Ship of Fools: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.

Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread. Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001321

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

And so they're off...or maybe not quite yet. We might have a 'deal' on the renegotiation of the UK's membership of the EU (subject to this being ratified by all the other member states on 18th-19th February) in which case we might have a referendum as early as 23rd June this year. A large number of unknown factors prevail however, some but by no means all of which I set out below (feel free to answer as best you can plus add your own questions with answers if possible! My questions betray something of my own biases.):

1. Is this a 'deal' at all? Has Cameron actually secured anything of substance even if everyone else agrees it in a fortnight - will it make any difference?

2. Should Cameron perhaps have concentrated more on negotiations aimed at reforming core EU institutions to eg: address the democratic deficit inherent in the EU stuctures?

3. Will the other member states sign up to the deal and, if so, at what price? Will Greece, for example, demand a further debt 'haircut' and/ or greater help with the refugee crisis?

4. Who will lead the 'out' campaign in the UK? Who should?

5. Will the timing of the referendum affect the outcome eg: if in summer at the peak of the 'Mediterranean crossing season', will that queer the pitch?

6. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, how would you vote?

Over to you!

[ 05. December 2016, 00:44: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
1. Is this a 'deal' at all? Has Cameron actually secured anything of substance even if everyone else agrees it in a fortnight - will it make any difference?

It isn't a deal until everyone else agrees - currently it's a proposal. And, from what I've seen (not yet having had a chance to read the detail) it's mere tinkering with the current conditions. Probably the most substantive bit I've seen are the steps to reduce the disadvantages of businesses that do not operate in the Eurozone. Restrictions on benefits to migrants will probably make a slight reduction on the benefits bill, but won't deter migration since the benefits do not figure into the migrants thinking.

quote:
2. Should Cameron perhaps have concentrated more on negotiations aimed at reforming core EU institutions to eg: address the democratic deficit inherent in the EU stuctures?

I would certainly prefer to see major reform of EU institutions. But, since what I would want to see is greater powers to the European Parliament at the expense of both the Commission and national parliaments (by whatever name) Cameron was never going to push for that when the Eurosceptic wing of his party (and the neo-fascist groups) are pushing him to reduce the power of European institutions and increasing the powers of Westminster.

quote:
3. Will the other member states sign up to the deal and, if so, at what price? Will Greece, for example, demand a further debt 'haircut' and/ or greater help with the refugee crisis?

I've no idea. If they don't sign up, or make demands that can't be met, then the deal is dead in the water and Cameron has a lot of egg on his face (to which I won't object, except that it will play into the hands of the Eurosceptics and probably increase support for getting out of the EU).

quote:
5. Will the timing of the referendum affect the outcome eg: if in summer at the peak of the 'Mediterranean crossing season', will that queer the pitch?

Timing will affect the referendum, I can't see how it won't. The suggested June date is, IMO, too close to other elections in the UK to allow a reasonable debate of the issues - and, will also likely unfavourably influence the other elections, with greater prominance given to the European aspects of policies over and against the issues that would have greater impact on the electorate for those elections. So, the UK election cycle suggests an autumn referendum.

quote:
6. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, how would you vote?

With a cross on a piece of paper.

[ 03. February 2016, 10:33: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Questions 1-6 --> who knows?

Would I vote to stay in - certainly. It's crazy to draw our horns in and try to survive alone. Europe has been good for us all.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's crazy to draw our horns in and try to survive alone.

As a genuine waverer, it's statements like this that push me towards Out (in much the same way as they did in the Scottish referendum the other year when referring to an independent Scotland).

The In side would probably do well not to frame the argument in terms of "we couldn't survive outside" when virtually every non-EU country in the world seems to manage ok... Project Fear ("Scotland's too small to survive outside the UK"), may have won in 2014, but at what's generally recognised to have been something of a cost.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

In fact, I suspect this referendum and the Scottish one are going to be *very* similar when it comes down to it - in terms of campaign, result, and repercussions. Neverendum 2 here we come.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I would prefer a more democratic EU starting, as Alan Creswell says, with more power in the elected European Parliament and very little in the hands of the European Commission.

Cameron is trying to keep his party together and he may, through posturing and friends in the press, be successful. I doubt if negotiations will actually change very much. However, if there is a referendum and we leave the EU will there really be a new Golden Age as UKIP and the other anti-Europe campaigners suggers? I doubt it and I doubt they will carry the can for it either.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

The In side would probably do well not to frame the argument in terms of "we couldn't survive outside" when virtually every non-EU country in the world seems to manage ok... Project Fear ("Scotland's too small to survive outside the UK"), may have won in 2014, but at what's generally recognised to have been something of a cost.

