I don't know enough about the Brexit saga to confirm or deny the author's contentions, but item #5 is clearly a misdirection. Regardless of whether Britain has *good* politicians or *bad* politicians, ones who acted honorably or who abused the system, it has *answerable* politicians.
The citizens get to vote them out of office -- or n…
I don't know enough about the Brexit saga to confirm or deny the author's contentions, but item #5 is clearly a misdirection. Regardless of whether Britain has *good* politicians or *bad* politicians, ones who acted honorably or who abused the system, it has *answerable* politicians.
The citizens get to vote them out of office -- or not -- as they see fit. My understanding is that can't be said for the European Parliament or the European Commission.
I think it would be worthwhile for Persuasion to reprint John Gustavsson's conservative take on Brexit, just published in The Dispatch (https://thedispatch.com/p/a-non-populist-case-for-brexit). It seems more a considered argument and less a hit-piece to me... but then I'm conservative, so make of it what you will.
The article that you shared is very persuasive and eye opening. I also subscribe to The Dispatch, even though I am a Liberal. The principle of democratic accountability should be common to both Liberals and Conservatives. I am surprised more Labour politicians did not support the Leave campaign. I guess it was partly about class/identity. The educated, professional classes and the managerial elite saw it as part of their identity and self-definition to be part of the EU. It is way cooler and has a cosmopolitan vibe. The Leave campaign was also successfully tarred as xenophobic partly due to the rhetoric of some Leave politicians which wasn't exactly enlightened and did seek to capitalise on anti-immigration sentiment.
I read it, but contrary to what you say, it was basically a hit-piece on the EU, with no constructive comment on the consequences of Brexit. I don't mind people criticising the EU (there's plenty not to like), but the question now is about what happens to the UK, which the Persuasion article did, and your recommened article did not.
I'm sorry you didn't find it helpful. It certainly criticized the EU, but I saw that as its way of explaining the conservative case for Brexit. It's a week since I read it, but I don't think its aim was to show how England can avoid economic harm from Brexit.
I'm overall anti-Brexit, but could still make anti-EU case. What I'd prefer to see is an explanation of how the current deal is actually good for the UK (and not just England). From what I've seen so far red tape has increased, UK products are not getting to Europe, NI is getting pulled to Ireland, and Scotland will also vey likely leave the union. It's ironic that the increased power that leavers wanted for the UK, will likely lead to the end of the UK.
I understand, and I have no idea how this will end up for the UK (I'm one of those Americans who don't know the distinctions between England, Great Britain and the UK, btw) economically. I think the argument in the Dispatch piece was about sovereignty. It could be that taking whatever control the EU had over the UK back is a costly proposition, but some might consider it worth the cost.
That was indeed the principal driving force (and ironically one that also drives the anti-Brexit yet pro-Independence Scots), but I would ask what that really means in the 21st century. Much of the rhetoric in the referendum campaign seemed to be for a nostalgic view of the UK, with WW2 being brought up by people who were born in the decades after that war. And even if the idea of sovereignty is more than illusory, will getting it back be worth it? I guess we'll find out over the next months and years, but it's certainly off to a rocky start.
No argument there. Personally, I consider sovereignty to be non-negotiable. Even were I interested in joining a "United States of Europe", I'd want it on the model of the USA rather than what I'm told the EU is like, with laws promulgated by people who are neither elected nor otherwise answerable to the citizens.
I don't know enough about the Brexit saga to confirm or deny the author's contentions, but item #5 is clearly a misdirection. Regardless of whether Britain has *good* politicians or *bad* politicians, ones who acted honorably or who abused the system, it has *answerable* politicians.
The citizens get to vote them out of office -- or not -- as they see fit. My understanding is that can't be said for the European Parliament or the European Commission.
I think it would be worthwhile for Persuasion to reprint John Gustavsson's conservative take on Brexit, just published in The Dispatch (https://thedispatch.com/p/a-non-populist-case-for-brexit). It seems more a considered argument and less a hit-piece to me... but then I'm conservative, so make of it what you will.
The article that you shared is very persuasive and eye opening. I also subscribe to The Dispatch, even though I am a Liberal. The principle of democratic accountability should be common to both Liberals and Conservatives. I am surprised more Labour politicians did not support the Leave campaign. I guess it was partly about class/identity. The educated, professional classes and the managerial elite saw it as part of their identity and self-definition to be part of the EU. It is way cooler and has a cosmopolitan vibe. The Leave campaign was also successfully tarred as xenophobic partly due to the rhetoric of some Leave politicians which wasn't exactly enlightened and did seek to capitalise on anti-immigration sentiment.
That sounds about right, unfortunately.
I read it, but contrary to what you say, it was basically a hit-piece on the EU, with no constructive comment on the consequences of Brexit. I don't mind people criticising the EU (there's plenty not to like), but the question now is about what happens to the UK, which the Persuasion article did, and your recommened article did not.
I'm sorry you didn't find it helpful. It certainly criticized the EU, but I saw that as its way of explaining the conservative case for Brexit. It's a week since I read it, but I don't think its aim was to show how England can avoid economic harm from Brexit.
I'm overall anti-Brexit, but could still make anti-EU case. What I'd prefer to see is an explanation of how the current deal is actually good for the UK (and not just England). From what I've seen so far red tape has increased, UK products are not getting to Europe, NI is getting pulled to Ireland, and Scotland will also vey likely leave the union. It's ironic that the increased power that leavers wanted for the UK, will likely lead to the end of the UK.
I understand, and I have no idea how this will end up for the UK (I'm one of those Americans who don't know the distinctions between England, Great Britain and the UK, btw) economically. I think the argument in the Dispatch piece was about sovereignty. It could be that taking whatever control the EU had over the UK back is a costly proposition, but some might consider it worth the cost.
That was indeed the principal driving force (and ironically one that also drives the anti-Brexit yet pro-Independence Scots), but I would ask what that really means in the 21st century. Much of the rhetoric in the referendum campaign seemed to be for a nostalgic view of the UK, with WW2 being brought up by people who were born in the decades after that war. And even if the idea of sovereignty is more than illusory, will getting it back be worth it? I guess we'll find out over the next months and years, but it's certainly off to a rocky start.
No argument there. Personally, I consider sovereignty to be non-negotiable. Even were I interested in joining a "United States of Europe", I'd want it on the model of the USA rather than what I'm told the EU is like, with laws promulgated by people who are neither elected nor otherwise answerable to the citizens.