A Strange Conversation With A Brexiter
Feb. 14th, 2019 11:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
smokingbootI had a rare experience the other day, a polite amicable conversation with a Brexiter. I'm still wondering if I dreamed the whole thing.
I would like to say it gave me insight, but instead his ideas just left me very puzzled.
'There are those big businesses who have made so much from the Eu. Its benefitted them better than most...and whilst all that has been going on, they have been picking our pockets. And I'm not talking only of politicians, but the rich donors behind them who get tailor made policy to suit them and their financial Interests. This is in the main, why I feel the EU should be taken away from them. They are irresponsible with it. This is why we have spent two and a half years under a so called negotiating process where they have just been biding for time I feel, obviously hoping that someone is going to come up with an idea that allows them to somehow, miraculously, keep us in and still be able to fool the people into believing we are a democracy. And the reason why is because they do not want to leave this club that has been so successful for them at our expense. They have gotten richer whilst hocking us up in debt. And that story isn't just in the UK. Its all over the EU isn't it. So, as our parliament cannot behave in a responsible way with this EU club that has favoured them in so many ways, then it is high time it is removed from their grasp, so that they can stand responsible to us with no one else to blame. Why would our own politicians and those rich people it has served well want to reform it when it works so well for them?'
I pointed out that the uber-rich he wanted to punish would not have the EU removed from them - they'd simply move their concerns into EU territories, or places with FTA agreements with the EU. He agreed saying:
'My point about the rich is that they will always move their money to any given situation to carry on doing the same.'
So if he knew that the rich would simply move their finances as they needed, what was the point of all the spiel about taking the EU away from the rich? He was a nice enough man. But it was a cognitive disconnect so complete he couldn't explain it any further, and just moved on to other bones of contention.
"Perhaps the best solution to the problem, given that we have already had forty years as part of the EU project is to actually cut the strings by repealing the European communities act 1972 and leaving with no deal, as if we had never been in it. Then arrange a time for a new vote in four years time for argument sake, to have a referendum which actually asks the people of the UK, if they would actually like to join the EU... The timing of this referendum i feel should only be if both the UK and the EU are not in recession as that could influence the vote which isn't a good way to start any agreement, but I feel this would be a much more respectable proposition toward the general public and during those four years there could actually be a full and frank discussion on all the facts, for and against joining. And if we were to join then perhaps it would be best if we and the other European nations do it properly by having the euro and no opt outs, like in the city etc, and all other countries have all their opt outs and rights to veto cancelled too.
I seriously thought I was losing my mind. He said he thought it was strange that I didn't trust the EU enough not to want to give up the veto. When I pointed out that the member nations' vetoes were precisely what kept the EU from becoming the undemocratic monster Brexiters fear, he bimbled off onto something else.
These were just two examples; ours was a very long conversation. The reason I record this here is that, try as I might, the points made no logical sense to me, though they were offered in good faith. We take the EU from the rich to make them accountable, but we accept they'll move their money around and be fine anyway? We get out of the EU because its not democratic but if that doesn't work we could vote to return and get rid of member countries' veto powers? It was like observing a jigsaw puzzle become crazy paving. I wondered if he was stupid, by which I mean cognitively deficient as opposed to wilfully ignorant, or whether the fault lay with me, for missing some part of his meaning that should have been obvious. There's some half formed thought in my head about trained thought processes and how we reach a conclusion from them, but I'm still baffled.
I would like to say it gave me insight, but instead his ideas just left me very puzzled.
'There are those big businesses who have made so much from the Eu. Its benefitted them better than most...and whilst all that has been going on, they have been picking our pockets. And I'm not talking only of politicians, but the rich donors behind them who get tailor made policy to suit them and their financial Interests. This is in the main, why I feel the EU should be taken away from them. They are irresponsible with it. This is why we have spent two and a half years under a so called negotiating process where they have just been biding for time I feel, obviously hoping that someone is going to come up with an idea that allows them to somehow, miraculously, keep us in and still be able to fool the people into believing we are a democracy. And the reason why is because they do not want to leave this club that has been so successful for them at our expense. They have gotten richer whilst hocking us up in debt. And that story isn't just in the UK. Its all over the EU isn't it. So, as our parliament cannot behave in a responsible way with this EU club that has favoured them in so many ways, then it is high time it is removed from their grasp, so that they can stand responsible to us with no one else to blame. Why would our own politicians and those rich people it has served well want to reform it when it works so well for them?'
I pointed out that the uber-rich he wanted to punish would not have the EU removed from them - they'd simply move their concerns into EU territories, or places with FTA agreements with the EU. He agreed saying:
'My point about the rich is that they will always move their money to any given situation to carry on doing the same.'
So if he knew that the rich would simply move their finances as they needed, what was the point of all the spiel about taking the EU away from the rich? He was a nice enough man. But it was a cognitive disconnect so complete he couldn't explain it any further, and just moved on to other bones of contention.
"Perhaps the best solution to the problem, given that we have already had forty years as part of the EU project is to actually cut the strings by repealing the European communities act 1972 and leaving with no deal, as if we had never been in it. Then arrange a time for a new vote in four years time for argument sake, to have a referendum which actually asks the people of the UK, if they would actually like to join the EU... The timing of this referendum i feel should only be if both the UK and the EU are not in recession as that could influence the vote which isn't a good way to start any agreement, but I feel this would be a much more respectable proposition toward the general public and during those four years there could actually be a full and frank discussion on all the facts, for and against joining. And if we were to join then perhaps it would be best if we and the other European nations do it properly by having the euro and no opt outs, like in the city etc, and all other countries have all their opt outs and rights to veto cancelled too.
I seriously thought I was losing my mind. He said he thought it was strange that I didn't trust the EU enough not to want to give up the veto. When I pointed out that the member nations' vetoes were precisely what kept the EU from becoming the undemocratic monster Brexiters fear, he bimbled off onto something else.
These were just two examples; ours was a very long conversation. The reason I record this here is that, try as I might, the points made no logical sense to me, though they were offered in good faith. We take the EU from the rich to make them accountable, but we accept they'll move their money around and be fine anyway? We get out of the EU because its not democratic but if that doesn't work we could vote to return and get rid of member countries' veto powers? It was like observing a jigsaw puzzle become crazy paving. I wondered if he was stupid, by which I mean cognitively deficient as opposed to wilfully ignorant, or whether the fault lay with me, for missing some part of his meaning that should have been obvious. There's some half formed thought in my head about trained thought processes and how we reach a conclusion from them, but I'm still baffled.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2019-02-14 12:49 pm (UTC)The only Brexit argument that ever made sense to me is the one that posits that the EU adds an extra layer of non-elected government to its member nations and that this is blatantly undemocratic, veering on hegemony.
no subject
Date: 2019-02-14 05:37 pm (UTC)I just couldn't understand his thought processes. There was linear movement in considering a question up to a point, and then just... stopping. We punish the rich by taking away their EU (never mind the ordinary people this would affect) while accepting that this punishment won't work because it never does. Then we think about something else. It's really freaky to consider that maybe he is the norm and I'm the outlier.
But I'm glad for the reassurance that it's not a deficiency in my logic!
no subject
Date: 2019-02-14 11:33 pm (UTC)