That wouldn't be the best way to phrase it, and as far as campaigning is concerned I'd like to see real numbers on paper from both sides.

As for "Project Fear" determining the Scottish referendum, I thought it was decided by the three main party leaders uniting late on under the despicable banner of "Jam Tomorrow" which fooled just enough Scots at that time. The proof of that pudding was the 2015 SNP landslide.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

The electorate voted on a Europe of free trade once, and I think that they would do so again.

Few want a federal Europe, or one in which all of the other countries must approve of it before we can decide upon the best policies for ourselves. If anything, I think this 'deal' has so far given more fuel to the 'out' campaigners.

If we do vote 'yes' I can foresee greater struggles to free ourselves in the future.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Whether we need to "free ourselves" does rather depend on whether or not you consider the UK to be (or, in the future will become) in some sense "enslaved" to Europe.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Matt Black

quote:
1. Is this a 'deal' at all? Has Cameron actually secured anything of substance even if everyone else agrees it in a fortnight - will it make any difference?

No, it is not a deal. It is a tabled suggestion that the other EU may consider there being a so-called brake on the payment of benefits, or benefits at the same rate, to migrants in the UK and their dependent children elsewhere in the EU; however, the brake can only be applied with the agreement of other EU states and there is plenty to suggest that this won't be happening anytime soon.

So, Mr Cameron is doing his best to spin the obfuscation and refusal to deal of Herr Juncker and his friends as a deal when it really guarantees business as usual.

quote:
2. Should Cameron perhaps have concentrated more on negotiations aimed at reforming core EU institutions to eg: address the democratic deficit inherent in the EU stuctures?

The people with whom Mr Cameron is 'megotiating' have no appetite for reform since the status quo suits them just fine; specifically, they have no desire for greater democracy in the EU since they got to be where they are because there is a democratic deficit - in Herr Juncker's case in particular, if he had had to stand for election he would have had to face awkward questions about a grubby little scandal involving the security services in his native Luxembourg, and he is also tarnished because of the continuing problem of Luxembourg providing a tax haven for wealthy individuals and companies the source of whose wealth can best be described as questionable.

quote:
3. Will the other member states sign up to the deal and, if so, at what price? Will Greece, for example, demand a further debt 'haircut' and/ or greater help with the refugee crisis?

There are serious doubts that all the other states will sign up to the 'deal' referred to in (1) and, in any case, it is one thing to sign up to something and another to stick to it. There are some states in particular which have made it abundantly clear that they will fight tooth and nail for their nationals to be able to continue sending back Child Benefit at UK rates which greatly enhances their economies. And the subject of Greece and debt is something that all the other EU leaders will do their level best to ignore.

quote:
4. Who will lead the 'out' campaign in the UK? Who should?

Who knows who will lead the OUT campaign indeed: there is a case to be made for it to be either Chris Grayling or Teresa Villiers, although neither has a particularly high profile. What is required at the moment is for the OUT people to stop infighting and concentrate on putting forward a simple, believable case for the UK to come out.

Of course, it they could persuade Sir Michael Caine to lead the campaign that would be wonderful...

quote:
5. Will the timing of the referendum affect the outcome eg: if in summer at the peak of the 'Mediterranean crossing season', will that queer the pitch?

Not much. People have become used to seeing an endless stream of suffering humanity and, apart from pictures of drowned children, remain pretty much unmoved by it. In any case, this is a problem that has been caused partly by Mrs Merkel and all the OUT campaign has to do is point that out.

quote:
6. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, how would you vote?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I won't be falling for the blandishments of a load of politicos again.

Though, the campaigners on both sides will be politicos, or journalists in the pocket of politicos. So, whichever way you vote will be "falling for the blandishments of a load of politicos". Which leaves you with two options.
One, make your decision now before the politicos on both sides get going, and vote in ignorance of the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
Two, abstain.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

It's going to be a referendum of very strange bedfellows.

On the "out" side, you've got some of the reasonable arguments about sovereignty and the ability of Parliament to set it's own laws, without reference to others (e.g. fishing quotas) as well the frothy-mouthed xenophobes who think this country is being invaded and who believe in Schrödinger's immigrant.

