic bullet" of a veto.
I (and probably many of the rest of us "old pensioners") will probably not be around by the time we can evaluate the decision in the cool light of the day: but it we are ever going to leave, then we have to do it now before we get irretrievably assimilated to the Borg. Its a shame we didnt leave when the euro was introduced...
If only the Berlin wall hadn't come down