,
22 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
As the meaningful vote nears, it is time to reflect on the Brexit debate. And confess that I lost it - let me explain (Thread)
Early on in the Brexit debate I have decided that I do not have a position. I am not British. But I do have a side as an academic: my goal was to keep the debate honest. Face pay-offs. Upsides. Downside. What would that debate be like?
As to the main issue of Brexit: The Brexit case is: we don‘t want to be part of an integration system. EU critics are right to say that there‘s a lot of integration. EU critics are right to say that integration goes beyond the economic. No need to insult the EU or our neighbours.
However, leaving the EU means a severe economic hit. The pro-EU side is right to point that out. EFTA would be a compromise on that account: less integration, limited economic effect.
So let‘s turn to the Withdrawal Agreement. Here again the basics should be clear.
Upside: you limit the economic hit as well as all other negative Brexit impact, you can build on it, you stay friends, first glimpse of an economics based somewhat integratory future
Downside: the downside is limited impact on rules and the integration of NI - but you‘d have to face the NI issue squarely if you are against that.
All of this is simplified, of course, barebones, but it allows an honest pro-Brexit, an honest pro-Remain case. It allows an honest pro-WA, an honest against-WA case. Is that what we get? In a spectacular dramatic manner: No.
To some extent this is ok and was to be expected. A difficult and complex decision widely debated will attract its fare share of false arguments. That is ok. That is how the world works.
But this is not why I fail in my function of the debate. I fail - in a spectacular manner (in fact, as they say, I get my a** handed to me) because some people who held important positions that qualify them as experts in practice argue stuff that simply cannot stand up to reality
Here‘s a former head of MI6 arguing that the WA threatens UK NATO membership and Five Eyes. Wrong. The text he challenges is not in the WA, but a non-binding declaration. His fear is based on a non-existent, future hypothetical agreement...
... which the UK could simply not agree to. Does that mean you have to favour the WA? Of course not. See above. Good arguments against it. Use those. Not something that is factually erroneous.
But this goes on. It is obvious that the EU integrates the economy more than the WTO (in fact, too much integration was the criticism, remember?), yet
But this goes on. It is obvious that the EU integrates the economy more than the WTO (in fact, too much integration was the criticism, remember?), leaving the EU to trade on WTO terms hence is an economic shock. Yet you ge this... ft.com/content/9f2145…
Yes - outside of the heading the letter merely says that the WTO is great, but the heading says going from EU to WTO terms is fine. It is signed by people who held high positions.
Let’s move on to universities. The UK is a net contributor to the EU, but in science it actually is a net recipient of EU funding. Para 104 here publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ld…
Yet here’s a list of well-known academics arguing that the UK could reject the WA, thereby refuse to pay the contributions that were agreed in the context of the EU for the financial term currently running... amp.theguardian.com/education/2019…
... and still the EU would let the UK participate in the bit where the UK is a net recipient of funding: research and science.
So what is one to belive who has a job, works long hours, comes home and tries to be informed on Brexit? Quite frankly, believing a former head of MI6, high-ranking trade people, famous professors is rational.
That is not to say that there are not far more famous practitioners on the other side - but you have reached a critical mass for the public that does NOT have the time to read everything it becomes he says, he says.
I don’t think rational debate can be rescued for anything surrounding Brexit. But we have to start asking: how can we rescue it for the future?
And yes. I am absolutely horrified when I look at the number of typos in my text. I apologize.