In the "in" side, you've got some of the political left who see strength and safety in unity allying themselves with the business interests of the laissez-faire right.

I would love to think that the arguments will be won or lost through reasoned debate, but my cynical side says it will be which instills the greater fear: A) the loss of control of borders or B) the great unknown of losing the security we have at present.

I don't really buy into either of these, but it's how the emotional side of the argument seems likely to be framed.

At the moment, I'm leaning slightly towards "in" but I do confess that there are good and valid points on the "out" side. I just don't want to descend to the kind of bickering that happened with the Scottish independence referendum, where anyone who made admitted that the other side had a fair point was attacked as a fool or a traitor.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

By far the strongest argument (to me) for remaining within the EU is the simple observation that no man is an island, and nor is any nation (even those which are an island). The modern world is simply too interconnected, too complex, for any nation to have any realistic sovereignty - at least without adopting a North Korean level of isolationism.

If the UK was independent then the availability of fish in UK waters would be, to a significant extent, the result of fishing quotas established for the rest of Europe. To which the UK government would have no input. In virtually every sphere of government the UK would be a small player in international terms - climate change agreements, trans-Atlantic trade, reform of global tax systems to adjust to the reality of multi-national corporations ...

Put simply, the claims for sovereign power of Westminster are a nostaligic position that might have been true when the Royal Navy ruled the seas and Britain was the hub of a vast multinational trading network and the powerhouse of scientific and industrial innovation. But, it is an unrealistic proposition in a world where China is the new economic superpower dominating the markets throughout the world.

It is also unrealistic where many of the problems of the world require the cooperation and organisation on a global scale, whether that's the global climate, international terrorism, mass human migration, potential pandemics of bird 'flu and Zika or whatever. These are things that should naturally fall into the remit of multi-regional governmental structures, where even the EU is simply too small. When many problems we face require us to be looking bigger, it can never be a reasonable approach to shrink back to smaller.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The negotiations seem very selfish - 'What can the UK get out of it?'

What about the many contribitons we can make?

Theor have produced a good book about the Christian principles and ideals behind the EU.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The modern world is simply too interconnected, too complex, for any nation to have any realistic sovereignty - at least without adopting a North Korean level of isolationism.

Plenty of other countries seem to manage it. And we're still one of the biggest economies in the world.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would certainly prefer to see major reform of EU institutions. But, since what I would want to see is greater powers to the European Parliament at the expense of both the Commission and national parliaments (by whatever name) Cameron was never going to push for that when the Eurosceptic wing of his party (and the neo-fascist groups) are pushing him to reduce the power of European institutions and increasing the powers of Westminster.

Agree in particular with this; wasn't ever gonna happen on Dave's watch but would dearly have loved to have seen it

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The negotiations seem very selfish - 'What can the UK get out of it?'

What about the many contribitons we can make?

Or to put it another way: why don't we make ourselves worse off so that a bunch of Spaniards/Greeks/Bulgarians/etc. can be better off?

Yeah, good luck getting that one past the electorate.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The negotiations seem very selfish - 'What can the UK get out of it?'

What about the many contribitons we can make?
Or to put it another way: why don't we make ourselves worse off so that a bunch of Spaniards/Greeks/Bulgarians/etc. can be better off?

And people outside of the continent. That's the kind of EU I would like to see.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I feel very negative about these 'negotiations', which to me look like smoke and mirrors. Basically, Cameron is trying to placate his ultras in the Tory party, so the electorate are being asked to help in that. Bollocks.

However, to vote to leave is quite a significant step, and some people are saying that the UK would be shredded by things such as TTIP.

Well, I have no idea if that's true. So I will brood over it further.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

We'd be more exposed to TTIP and the likes, although the EU's record on such things has not exactly been glowing.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The negotiations seem very selfish - 'What can the UK get out of it?'

What about the many contribitons we can make?
Or to put it another way: why don't we make ourselves worse off so that a bunch of Spaniards/Greeks/Bulgarians/etc. can be better off?

Yeah, good luck getting that one past the electorate.

We have a long and dishonourable history of making most of ourselves poorer so a small minority get very rich indeed. Moreover we could do something about it, right here at home but do we? Do we heck as like, and that makes a lot more difference to our lives than the EU ever will. Well done the Tories, UKIP and the press for convincing so many of us otherwise.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
That's the kind of EU I would like to see.

