False choices on Europe

Geraint Talfan Davies responds to Brenig Davies’ conversion from Remain to Leave

Dear Brenig


Brenig, Brenig, Brenig. In the words of Margaret Thatcher – No, No, No. You claim that you wrote your article for Click on Wales to clarify your understanding of the main issues in the Europe debate and that the process led you to change your mind and to place yourself now in the Leave camp despite having voted to Remain in 2016.


The first thing to say is that I share your obvious frustration at events since the 2016 referendum. We are, in effect, still in a continuation of the referendum debate, largely because this riven government has not put forward a concrete proposal that we are able to assess. It is no wonder that the public has tired of the arguments and now has an understandable wish for life to move on. I have some sympathy for that view, despite trying to organise a campaign urging the government and the public and now you, Brenig, to think again. If it isn’t a contradiction in terms, allowing weary fatalism to run riot is not the answer.


So, let’s come to the core of your argument that you conveniently summarise under the headings of Economy, Sovereignty and Democracy.



At first I was not sure what your argument was on the economic side. Initially it seemed to me that you were setting aside the economic arguments on the grounds, first, that there is an unresolved debate amongst economists and, second, that the economic forecasts of both sides project things forward for up to 15 years, so confining the consequences of leaving the EU to a distant future that someone else can deal with. It is true that at the very end of your article you concede that the economic case for remaining in the EU is powerful, although you did not spell it out.


Let me try. The debate between economists on this issue is not unlike the situation in the climate change debate. Opinion is far from evenly split. The vast majority of economists believe that the economic consequences of leaving the EU will be severely negative. Economists who support our departure from the EU are a small minority, but even these concede that leaving the EU will entail an economic hit in the short term. The real debate is on whether we would be better off in the long term, and on this the ‘free traders’ are in a tiny minority.


The ‘Economists for Free Trade’ are worryingly optimistic. I would prefer to call them economists for a flat earth, since they generally discount the factor of distance in trade. Empirical studies demonstrate that trade tends to halve as distance doubles, which is why we should all be sceptical of trade policies that presuppose any damage arising from the creation of new barriers between us and Europe will be compensated by building trade with that nice man, Mr Trump, and getting China to give us a better deal than it will give a much bigger European Union. Important delusions that we should shed.


You omit another important argument. You have been a great supporter of the IWA over the years and I know you have the interests of Wales at heart. So why do you not address the matter of the impact on Wales? We are already at the bottom of the UK’s economic league tables, and yet we will be hit disproportionately hard. For that reason it is not open to us to turn our back on the economic arguments as if they were a lesser matter.



Under sovereignty you rehearse some of the common criticisms of the EU as overly bureaucratic. In fact, it is remarkably modest in its staffing compared with most national bureaucracies. The European Commission employs 33,000 – not a large number for a continent-wide organisation, especially when you think that the UK Government is likely to have to take on 10,000 new staff simply to handle the consequences of Brexit, or that the Welsh Government employs 5,000 staff.


But, again, you do not tell us what argument on sovereignty has pushed you towards the Leave camp. In fact, you seem to imply agreement that many of the criticisms of the EU under this heading are either wrong or exaggerated. The most important gap of all is that you do not address the proposition that is basic to the Remain case, that pooling sovereignty with our European partners actually increases our influence in the world. The notion that the UK, cut adrift from every major trading bloc, will carry more clout or even the same clout is a post-imperial delusion that we should have buried long ago.



I am also surprised that you think the democratic argument is a trump card. We have had a robust debate about democracy in Wales for decades past, and have taken great strides forward. As you know, the IWA has been at the forefront of that debate, believing that our democracy has long needed modernisation.  That is why I am surprised at your affection for the “endearing features and odd procedures and processes” of the British constitution that, elsewhere, you regard as both “robust and flaky”. Hardly a ringing commendation.


Would you really have us forsake the economic advantages of EU membership – ones that you yourself acknowledge – in order to live untrammelled with our quirky democracy? One might conceivably run with this line of argument if the EU posed a real and immediate threat to democracy, but are we really to put our population through decades of unnecessary pain because of some arguable misgivings about the future direction of the EU’s governance?


At present it seems likely that the EU will have an inner ring – the Eurozone – and an outer ring. We would almost certainly be in the outer ring that would be much less affected by any further strengthening of the EU’s centre. We all know that the EU is not a perfect organisation, even if the complaint that it is undemocratic is overdone. But then the British state is hardly without blemish.


Isn’t the more responsible (and self-interested path) path for us to be at the European Union’s centre, wielding our undoubted influence to ensure that it heads in the right direction? In or out of the EU, it is not in the UK’s interest for the EU to fail or falter. There is no choice to be made between the economic and democratic arguments. They hang together.


