Were people in Britain who voted to leave the EU selfish?

As Malden Capell has already covered the main points of your response and as I’ve been asked to dial it back, I’ll just pick up on one more point from your original email.

Here’s the thing: the European Parliament was also “our own government”. We elected Members to it. We were represented on all major decision-making bodies within the EU. The EU was not “the Other”. The EU was, in part, us too. And we had a vast amount of influence on it, as I’ve already mentioned, despite some of the representatives we sent on our behalf.

That a disturbing number of Brits chose to elect corrupt buffoons to represent us in the European Parliament is not the fault of the EU, most of whose members sent intelligent, capable representatives. That’s all on us - or at least on the people who believed Nigel Farage was anything other than a cowardly little chancer (this is a man who threw fish into the Thames to protest EU fishing policy but didn’t turn up to the EU Fisheries Committee meetings where he could actually have had input into those policies). We have done much to drive EU policies and we could well have had a stronger voice…but we decided not to. Not the EU. We, democratically, did that. And we did it out of pettiness and spite.

Again - if you want to argue that the various EU bodies were democracy at too far a remove, that’s one thing - but that’s not the argument you’re making, and if you were it would be an argument that supported greater and greater degrees of devolution. But the argument you *are *making - well, it isn’t really an argument other than “I don’t like the EU”.

Those who I know that voted to leave are the very opposite of selfish. They understood then and understand now that they are actually likely to be worse off in the short term with uncertain prospects for the medium to long term. The main wish expressed by people is a desire to be in full control of their nation state, just like that arch-racist and xenophobe Tony Benn. Even if economically there is a hit to them they seem to accept that it will be worth it in the long run and that the move towards an ever-closer EU is not a sensible direction of travel.

Those who take a heated and prejudicial position on either side seem never to have actually asked real people what they truly think. They are far more ready to let twitter and their preferred media do their thinking for them, saves them the trouble of being confronted by an actual human with a defensible position I suppose.

Only yesterday, I joked with some colleagues that Covid-19 was almost making me feel wistful for the days when all we had to worry about was Brexit. Thank you all for reminding me what a holy nightmare it still is.

This was never spoken by any Brexiter I ever either saw on TV or spoke to in person or online during the referendum period or in about a 12-month period after. It was always insisted there were no downsides, they need us more than we them, just believe in Britain.

And I’m pretty well-connected, and at my work was able to see a huge array of public and professional opinions on what Brexit is.

This ‘we’ll take a hit in the short term’ only came about after May’s deal was in danger of failing and no-deal became a prospect, as Brexiters sought to self-rationalise.

Bully for Tony Benn.

Thing is, Boris Johnson’s deal adbicates British control over the Irish border and places a border within the UK’s territory. So your claims about a desire for sovereign control rings a little hollow.

Could you answer this: If Johnson’s deal had been on offer in 2016, would the public have voted for it?

Once again: I’ve tried desperately to find a Brexiter with a rational case for Brexit. I’ve encountered plenty of sensible Tories, whom I can get along with fine. But Brexit? Not a chance. There’s a logic hole when it comes up. It’s like arguing with a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.

Is this the usual definition of “real people” that goes “Anyone that agrees with me”?

Before the Brexit vote was announced, a strong majority of Britons disliked the EU government and were opposed to increased EU federalism. That majority liked some of the benefits of being in the EU such as visa-free travel, effective cross-border agencies such as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and the free trade agreement. However, they disliked the outgoing payments, the huge amount of EU bureaucracy, and the idea that the main purpose of the EU was to generate an ever-increasing amount of regulations. Additionally, many people resented the fact that immigration from Eastern Europe after the 2004 EU expansion had created competition for jobs and demand for housing and services, but they weren’t perceiving the benefits from that immigration. Remainers who described that resentment as racist xenophobia were part of the problem. They were taking a complex issue and simplifying it into a polarising insult. The Remain campaign had to overcome the embedded dislike of the EU government and suspicions about increased EU federalism, sell the benefits that Britain was receiving from the EU, and alleviate the resentment against Eastern European immigration. It failed at all three. The Leave campaign made a lot of noise, invoked patriotism, and convinced some voters to vote based on their sentiments rather than an economic perspective. But really all they had to do was maintain anti-EU attitudes and immigration resentment that was already present before the vote was announced. They were successful in offsetting some of the Remain campaign’s arguments. But the Remain campaign’s arguments were lousy: Everything’s fine now, let’s maintain the status quo; Vote with your wallet, not your heart; There will be nothing but doom if Britain leaves. The Remain campaign created few positive sentiments for voters to rally around, and never overcame the negative sentiments held by the majority prior to the campaign. That’s why they lost.