I'd like to see an EU that declares me Grand High Emperor and gives me an annual payment of ten million pounds, two luxury yachts, a luxury seafront mansion in every country and at least three nubile concubines.

To be honest, I think mine is more realistic than yours [Smile]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The negotiations seem very selfish - 'What can the UK get out of it?'

What about the many contribitons we can make?
Or to put it another way: why don't we make ourselves worse off so that a bunch of Spaniards/Greeks/Bulgarians/etc. can be better off?

Yeah, good luck getting that one past the electorate.
We have a long and dishonourable history of making most of ourselves poorer so a small minority get very rich indeed. Moreover we could do something about it, right here at home but do we? Do we heck as like, and that makes a lot more difference to our lives than the EU ever will. Well done the Tories, UKIP and the press for convincing so many of us otherwise.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We have a long and dishonourable history of making most of ourselves poorer so a small minority get very rich indeed. Moreover we could do something about it, right here at home but do we?

I might be more inclined to agree with you if I could see any corroborating evidence in my life or the lives of the people I know. Virtually everyone I can think of is either in the same situation or better off now than they were ten or twenty years ago, and the few that are poorer are in that position because of a deliberate decision to pursue a less lucrative career.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

...if indeed they are fortunate enough to have careers in the first place; also, you are aware that the plural of 'personal anecdote' isn't 'data', aren't you?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: I'd like to see an EU that declares me Grand High Emperor and gives me an annual payment of ten million pounds, two luxury yachts, a luxury seafront mansion in every country and at least three nubile concubines.

To be honest, I think mine is more realistic than yours .

So what? I'm a citizen of the EU, and I have a right to my opinion of what I'd like the EU to be.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There is plenty of data present in studies which have shown an increasing gap between the rich and the poor. The increasing number of working poor, those who work a full time job but are still unable to make ends meet without some form of benefit - that is a very novel situation, through the majority of history the poor have been those without work (through disability or lack of jobs) whereas anyone in full time employment was by definition not poor.

Unless you happen to volunteer for the local homeless shelter, soup kitchen, food bank or similar most middle class people will know very few, if any, people who are genuinely poor, and for whom the system is increasingly working against them. You might if you hire someone to come in and clean your house or tidy the garden, if you deign to get to know them at all.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is plenty of data present in studies which have shown an increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

That doesn't necessarily mean anybody is actually getting poorer, it could just mean the poor are getting richer at a slower rate than the rich.

quote:
The increasing number of working poor, those who work a full time job but are still unable to make ends meet without some form of benefit - that is a very novel situation, through the majority of history the poor have been those without work (through disability or lack of jobs) whereas anyone in full time employment was by definition not poor.

I'm sure there are plenty of historical farmers, day labourers and such who would disagree with that, and who would probably think a benefits system to top up their meagre earnings would be a wonderful thing.

quote:
Unless you happen to volunteer for the local homeless shelter, soup kitchen, food bank or similar most middle class people will know very few, if any, people who are genuinely poor, and for whom the system is increasingly working against them.

Middle-class I may be, but I've still got roots (and friends) in the working-class area where I grew up. It took a bit of a dive when the car factory closed, but it's improved no end since then. Still in the bottom 10%, of course, but hopefully not for long.

quote:
You might if you hire someone to come in and clean your house or tidy the garden, if you deign to get to know them at all.

I haven't got to know Kate because she always does the cleaning while I'm at work. Mrs Martian speaks highly of her though.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
The increasing number of working poor, those who work a full time job but are still unable to make ends meet without some form of benefit - that is a very novel situation, through the majority of history the poor have been those without work (through disability or lack of jobs) whereas anyone in full time employment was by definition not poor.
I'm sure there are plenty of historical farmers, day labourers and such who would disagree with that, and who would probably think a benefits system to top up their meagre earnings would be a wonderful thing.

I'm sure there would be agreement that a bit of extra money would be a good thing, who wouldn't want a bit more.

Though I would disagree with your two examples. Day labourers are not in "full time employment", they get paid when there is work and get nowt when there isn't. If there was always work they would have done OK, not been rich but at least kept the roof over their head and food on the table. But, when there isn't work, well they're unemployed and if that situation persisted they'd be poor just like anyone else unable to work.

Farmers have historically been dependent on external conditions, the weather primarily. In good times farmers have always produced more food than they need (otherwise there would be no towns and cities of people dependent on others to grow their food). If there's no crop to harvest because of a drought then they are effectively in the unemployed category, unable to work because there is nothing to do.

