38

I found the following one but as far as I can tell it is totally biased towards staying in the EU.

https://comparethebrexit.com/

How can I get an impartial view of the effect of different deals (including Norway and Canada if possible).

chasly - supports Monica
  • 1,272
  • 10
  • 17
  • 34
    That site seems fairly factual. Why do you say it's biased? – user Mar 25 '19 at 10:23
  • 1
    @user - I've changed my ideas as a result of the answer by DonFusili - Of course the costs and benefits are important but quite honestly I don't know the factual differences between May's deal and WTO, EFTA, Canda, Norway etc. What are the main clauses and what do they mean? Maybe I need a separate question. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 11:02
  • 9
    @chaslyfromUK. to be fair the "Learn more" buttons have links and give a good summary of each point. I'm also don't have a bone in this but always found brexit an insane self-destruct politic platform because the only fact (measurable, with many unbiased and trusted sources) I was able to find, year-after-year is actually the common market was a good thing for Britain economy. – jean Mar 25 '19 at 12:29
  • @jean - Sure but there's a difference between a common market and a Union. The former is about trading without tariffs, whereas the latter is about creating a new power with its own military (a European version of the United States). – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 13:09
  • 23
    @chaslyfromUK: An EU military? There are more British journalists writing about that than there are EU politicians proposing it. What the EU does have is a budget and a parliament, but since that parliament isn't sovereign it cannot fund a military. – MSalters Mar 25 '19 at 13:22
  • 1
    @chaslyfromUK You are comparing apples with oranges. EU members can send their military where they wish (and refuse to). US states cannot leave (sedition federal crime) – jean Mar 25 '19 at 13:27
  • 9
    @ MSalters - Maybe but the EU is not static. It is developing. For example this (slightly out-of-date) text was the first I found with a quick search. "The president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker has called for a European Union military headquarters to work towards an EU-controlled army. Juncker made the proposals during his State of the Union address to MEPs in Strasbourg on Wednesday (14 September)." https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jean-claude-juncker-proposes-new-european-military-hq-worj-towards-eu-army-1581391 – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 13:28
  • 18
    What is "impartial" on matter like this is going to depend on the answer's POV. Just read different perspectives. Your question is as good as "what newspapers should I read?" – the gods from engineering Mar 25 '19 at 13:44
  • @Fizz - I understand your criticism. I think I shall have to formulate a separate question that just asks for the facts of the deals rather than the predicted results of them. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 13:51
  • 1
    I don't think the 'Canada' option can be directly applied to the UK's situation because they don't have the complicated border issue. Sure, you could compare deals that are on the table with that FTA but they are not something the UK can implement as is (as the EU might not allow it). To get the EU to agree may require fundamental changes that results in a different comparison. – JJJ Mar 25 '19 at 14:07
  • 7
    Is it possible the facts present a picture which opposes your preferred viewpoint? That being said, bias exists, it's up to you to decide how you want to handle the available facts, what to disregard etc. I could easily find something biased in favour of leaving the EU, probably which looks different to this. I'm puzzled as to what the purpose of the exercise is? Is the question really "is there a website which presents the case for leaving the EU?"? – AJFaraday Mar 25 '19 at 15:33
  • 1
    @AJFaraday - I'm sorry but you are falling into the trap of looking for bias in others. I am simply seeking information. If you read the excellent answer by DonFusili and the subsequent comments, you will see more than one reason that this particular site contains bias no matter how subtle.. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 15:37
  • 1
    @chaslyfromUK I'm mostly querying if the direction of the question is "is this site factual?" or "is there a similar site which presents the opposing view?" – AJFaraday Mar 25 '19 at 15:42
  • 4
    The EU does have a military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy ; it's not clear whether they actually have any munitions, but they have a HQ and staff. I don't think it's right to deny that "ever closer union" has always been a goal of the EU - but by mutual benefit and consent. – pjc50 Mar 25 '19 at 21:42
  • 2
    @MSalters to be fair, wouldn't it usually be the case that there would be more journalists talking about x than politicians talking about x, on the account of there being far more journalists than politicians, and journalists job being talking? Not to mention that if Juncker, Merkel or Macron say something and a hundred journalists report on it, their words still hold far more weight than the journo's. – user622505 Mar 26 '19 at 08:58
  • 1
    There are no different deals though, just a lot of hypothetical ideas that probably aren't achievable. There is one available deal, and three options: take it, leave it, cancel. – OrangeDog Mar 26 '19 at 13:33
  • 1
    @user it's very clearly biased. Predictions (e.g. economy) and value judgements ("outweighed by the benefits") are presented as facts. The symbology and colour coding is heavily biased. From "A Permanent Customs Union" onwards it's tacitly assumed that "Yes" is a good thing with no factual evidence. – OrangeDog Mar 26 '19 at 13:40
  • 2
    @pjc50 So what is the way in which the EU parliament, council or commission can order an army (what's the name of that army anyhow? The CDSP certainly isn't from the wiki article) to attack? What part of the EU budget is used to pay standing military? Looks to me more like a simple organization between different european militaries than an army in its own right. And if organisation between different militiaries is the problem, why is NATO not an issue? – Voo Mar 26 '19 at 17:53
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – yannis Mar 28 '19 at 09:21