In friendship




All articles published on Click on Wales are subject to IWA’s disclaimer.

Geraint Talfan Davies is Chair of Wales for Europe.

4 thoughts on “False choices on Europe

  1. Dear Geraint

    Thank you for addressing my IWA Click on Wales article on Brexit, published yesterday. I know you would not expect me to answer each point, line by line, where we hold different views; though it is reassuring that we agree in a few areas, or at least in emphasis and interpretation.

    Sharing and responding to our respective views, one hopes, may add further to this most critical decision the UK government and the people of this land will make in our lifetime for sure.

    The statistics you state are useful, and being reminded of them does enhance your Remain case. My case was more an explanation of my reasons for moving from Remain to Leave. While you used the numbers employed in the EU and the UK comparatively and for the implementation of Brexit and beyond, a case that uses numbers to advance a decision of such magnitude is one that takes second place to the case I imply on the primacy of UK democracy and its constituents nations or years to come.

    The remarks I made on UK’s democracy, I readily agree should have been more clear and the language use appear contradictory in parts. When writing this part I had in mind some of the recent chances being made currently in EU eastern counties of the EU. I did not want to name the counties, but we all know who, with the EU and its Commission, expressing in no uncertain terms, that recent political decision run counter with requirements for evolving EU democratic policies and practices.

    I will mention just three remarks about your reference to the economy I make. Firstly I do acknowledge that there are more economists in the Remain camp. Secondly I do say that there is overlap across the the three domains. And thirdly I do allude the consequences for Wales if we Leave in the penultimate sentence. Were I to write the article again I would express my concern (and that of others) that reliance on comparatively large sums of EC money over many years, with more to come will only confirm the dependency economic culture of Wales. If I understand you correctly you seem to hint that continuation of EC funding would help to lift us from ‘… the bottom of the UK’s economic league…’ Though you do indicate that if EC funds are used more wisely the hoped for economic growth would lift us further up the economic league table more quickly.

    The issue of sovereignty has possibly generated more heat than any other issue amongs politicians. So it is best if I stay clear of this along with the flat earthers.

    Geraint, thank you so much for writing a critique of my article. It has been of great help in allowing me to consider the issues you raise further. Such an exercise is serious and enjoyable in equal measure.

    With matching friendship


  2. The conversation underlines the reality of people’s motivations in voting whichever way they did two years ago, and that the world is intellectually built on solid argument and counterargument.

    My fear is that those who are hell bent on seeing a breakdown in relationships with the EU to the extent that there will be no lasting agreement, will ensure for us a barren future, as the economy continues to shrink and hard earned rights (working time directive, minimum paid holidays, NHS, etc.) are trampled under the auspices of ‘Global Britain’ and the need to make ‘the nation’ (remember, devolution is being slowly strangled) leaner and fitter (this government believe passionately in the ‘small state’),

    The stark choice is not made in fine argument, but in choosing between a cliff edge with the fanatics, or continuing as a civilised country. let’s not worry about the stuff in the middle, it is increasingly irrelevant.

    There is still a chance to stop this lunacy.

  3. Over 40 years the Anti-Europeans practiced avoiding their true motives.

    They oppose democracy behind closed doors; they oppose a vast bureaucracy; they oppose single centralised super-state; they oppose paying for the costs of this super-state; they oppose a single currency; they oppose a common military, they oppose a common foreign policy; they oppose a common financial system; they oppose freedom of internal movement; they oppose a common market for goods and their regulation and they oppose ever closer integration.

    Except I didn’t just described the EU I described the UK and the USA. Both of which the anti-Europe movement is most fervently in favour!

    No their true motivation is that England should rule absolutely. They want what they refer to as Empire 2.0. The Commonwealth have told them to get stuffed and so should we.

    We need to get out of the UK and back into a democratic Europe of equality and co-operation.

  4. Brenig, Although I am slightly bemused that you are willing to put aside an argument simply on the basis that it uses numbers, let me accept for a minute that for you the sovereignty issue should have primacy for the UK and the constituent nations. Are you really arguing that Wales will have more control over its affairs when the UK leaves the EU than it has now as a member? I would have thought the recent dispute over the effect of the Withdrawal Bill on the Welsh Government’s powers had provided conclusive proof of the contrary. The EU has provided a constitutional and policy context that has facilitated devolution, providing a useful continental framework for many Welsh policy areas while at the same time calming those fevered brows in Westminster who worry lest anyone outside its hallowed precincts should have a different take on our public life. The thought that Wales is going to get a better deal from May, Gove Johnson et al is for the fairies, in whom I would advise IWA members not to believe, even after five pints of Brain beer. Best, Geraint

Comments are closed.

Also within Politics and Policy