Thinking about it, there has been a group of people who I would class as working poor before the mid 20th Century, people who put in a full days work and didn't get paid enough to maintain a decent living. They were called slaves.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The negotiations seem very selfish - 'What can the UK get out of it?'

What about the many contribitons we can make?
Or to put it another way: why don't we make ourselves worse off so that a bunch of Spaniards/Greeks/Bulgarians/etc. can be better off?

Yeah, good luck getting that one past the electorate.

Sermon on the Mount and catholic social teaching.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I won't be falling for the blandishments of a load of politicos again.
Though, the campaigners on both sides will be politicos, or journalists in the pocket of politicos.

Surely, politicos in the pocket of journalists? Or rather, both in the pocket of powerful media owners like Murdoch.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I'm undecided about which way to vote. My heart says "Out" but this may not be the wisest course of action.

I really dislike the idea of a European superstate which is not what we signed up to when joining the Common Market back in the Seventies. It's gone too far too fast, and I'm not comfortable with Brussels imposing legislation and requirements on us that don't always fit and which people don't always want, simply because we're part of the EU. For which we pay an astronomical sum per week. We would have more money to spend on the NHS etc if we didn't have to pay "club membership" fees. And then we have to argue for exemptions and opt-outs.

And I'm deeply grateful that we didn't opt in either to Schengen or the single currency.

What do shipmates see as the benefits EC membership has actually brought to Britain? Why should we stay in? I don't see the future getting any brighter if we do.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Why should we stay in? I don't see the future getting any brighter if we do.

International commerce, as well as much inside the UK, is largely controlled by the same interests either way. So why would you expect a separatist future to be any brighter?
The U.K. imports much of its food, so why is having less control over those sources better?
The oceans and the ecosystems within don't recognise boundaries, neither do the depredations thereof.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It's the fucking Germans again isn't it? which is a quote from a 90 year of my fatherly-sonly acquaintance, disinhibited as he enters his tenth decade.

(Perhaps prescient of him, him being born a Berliner of non-jelly doughnut persuasion, and becoming a British subject in 1942.)

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

Most of the middle class employees in health or social services will come across many genuinely poor people, by the way. Some get to know them better than others.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The U.K. imports much of its food, so why is having less control over those sources better?

How would there be less control over importing food?

A market is still a market. You can still buy from it, though you might not always get the members' discount.

[ 04. February 2016, 06:58: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I guess most of us here would have little problem with an increase in food prices, or prices for other goods imported from the rest of the EU. But the loss of that "members' discount" would have a big impact on many people in the UK.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

What proportion of our food comes from the EU and what from outside it?

I noticed when looking at the tomatoes in the supermarket the other day that some were from Spain while others were English and Moroccan. They were all the same price, if I remember correctly.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ariel: How would there be less control over importing food?

Currently as an member state, the UK has a say in the EU's agricultural policies. After a Brexit it would presumably still import food from the EU, but it wouldn't have this kind of control over it anymore.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What proportion of our food comes from the EU and what from outside it?

I can't find a UK government version (or, more recent), but this Scottish Government page has 58% (by value) of food imports into Scotland being from the rest of the EU in 2009 - about half way down the page. Assuming that the situation in the rest of the UK is similar, and things haven't changed too much in the last 5 years, I would say there's a very good chance that over half of our food imports (by value) come from elsewhere in the EU.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What proportion of our food comes from the EU and what from outside it?

I noticed when looking at the tomatoes in the supermarket the other day that some were from Spain while others were English and Moroccan. They were all the same price, if I remember correctly.

It might be worth checking the statistics behind this report, but according to DEFRA in 2014, 53% of food consumed is produced in the UK, 28% is from the EU, 90% of cereals come from 12 countries - of which 85% is from the UK (page 26).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can't find a UK government version (or, more recent), but this Scottish Government page has 58% (by value) of food imports into Scotland being from the rest of the EU in 2009

I wonder if imports from the RUK to Scotland count as "imports from the rest of the EU".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mr cheesy: I wonder if imports from the RUK to Scotland count as "imports from the rest of the EU".

They will after a Brexit.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mr cheesy: I wonder if imports from the RUK to Scotland count as "imports from the rest of the EU".
They will after a Brexit.

That page made it clear that food from England, Wales and NI was not counted as imported into Scotland.

