This is the second of my Epicurus and Modern Philosophy series. I will continue this series for many months to come, though I’m not sure if it’ll run as frequently as every fortnight. Whenever a post of mine is titled, ‘Epicurus and…’, then you know it’s part of the Modern Philosophy series. I’ll also be frequently posting about the forthcoming General Election in the UK, starting with a post about this Thursday’s local election results and what they could mean for the General next week. 

Prior to Britain’s referendum on its EU membership, both Robert and I were passionate supporters of the Remain campaign, though admittedly I was late to the party. In addition to writing pro-EU comments on this blog, I gave out leaflets and knocked on doors in South West England on behalf of the Remain campaign. Needless to say, our efforts were unsuccessful. I have tried to avoid being totally despondent regarding Britain’s future outside of the EU, but I cannot pretend to be more optimistic than reason allows me to be. Only today, in a meeting with the President of the European Commission, Theresa May seemed to be clueless about the EU’s negotiating position, despite the EU having made it plain what it was. For instance, she didn’t appreciate how important to EU member states a divorce bill would be; EU budgets work in a seven year cycle, so were Britain to abdicate from paying its obligations, other states would have to foot the bill. Such ignorant utopianism seems increasingly characteristic of the governing Conservative Party, in which many of its members are blasé about the economic damage inflicted by leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. For these so-called ‘Hard Brexiteers’,  any costs of quitting the EU are worth it because of the opportunity to reduce immigration and regulations concerning the environment and employees’ rights. Going forward, it’s hard to see a scenario in which Britain ends up better off as a result of Brexit. For the most part, this is a question of damage limitation, as the EU27 are suggesting.

Although I’m writing this when its far too late, I wanted to take the chance to explain why Robert and I, as Epicureans, are pro-European. As I’ve just mentioned, economics was a crucial factor. The EU costs a relatively small sum of European GDP, about 1%. (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm) In exchange, it achieves an awful lot for its member states: free trade, regulation harmonisation to make it easier to do business across borders, funds for struggling regions, a common currency for the Eurozone, assistance in managing refugees and migrants from outside the EU, agriculture subsidies to prevent farmers from going out of business and individual member states from excessive subsidies of their own, funding for science, free trade deals with non-EU states (about 55 so far), protections against excessive pollution and over-fishing, fair competition laws- amongst other things. Even if Britain is a net contributor, the EU is hardly a massive drain on the economy. The economic benefits of Single Market membership outweigh our net contribution considerably.

However,  one of the mistakes the Remain campaign made was that it focused too heavily on the monetary costs of leaving. Given that no country has left the EU before, Leave campaigners understandably pointed out that no one could be certain on the precise costs of Brexit. The Remain campaign overplayed its hand, forecasting calamitous economic damage the moment Britain voted to leave. This came across as fear mongering. Pro-EU supporters should’ve emphasised how precisely the EU benefits the UK, rather than scare people into voting for the status quo. Having said that, just because some Remain supporters overestimated the immediate costs of voting Leave, doesn’t mean that leaving the EU will be economically positive. The economy is beginning to slow down along with wage growth, and inflation has risen considerably. The Pound, which fell considerably following the referendum result, has failed to recover since. As mentioned before, many Leave supporters are filled with over-confidence, believing that because the economy hasn’t crashed thus far, Britain will be fine regardless of the outcome of the Article 50 process. As well as being a naïve fantasy, such a disposition is profoundly un-conservative. Leave voters ought to be cautious and tepid, not brazen and smug.

Being pro-European is about much more than economics. Another mistake of the Remain campaign is that it ought to have defended the free movement of labour that accompanies EU membership more boldly. EU migrants are net contributors to the Treasury, as opposed to native-born Brits, most of whom are net recipients. EU migrants do not increase unemployment or lower wages. The former is because the economy naturally expands to cover the increased population, like when women entered the labour market. The latter is because EU migrants increase the amount of economic activity, offsetting any short-term downward pressure on wages as a result of competition for jobs. Contrary to popular belief, immigration to the UK is not out of control- non-student net migration is only 164 000 per annum. Although there are legitimate issues around immigration, such as the pressure on housing or the ability of migrants to speak English, those problems are not as severe as the skills shortages and more rapidly ageing population the UK would face in the absence of EU migrants. Just as importantly, free movement means the unconditional right of British people to live, study and work anywhere in the EU. No amount of reduced migration is worth sacrificing that freedom.

Overall, the EU is a more civilised way of governing society than the pre-WW2 notion of absolute nation-state sovereignty. The benefits to the economy and the free movement of people would not be possible were it not for a degree of supranational governance. If nothing else, WW2 demonstrated the horrors that can result from national governments being able to do as they please, with only the military might of other governments to keep them in check. I accept that we still live in a world of international anarchy, where brute force remains the ultimate means of protection. But I also believe that intergovernmental co-operation can mitigate some of the effects of that harsh reality. Given that the world is increasingly globalised, with national governments powerless against the forces of international capital, we can only make meaningful policies by working on a supranational basis. Issues like climate change, terrorism, mass migration, the increasing power of rogue states like China and Iran- all really ought to be dealt with on a global level. But since most of the world does not share Europe’s (relatively) liberal values and level of economic development, the EU is the next best thing. It increases freedom and prosperity in an unfree and poor planet. And it disperses power between itself and its constituent nations, preventing aggressive protectionism, jingoism and any possible intra-European warmongering.