>> It's unclear to me how one gets from
>> there to...
> One reasonable point I heard
And it's a reasonable point and all, but nobody has a crystal ball, and the definite cost and risks of a break need to be weighed upon a castle built in the sky of hopeful predictions, based on nothing but the idea that British people are better than Europeans, so will make better deals.
> evidence suggesting various dubious
> "redirections" of the funds
I don't think I've ever seen an example of this, and I'm surprised more wasn't made of it during the referendum campaign if there's anything particularly egregious in it.
However, again, there's a presupposition here that British politicians / civil-servants will be more rigorous, more diligent, etc etc.
> This demonstrates the demand for those
> services from around the world
No. If McDonald's stopped selling hamburgers tomorrow, you can't say it'll all be ok because they sell a lot of fries at the moment. The UK is seen a gateway into Europe. If this is impeded by taxes and regulations that aren't currently in place, the only way we get to the City remaining £8bn of tax revenue unscathed is by presupposition that British etc etc etc etc
> UK reporting standards will apply
Rather than those shifty EU reporting standards, presumably?
> In the EU, there is no such primacy
> of the European Parliament over the
> Commission or Council
Except the head of the Commission is elected by MEPs, and the Council is chosen by national governments, who are elected.
> countless other regulations that are
> real and just as silly
I have not. But even if they exist, there is an assumption that the UK will come up with better regulations. There's no evidence for this.
> No-one knows what would happen if
> that changed
But to vote for such a painful change, one needs to assume it's worth it because one is predicted the short-term pain will be worth it for long-term gains.
In summary:
Every single one of these eventually comes down to "British people are better than the wider EU", at its base. Sometimes there are one or two steps to get there, but it's always there lurking. British people are more competent, so they'll do better than the EU.
Combine this with relentless scaremongering about letting The Other from inside the EU into the country (gotta watch those Bulgarians with their premium quality dairy produce and funny foreign ways!), and you come back to the original point:
> therefore it must be wrong, hateful,
> xenophobist, and racist
However, again, there's a presupposition here that British politicians / civil-servants will be more rigorous, more diligent, etc etc.
No. If McDonald's stopped selling hamburgers tomorrow, you can't say it'll all be ok because they sell a lot of fries at the moment. The UK is seen a gateway into Europe. If this is impeded by taxes and regulations that aren't currently in place, the only way we get to the City remaining £8bn of tax revenue unscathed is by presupposition that British etc etc etc etc Rather than those shifty EU reporting standards, presumably? Except the head of the Commission is elected by MEPs, and the Council is chosen by national governments, who are elected. I have not. But even if they exist, there is an assumption that the UK will come up with better regulations. There's no evidence for this. But to vote for such a painful change, one needs to assume it's worth it because one is predicted the short-term pain will be worth it for long-term gains.In summary:
Every single one of these eventually comes down to "British people are better than the wider EU", at its base. Sometimes there are one or two steps to get there, but it's always there lurking. British people are more competent, so they'll do better than the EU.
Combine this with relentless scaremongering about letting The Other from inside the EU into the country (gotta watch those Bulgarians with their premium quality dairy produce and funny foreign ways!), and you come back to the original point:
Yeah, pretty much.