After a Brexit, and the rapid independence referendum that will follow, imports of food to Scotland would not be from the rest of the EU - because, the rest of the UK wouldn't be in the EU. Scotland would then have imports from RUK, from the rest of the EU (with Scotland rapidly seeking admission to the EU after being shafted by Westmonster, again) and elsewhere.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Matt Black [QUOTE...6. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, how would you vote?

Oh, I'll vote OUT and for a very good reason: I went to public meetings in 1975 before the last referendum and specifically asked about the question of political union - and I was lied to. Moreover, the release of papers under the 30 year rule has made it very clear that the IN campaign's decision to either lie or to ignore questions about 'ever-closer political union' was a calculated one, dreamt up by Roy Jenkins, Ted Heath and Harold Wilson. I won't be falling for the blandishments of a load of politicos again. [/QUOTE]

Then you - and possibly they - didn't read the small print. The treaties that set up the EU always set out that idea that there would be closer union between all the countries that joined the EU. That was the aspiration behind them.

However, time and changes in attitudes in nation states has shown that most people are happy for an trading block but don't want anything else. There are similar movements to lessen EU influence in all the member states.

And Alan's right. All you're falling for is another set of politios. You're just hoping that Nigel et al are more honest than Wilson or Heath. To which I say [Killing me]

Tubbs

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
mr cheesy: I wonder if imports from the RUK to Scotland count as "imports from the rest of the EU".
They will after a Brexit.
That page made it clear that food from England, Wales and NI was not counted as imported into Scotland.

After a Brexit, and the rapid independence referendum that will follow, imports of food to Scotland would not be from the rest of the EU - because, the rest of the UK wouldn't be in the EU. Scotland would then have imports from RUK, from the rest of the EU (with Scotland rapidly seeking admission to the EU after being shafted by Westmonster, again) and elsewhere.

That assumes that Scotland would vote to join the EU. Whilst I suspect they would, I wouldn't assume it as a given. The SNP are caught between a rock and a hard-place on this one.

IF the UK votes to leave the EU, they'll get an independence vote they're certain to win. The temptation is to campaign for a No vote. But if they do, that may cause problems later as they want to remain in the EU. When EU membership goes to a vote, they'll have alot of backtracking to do. Particuarly as they'll have spent alot of time telling everyone that Scotland needs to be independent and doesn't need anyone else ...

Tubbs

[ 04. February 2016, 09:34: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It's not even in the small print but in the main body of the Treaty of Rome and the other 1950s treaties that set up what is now the EU. I find it hard to understand therefore people who say that they thought all they were voting for in 1975 was a Common Market (which already existed from 1968 and was merely the first (customs union) stage towards integration).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That assumes that Scotland would vote to join the EU. Whilst I suspect they would, I wouldn't assume it as a given. The SNP are caught between a rock and a hard-place on this one.

IF the UK votes to leave the EU, they'll get an independence vote they're certain to win. The temptation is to campaign for a No vote. But if they do, that may cause problems later as they want to remain in the EU. When it goes to a vote, they'll have alot of backtracking to do. Particuarly as they'll have spent alot of time telling everyone that Scotland needs to be independent and doesn't need anyone else ...

It's an interesting situation for those of us north of the border. The EU has been, and continues to be, good for Scotland in a very visible way (ie: lots of money for infrastructure development), as well as through the less visible ways that have benefited, and continue to benefit, the UK as a whole (access to a larger pool of qualified employees, trade partnerships, cooperative scientific and technical R&D, common practice in regulations covering goods and services ...). This is something that the Better Together campaign recognised, that Scotland and Scots are strongly in favour of EU membership - which is why they played that fear card, of an independent Scotland not being guaranteed a place in the EU, and the only way of ensuring Scottish membership in the EU was as part of the UK. Which is why a UK vote to leave the EU would trigger a referendum on Scottish independence, because that part of the Better Together promises that swung the vote in 2014 would have been shown to be false.

Which brings us down to how the SNP will campaign in the EU referendum. To trigger another Independence referendum there would not only need to be a UK majority for a Brexit, there would need to be a strong vote in Scotland in favour of remaining in the EU. If the votes in Scotland and the rest of the UK are very similar then the case for an independence referendum is weak, regardless of which way that vote goes. So, a large Scottish vote to leave the EU does nothing to support independence. A vote to stay in would if the rest of the UK votes to leave, and if the overall result is to stay in then that is also good for Scotland. Therefore, I conclude that the SNP would be firmly in the stay in camp.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
That assumes that Scotland would vote to join the EU. Whilst I suspect they would, I wouldn't assume it as a given. The SNP are caught between a rock and a hard-place on this one.

