Thread by @KidTempo

#Remain voted for:

A say in whether the EU enlarges or not.
A say in if the EU federalises or remains a union of independent states.
A say in if there is an EU army.
Being the financial capital through which the majority of € is traded while still keeping the £.

#BrexitReality

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @brexit_politics view original on Twitter

#EnlargedEurope

The UK has taken the lead in efforts for EU enlargement. It pushed for the inclusion of Eastern European states. It pushed for Turkey to get its shit together so that it could join (which it made very slow progress with, and has largely been undone by Erdogan)

After #Brexit, the UK will have no influence on EU enlargement. In fact, as setting the EU as a rival, every country that joins the EU will a) strengthen the EU, and b) unravels any trade deals that the UK will have made with that country, isolating it further.

#USEurope

The UK is one of the leading opponents of EU federalism - #Brexit makes it more likely. Importantly, the EU as a union of nation states is less of a threat to an isolated UK than a federal USE - that has the potential for a more narrowly driven rival to UK interests.

#EUArmy

I was against a EU army but looking into the issue it turns out that it's not a standing army that is being proposed. It's a backstop to NATO should, well, a major contributor be compromised by its biggest threat and suggest that they would not honour their obligations.

If there was a threat to Europe and the US chose not to honour its obligations then NATO would be compromised. It simply makes sense to have a EU equivalent prepared to respond.

NATO is primarily a Command and Control framework through which national militaries are coordinated. The EU Army would be no different, assets already exist, it just needs a C&C framework setting up. It is NOT an EU standing army.

Now, of course this will never get off the ground if the UK exercises its veto and... wait... oh... the UK is a great supporter of the idea, and because of its own competencies and influence in the area it will be the primary leading voice in the initiative.

If a EU Army goes in a direction the UK is not comfortable with, wouldn't it be great to have a veto to prevent that, rather than standing impotently on the sidelines, tutting as loudly as possible.

So which is better?

a) An isolated #Brexit UK with an EU army on its doorstep?
b) An EU Army where the UK takes a leading role?

As you say, we can't predict the future.
There may be a time when a threat to the UK comes at a time when the US chooses not only to not honour its NATO obligations, but actively block NATO from responding.

The relationship with the EU may become adversarial (which would probably have been provoked by jingoistic British politicians based on current form). It would probably not be ideal to have what will effectively be a superpower on our doorstep that the UK has no influence with.

#EURO

The UK has resisted joining the Eurozone. It is the global financial capital for € trading - or, at least, it was. It seems likely that will move to somewhere within the EU as the UK loses its financial passporting rights.

As far as I know, there has been little pressure for the UK to join the Eurozone since it rejected being a founding member.

After #Brexit, depending how badly and for how long the economy goes tits up, there may be pressure to rejoin the EU.

The problem is, while there is a mechanism for leaving the EU - Article 50 - there isn't one for rejoining under the same conditions as when it left.

Rejoining will mean none of the opt-outs we currently enjoy, it will mean adopting the Euro, and being part of Schengen.

It's widely agreed that, at least short term, the UK economy will be negatively affected by #Brexit. How many years of recession, depressed growth, continued austerity and cuts to services will be tolerated? The reaction to privatisation (probably by stealth) of the NHS?

Are those acceptable losses? It's certainly a different picture from what was promised by the Leave campaign.
Under those conditions, how long will it be until a party runs a General Election under the promise to rejoin the EU?

#Remainers knew what they were voting for.
They *can* see the *near* future, and it is full of costs not worth paying, for benefits that don't exist.
They may not know the far future, but they know that they want the UK to play a leading role in that future, not hide from it.

They chose not to be isolationist Little Englanders, huddled on a damp little island sandwiched between two superpowers, cowering at a future it doesn't feel it can control.

They chose not to believe that a 18th and 19th century economic mindset will prevail in the modern world. Yes, the modern world is global, but it's now about collaboration between neighbours and competition between trading blocks.

They chose not to believe the lies and the ideology of the privileged elite who hide their profits off-shore and have no regard for the people they manipulate.

They chose to embrace diversity, mutual prosperity, and honouring the social contract, not disenfranchising literally millions of people based on where they were born and the colour of their passport.

They chose to preserve the integrity of the UK, not to threaten the Good Friday Agreement and potentially lose Northern Ireland to a United Ireland, not to potentially lose Scotland by dragging it out of the EU against its will.

They chose embracing rationality based on facts, not ideology based on feels.
Reality, not fantasy. Truth, not lies.

They chose to #Remain because #Brexit is an affront to the nation's history, a stain on the nation's reputation, and diminishes the nation's prosperity and influence.

We are becoming the laughing stock of the developed world and #Brexit is to blame.

#StopBrexitSaveBritain