The EU debate, explained

This follows on from an earlier allegorical piece describing the EU through the story of four fictitious islands who formed the “Island Union” or “IU”. You should really read that piece before this. Click here for the earlier piece.

After the build-up to the red island referendum on membership of the “Island Union”, we now move on to the debate that kicked off after Mr Shameron brought his deal back to the island.

Mr Shameron led the REMAIN side (for staying in the IU) while others including Mr Borat Johnson argued for LEAVE.

The REMAIN arguments

The REMAIN arguments had a number of features:

The need to “stick together in times of trouble” to keep us secure. The REMAIN campaign specifically identified the Dark Lord Pootin who occasionally sent his warplanes into IU airspace. But they also pointed to the Isshti — a terrorist organisation that was threatening the Island archipelago from afar and causing chaos in a distant land (where many of the boatloads of poor migrants were coming from).
That the IU was very frustrating and not very good but it was all we had and the alternative was a bit scary and not worth thinking about (which was lucky because they hadn’t thought about it)….
That LEAVE was very uncertain and that a whole load of terrible things could happen, including the claim that so-called “Rexpats” (red islanders who had moved to other islands in the IU) could get stuck there and could be pelted with rancid tomatoes every Monday. That and the claim that toxic crabs could enter the island’s clean water system, killing everybody, because the system is currently protected by IU-approved valves.
That it needed to keep the red island’s place in the IU’s single trading system called “the single market”. That meant no taxes at shipping ports, and also meant other islands continuing to accept red island goods because within the IU, red islands standards conformed to IU standards. Participation in the single market also meant the red island had representation and influence at the IU’s (shrinking) “top table” at the IU’s headquarters.
Plus a whole load of other claims based on “uncertainty”: that red island students could no longer study on other islands; that science funding from the IU could dry up; that beaches could stop being cleaned and could turn into open sewers; that workers rights provided by the IU could be removed; that children’s bedtime story books could be pulped; that red island holidaymakers on other islands could get stuck there forever as ships could refuse to take them home. A lot of “coulds”.

The LEAVE arguments

The LEAVE arguments were broadly that:

Mr Shameron’s deal is pathetic, unenforceable, and proves the IU can never reform, even when one of its biggest islands is threatening to leave.
The IU neuters island democracy for no good reason except for an irrational fear of ancient wars from a bygone age. The LEAVE campaign wants to relaunch red island parliamentary supremacy and not be subject to the ICJ’s jurisdiction any more.
The amount the red island gives to the IU could be better spent at home, on nurses, chocolate, and other nice things.
The regulations pouring out of IU headquarters make the red island less competitive and so need to be gathered up and burned on a big bonfire.
To take back control of immigration into the red island and to be more choosy with who is let onto the island, giving greater preference to people from more distant lands across the ocean like Pakenja. Some supporters of Niall Farrago particularly wanted to stop immigrants who followed the Mennja religion who were identifiable by the small gold-coloured pouches they wore over their ear lobes. However the Mennja people generally came to the red island from far away (from places like Pakenja, actually) so were often nothing to do IU membership.
To re-engage with the world — to give the red island its full voice at the new global top table and also by being able to sign trade treaties with countries far across the ocean. Neither of these can be done while in the IU as the IU is exclusively in charge of these two points.

But overall, REMAIN was arguing that staying in was safe because change was bad and even though the IU was crap, it was a kind of crap that we all knew and understood. By contrast, LEAVE was portrayed as a leap into the unknown and therefore dangerous. REMAIN people would often hoot that no one knew “what Out will look like”.

The LEAVE side would respond by saying that the IU was indeed crap but this was a reason for leaving not for remaining. In response to the jibe that LEAVE would be a leap into the unknown, the LEAVE side reassured people by declaring in repetitive and semi-hypnotic fashion that “It is not a leap into the unknown”, adding “therefore LEAVE is the safe option”. On the question of what Out would look like, the LEAVE SIDE said it would look lovely.

Voters quickly concluded the debate was poor and that both sides were not at all convincing.

It didn’t help that the LEAVE side didn’t have a clear workable plan for how they wanted to get out of the IU. Actually that was not quite true — there was indeed a very comprehensive and workable plan but because it contained a few things that some on the LEAVE side didn’t like (especially Mr Farrago), they put their copy in an old cupboard weighted down with concrete and buried it out at sea under cover of darkness. Anyone who talked about it after that night got shouted at and had a bag put over their head.

However with the LEAVE side having no detailed LEAVE plan, the REMAIN side proceeded to write one for them which they entitled “LEAVING IS SHIT”. It was written on screwed up bits of paper and no less than five times on every page, it prophesied the untimely end of the red island after a LEAVE vote.

The biggest gripe on the LEAVE side was apparently about “island free movement” which had increased migration to the red island from the other three islands. The problem was that “island free movement” was now firmly linked to the single market i.e. if you rejected free movement, you also rejected single market participation which was very important to the red island’s business interests. The reverse was also true: if you accepted free movement then single market participation could continue which would allay business fears about LEAVE. Many LEAVE people responded to this point by simply saying “yes but the IU would have to cut us a great deal — they need our business.”

The detailed plan at the bottom of the sea was rumoured to have something to say about this. There were also rumours that Mr Shameron’s government still had a copy and that something like it would be followed in the event of a LEAVE vote just because the plan was so derisked (Mr Shameron and his government and the red island civil service don’t like taking risks).

Meanwhile the REMAIN side spent every day reading out pages from their own Leave plan “LEAVING IS SHIT”. Every day saw a new scare. Around this time it was noted that the number of instances of the word “could” in newspaper articles was at an all-time high.

The REMAIN side also ducked a lot when LEAVE people asked “what will ‘In’ look like over the next 1, 5 or 20 years?” REMAIN couldn’t answer — they could only claim that the IU’s push towards creating IUtopia had stopped (although no one really believed them because it never stopped). Nor could they highlight the value of Mr Shameron’s deal because it was so terrible.

It seemed that if there was hope, it would lie in the detailed LEAVE plan in the cupboard at the bottom of the sea (and in one or two illicit copies that a few people still had under their mattresses). The plan was said to be focused on addressing the democracy flaws in the EU. It was also particularly focused on the globalisation argument — that red islanders needed to be properly represented at the global top table and that they needed to be able to sign trade treaties with other countries across the ocean. In other words, the bigger questions that had made the red island’s IU engagement very awkward, yet were not tainted by the sometimes toxic immigration argument (much of which wasn’t even related to IU membership). It also said that “island free movement” should be maintained for the red island at the point of exit from the IU as the compromise for maintaining single market participation.

Putting all this together, the plan concluded that an initial deal akin to that done by Nogway was the way to go as part of a longer-term journey to a new settlement (the concept of a journey was also very much part of the plan). Nogway was not in the IU but was part of the single market. The Nogs had little influence at the IU’s top table but they did sit at the ever-expanding global top table (and sometimes even chaired meetings there). That was where a growing number of single market rules were now being made (before the IU took them back to the islands rubber-stamped with “IU”) so that was increasingly “the place to be”.

The only issue with this approach is that it would irritate Niall Farrago and certain others who tried to ape Farrago’s outlook. Indeed whenever he was asked about such ideas, he would repeat, “BLAH BLAH MIGRANTS, BLAH BLAH MIGRANTS” in his usual blokeish style that put off as many as it attracted.

Some began to feel that taking Mr Farrago out of the picture might actually help LEAVE win the referendum.

Well there’s still some time left…