2 Answers2

79

While the data given seems factually correct, I agree that the framing on that website is biased towards staying in the EU (evidenced by only giving a button to contact your MP if you're worried about leaving the EU and the non-neutral exclamation points everywhere)

As someone without a bone in this fight (As in: I'm a European, find Brexit interesting, think there are risks involved in Brexit, but there's no guarantee at all that the UK will be strictly worse off in a semi-pragmatic world) I find that TLDRNews (I'm not affiliated) tries their utter best to keep from pandering to emotions. They have outlined different possibilities for deals as given by both Brexiteers and Remainers and done their best to do both risk and benefit assessments of these possibilities.

However: Benefit assessments are simply harder to make than risk assessments. This is because current benefits and costs (as gained and paid by being a full EU member) are known and were up until recently seen as a net-gain for the UK. As such: the disappearance of these are generally categorized under 'losses'.

Possible benefits are harder to assess because these are all still hypothetical. Could the UK be better off in a few years time because they left the EU? It can, it could also be completely bankrupt, since no one currently knows the opportunities that will arise once Brexit is complete.

This unknown outcome makes the framing of Brexit as a high risk-unknown reward decision factually and objectively correct. If you don't like that, and would instead prefer a nice list of why Brexit is the holy grail of democratic decisions, you should probably check your own biases. Just like people that say that the UK will 100% be worse off should check theirs.

DonFusili
  • 1,743
  • 13
  • 18
  • 2
    Thanks, that's a very helpful answer, especially the link. I'm not looking for a Grail (although finding one would be nice) - just information. The TV is full of people shouting at each other about which deal is best but so far I have heard not a single news organisation explain what May's deal actually is and how it is different from WTO, EFTA, Canda, Norway, etc. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 10:49
  • @chaslyfromUK The jibe was not meant for you personally: the whole issue is complex with a lot of parties having vested interests in making it seem easy and a lot of people going along. In an ideal world a few of them read this answer and actually leave their echo chambers. – DonFusili Mar 25 '19 at 11:31
  • 1
    "evidenced by only giving a button to contact your MP if you're worried about leaving the EU" What else could there be a button for? Contact your MP if you're not worried? – Jontia Mar 25 '19 at 13:09
  • 14
    @Jontia "Contact your MP with your opinion on Brexit" is the most neutral I can come up with myself. "Contact your MP to honor the vote" is what I've seen on other biased sources leaning the other way. "if you are worried about leaving the EU" implies that there is something to be worried about, which is already taking a stance. – DonFusili Mar 25 '19 at 13:15
  • 3
    @Jontia - As a postscript to DonFusili's comment. There could be a button saying, "Contact your MP if you are worried about staying in the EU." A lot of people are, hence the referendum result. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 13:55
  • 2
    @chaslyfromUK being pedantic about it (which I often am), the meaning "if you are worried about leaving" covers the leaving process failing as well. "I'm worried that leaving isn't being handled as strongly as I wanted" for example. – Jontia Mar 25 '19 at 13:58
  • 3
    @Jontia - With respect, I think you need to brush up on your logic as well as pedantry. "I am worried about leaving" is not the same as and doesn't include "I'm worried about staying." – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 14:01
  • 5
    @Jontia I don't mind pedantry, it's important in polarized debates like this, it's why I'm pedantic about the implied notion of the text. However: implying that "if you are worried about leaving" covers "I'm worried that leaving isn't being handled strongly enough" on a site that has a number of warning signs in the leaving columns, even when the change is not necessarily bad, seems strange. If it matters: I'd be worrying because of the high risks involved if I were a Brit, but would also dislike opinion pieces titled "you're right to be worried". – DonFusili Mar 25 '19 at 14:09
  • 4
    @chaslyfromUK Remain = be a gymn member, Norway/EFTA = cancel gymn membership but keep swimming pool membership, WTO (No deal) = cancel everything and go for a walk outside..... Brexiteers think the fresh air will be bracing and good for the constitution, Remainers have pointed out that it's freezing cold and raining outside, maybe we're better off staying inside in the warm. – Tim B Mar 25 '19 at 16:32
  • 4
    The main thing to realize is that "no deal" doesn't mean leaving things like they are now (for example walking away from a purchase at a shop) - we've already cancelled the gymn membership and we're in that final month before we lose access. "No deal" means we have nothing to replace it. – Tim B Mar 25 '19 at 16:34
  • @TimB Nice analogy. :) Remainers have also pointed out that our clothes are mostly supplied courtesy of the banks, who can and will strip us naked if someone offers a better price for them. And that whilst we technically could trade with the rest of the world, we killed manufacturing in the 1980s so we don't have much they actually want. – Graham Mar 25 '19 at 21:54
  • @TimB However, the gym building may or may not be warm only because it's burning. – towe Mar 26 '19 at 10:23
  • 3
    @TobiasWeiß That's certainly a claim you can make. Very little evidence supports it though. – Tim B Mar 26 '19 at 11:32
17