So your point is that the Leave campaign was based on xenophobia and fantasy and the Remain campaign was based on economic realism, and the majority chose the fantasy.

I agree.

I can certainly believe that you don’t recall anyone saying it.

This I do agree with. There was little positive in the Remain campaign.

But let’s not ignore the advantage leave had by blatantly lying and denying there were any downsides whatsoever, invented negatives of membership, and claimed completely contradictory things.

Leave were a gish gallop of falsehoods.

Correct. Because I never heard anyone say it before mid-2017 when Brexit started going down the no-deal route.

I can certainly believe you imagine people saying it.

But let’s not avoid the central point of my post, Novelty Bobble

Can you address this, please?

I voted to remain.

Your statement says far more about you than me.

I just don’t immediately write off everyone who takes a different view. My family, friends and work colleagues were, and are, pretty evenly split and yet we’ve been able to discuss the pros and cons without any antipathy at all.

I’m suspicious of the motives of those on either side who are unable (or unwilling) to do so and it is perhaps no surprise that they see and hear what they choose to.

Nor do I. Never. But I have never, ever, encountered a Leave argument that actually survives a moment’s scrutiny.

If you can offer me one, go right ahead.

It’s not ‘unwilling’ if there’s simply not one there.

I don’t know, perhaps not, my impression from talking to leavers before the vote was that the overwhelming preference was for a pretty hard break. If Boris’s deal was the only one on offer then I don’t know what the choice would have been.

Of course it has been said that no-one was voting for a hard Brexit but in my experience a large majority certainly were (and that was backed up by the high European vote for the Brexit party)

But I’m not sure what conceding your point actually proves. That the deal on offer is a sovereignty fudge may well be true. It is however irrelevant to the fact that desire for full sovereign control remains a valid reason for full independence, and people do genuinely hold that view. That was my point.

And why on earth would that be a surprise to anyone? Speak to any Scottish, Welsh or Irish Nationalist. I’m assuming you wouldn’t think their concerns were invalid?

Do you also think that Scottish independence does not survive a moment’s scrutiny?

One thing I have observed during the current crisis is the amazement of the Leavers. Look - individual countries making their own decisions about how to deal with the pandemic, introducing measures such as isolation on arrival, and even completely closing their borders.

This is completely at odds with the Leaver narrative of all borders are completely open, we can’t control them, and we always get told what to do by Germany.

Which means that they were, you know, wrong.

Interesting to note that you use the words above, implying that I’ve made it up, but I said about you

My impression from talking to leavers was that they expected the EU to absoutely cave and give the UK whatever it wanted, so we’d be able to dictate terms and get a sweet deal. Which is self-evidently a deluded, fact-free belief.

That’s not ‘we’re okay with hard Brexit’ - it’s ‘hard Brexit is irrelevant as we can invent any ideal Brexit in our heads’

In fact Remain warnings about ‘hard Brexit’ were dismissed as scaremongering.

How right Remain were.

I think it’s largely a sizeable proportion continuing to refuse to tackle the self-evidence reality that barking at the EU won’t make it cave in. It’s the equivalent of people expecting foreigners to understand them if they speak louder.

You seem to be insisting that we listen to the other points of view while refusing to acknowledge that Leavers have never been asked to listen to the points of view of Remainers.

There’s a debate to be had about what is sovereignty and whether or not EU membership violates that. There’s also a debate about whether Brexit solves that problem or actually makes it worse.

And there’s a debate about whether or not ‘reclaiming sovereignty’ is worth the enormous economic, diplomatic and infrastructural damage that will inevitably result.

But Brexiters have never been asked to address those things, or to stop being bad winners, come down from their bubbles and try to compromise with their fellow countrymen. Instead, they’ve treated them like a conquered people, traitors even. A former good friend of mine, a Conservative, who I rarely agreed with on things before Brexit, treated the Brexit victory as license to tell me that (paraphrasing, but pretty much it), I have no rights any more, I lost, I need to suck it up, the British are in charge now, not you.

And yet you berate Remainers for being inflexible?

Who said their complaints were invalid? With Brexiters, they have tons of valid complaints - but the fault is the UK government, and never, when you actually dig down, those of the EU.

Brexit makes them worse, and makes us less sovereign, and compromises our borders to an even worse degree.

As Remainers always warned.

You’re conflating ‘consider the broad merits of whether or not leaving the EU/leaving the UK is a good idea’ with ‘treating beliefs that aren’t backed up by evidence, are based on outright lies, and which will have consequences the direct opposite of which adherents claim, as worthy of respect next to actual facts’.

That’s the joke.

I can only imagine the conspiracy theories they’d be inventing if we’d not left the EU.