IF the UK votes to leave the EU, they'll get an independence vote they're certain to win. The temptation is to campaign for a No vote. But if they do, that may cause problems later as they want to remain in the EU. When it goes to a vote, they'll have alot of backtracking to do. Particuarly as they'll have spent alot of time telling everyone that Scotland needs to be independent and doesn't need anyone else ...
It's an interesting situation for those of us north of the border. The EU has been, and continues to be, good for Scotland in a very visible way (ie: lots of money for infrastructure development), as well as through the less visible ways that have benefited, and continue to benefit, the UK as a whole (access to a larger pool of qualified employees, trade partnerships, cooperative scientific and technical R&D, common practice in regulations covering goods and services ...). This is something that the Better Together campaign recognised, that Scotland and Scots are strongly in favour of EU membership - which is why they played that fear card, of an independent Scotland not being guaranteed a place in the EU, and the only way of ensuring Scottish membership in the EU was as part of the UK. Which is why a UK vote to leave the EU would trigger a referendum on Scottish independence, because that part of the Better Together promises that swung the vote in 2014 would have been shown to be false.

Which brings us down to how the SNP will campaign in the EU referendum. To trigger another Independence referendum there would not only need to be a UK majority for a Brexit, there would need to be a strong vote in Scotland in favour of remaining in the EU. If the votes in Scotland and the rest of the UK are very similar then the case for an independence referendum is weak, regardless of which way that vote goes. So, a large Scottish vote to leave the EU does nothing to support independence. A vote to stay in would if the rest of the UK votes to leave, and if the overall result is to stay in then that is also good for Scotland. Therefore, I conclude that the SNP would be firmly in the stay in camp.

Depends on whether the Scottish want to play the long or short game. A vote to leave the EU would almost guarantee another (successful) independence vote. The SNP is a nationalist party whose sole reason for existing is achieving Scottish Independence.

Some Scottish people are talking about deliberately voting OUT to leave in the hope of triggering another independence vote. You can’t take Scottish EU vote in the Referendum as indicative of the result of a stand-alone vote to re-join the EU.

Last time I looked, the SNP were keeping fairly quiet … If they go all out for an OUT vote, they’ll have a load of back-peddling to do when it comes to tempting people for vote YES to the EU later. And, if you’re right and the EU fast tracks Scotland’s application, it’ll be happening in the aftermath of loads of nationalist propaganda about how Scotland doesn’t need anyone else as it’ll do super well all on its own. If they go for a IN vote, they've passed up a fantastic opportunity to achieve their ultimate goal.

Tubbs

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Something similar may be going on outside Scotland. I mean, that Cameron's grubby little attempt to neutralize his own skeptics is resented by some people. I am tempted to vote out, just because of this. Why should I be involved in Tory politicking?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
A vote to leave the EU would almost guarantee another (successful) independence vote.

That isn't guaranteed. Pressure for another independence referendum would build significantly if the UK government takes the UK out of the EU against the wishes of the people of Scotland. At present, however, the wishes of the people of Scotland on this matter have not been tested in recent years. It is assumed, on the basis of opinion polls, that the wishes of the people of Scotland are to remain in the EU. A referendum on EU membership will determine the wishes of the people of Scotland. If the referendum shows no significant difference between Scotland and the rest of the Uk then the argument that the UK government is acting against the wishes of the people of Scotland collapses (at least on this point), and with it the pressure for another referendum.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Leaving the EU wouldn't be a disaster. In the same way that the present government chipping away at the NHS and child support and the BBC isn't a disaster. The comfortably wealthy probably won't notice anything beyond a few more beggars on street corners and a few more niggles to grumble at about how things aren't the same as when they were young.

On the other hand, it would be small-minded, short-sighted, and self-centred.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The U.K. imports much of its food, so why is having less control over those sources better?
How would there be less control over importing food?

A market is still a market. You can still buy from it, though you might not always get the members' discount.

I was thinking more along the lines of methods of production than price.
Though the EU currently have a better record in that than the UK, at least as far as pesticides, so...

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The U.K. imports much of its food, so why is having less control over those sources better?
How would there be less control over importing food?