There's not a direct comparison of different deals on https://fullfact.org/, but a number of Brexit related questions or claims under scrutiny. Maybe that fits your search for more fact based arguments as well. To wet your appetite, here's an incomplete list of Brexit-related issues I found there:

  • Will there still be a transition period if we leave with no deal?
  • Can Article 50 be extended or stopped, and how would this happen?
  • Can we unilaterally quit the withdrawal agreement or backstop in future?
  • Would a trade deal with the USA mean lower food standards?
  • Why is avoiding a hard border in Ireland a priority?
  • Can Spain really veto the withdrawal bill?
  • If there is no deal will any restrictions apply to flights to and from EU airports?
  • What does it really mean to take back control of our waters and fishing, are there controls outside the EU which we will have to adhere to after Brexit?
  • Will the UK be able to do separate trade deals during the transition period?
  • What will happen to the European Health Insurance Card and emergency medical treatment after Brexit?
  • Where does Brexit leave us with regards to the Galileo project?
  • What will be the repercussions of Brexit on our membership of Interpol?
  • Will the UK remain part of the "Everything but Arms" initiative after Brexit?
  • During the transition period will the European Court of Justice be able to veto or change any UK laws?
  • Is the divorce bill that we’re paying less than half of what the EU originally asked for?
  • What would happen to medical supplies and drinking water if we left with no deal?
  • What exactly is the divorce bill paying for? And why are we paying it?
  • How long will we be paying the divorce bill?
  • If we go into the backstop, will the UK be making any financial contributions to the EU for that period?
  • Will we be able to implement trade deals with other countries if the Irish border situation is unresolved?
  • If we leave without a deal, what happens to the Irish border?
  • If we leave with no deal, how much of the divorce bill will we be legally obligated to pay?
Jens
  • 1,113
  • 8
  • 20
  • 3
    Thanks - that's a very useful website for all sorts of reasons. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 25 '19 at 19:39
  • 6
    Interpol is the International Police, I don't see how Brexit affects UK's Interpol membership. Maybe you meant Europol? – sampathsris Mar 26 '19 at 01:29
  • 2
    @sampathsris No, the question on the FullFact website is definitely titled Interpol: https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-membership-interpol/ – Rich Mar 26 '19 at 15:08
  • 1
    @Rich: Misleading title there! I quote from the same article: UK is a full member of Interpol in its own right and leaving the EU will not affect that. Then it goes on describing the problematic status with Europol. – sampathsris Mar 26 '19 at 23:54