A market is still a market. You can still buy from it, though you might not always get the members' discount.
I was thinking more along the lines of methods of production than price.
Though the EU currently have a better record in that than the UK, at least as far as pesticides, so...

An isolated rural dweller writes...

*some* pesticides, granted (the UK resistance to the EU's moves to ban nionics in particular was shameful).

On the other hand I'd back the UK's animal welfare and husbandry procedures* (certainly post BSE and foot and mouth) against anywhere in the EU including Germany and that's regardless of EU membership.

*I've deliberately left out slaughter. I think the transportation to the abattoir is fine, the conditions in the abattoir are EU leading, however the unintended consequences of the changes to mandated veterinary supervision levels post foot and mouth 2001 have decimated the local abattoir network to the extent that, IMO, we're now often taking beasts an unacceptably large distance to slaughter.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Leaving the EU wouldn't be a disaster. In the same way that the present government chipping away at the NHS and child support and the BBC isn't a disaster. The comfortably wealthy probably won't notice anything beyond a few more beggars on street corners and a few more niggles to grumble at about how things aren't the same as when they were young.

On the other hand, it would be small-minded, short-sighted, and self-centred.

Which would make a "Yes" vote for "Out" a foregone conclusion. Sorry if my irony detectors are on the blink.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

1. Is this a 'deal' at all? Has Cameron actually secured anything of substance even if everyone else agrees it in a fortnight - will it make any difference?

He's got a piece of paper to wave. Thus, nobody can say he broke his promise.

quote:
2. Should Cameron perhaps have concentrated more on negotiations aimed at reforming core EU institutions to eg: address the democratic deficit inherent in the EU stuctures?

Not if he wants a deal within the lifetime of this Parliament - or his own lifetime for that matter.

Mr Cameron's strategy, I think, is to get it over with as soon as possible with the minimum chance of debate. If people are scared and confused, they will tend to vote for the status quo.

I predict the outcome will be a 60-40 vote for In. The Out campaigners will feel victims of a stitch-up and bide their time for the next EU crisis, at which point they will say there's been a substantive change and the referendum should be re-run. That, however, will be a problem for Mr Osborne or Mr Johnson.

FWIW, although I'm uneasy about the democratic deficit, it does have one advantage over promoting the EU Parliament into a Westminster-style democracy - in that under the current set-up, every country is represented in the executive. If the executive was just whatever body commanded a majority of Parliamentary support, some countries could go entirely unrepresented in it.

quote:
3. Will the other member states sign up to the deal and, if so, at what price? Will Greece, for example, demand a further debt 'haircut' and/ or greater help with the refugee crisis?

Awkward. The problem is that Mr Cameron's natural allies are in Eastern Europe and they are the very people he is pissing off with his migrant benefit policies.

That said, 'ever closer union' has been pretty much killed off by the Greek crisis and the refugee crisis, and the concomittant petty nationalism, without any help from Mr Cameron.

quote:
4. Who will lead the 'out' campaign in the UK? Who should?

Jeremy Corbyn.

Only kidding ... but Sipech mentioned the point about strange bedfellows, which makes it hard for the Outs to coalesce around a single figure. (That plus Mr Farage's steadily slipping grasp on reality.)

quote:
5. Will the timing of the referendum affect the outcome eg: if in summer at the peak of the 'Mediterranean crossing season', will that queer the pitch?

If Mr Cameron can get it to coincide with some other elections he can reduce the chance of coherent debate still further -- see point 2.

quote:
6. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, how would you vote?

In.

Not that I have any great enthusiasm for the EU, but I would feel an Out vote to be a betrayal of my Czech father-in-law and the Polish couple who are to be the godparents of my child.

[ 04. February 2016, 20:23: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

1. Is this a 'deal' at all? Has Cameron actually secured anything of substance even if everyone else agrees it in a fortnight - will it make any difference?

It’s probably as much as they could have hoped for under the circumstances. Some of the OUT campaign members seem to have completely unrealistic expectations of the kind of things you get in these kind of negotiations.

2. Should Cameron perhaps have concentrated more on negotiations aimed at reforming core EU institutions to eg: address the democratic deficit inherent in the EU structures?

That’s a longer term discussion as some of that would involve looking at the treaties that people signed when the EU was first set up. All the stuff about closer integration was in the small and big print. However, we’re living in very different times now. We’re not the only EU member who’s looking at what we signed up for and wondering if it’s time for a rethink. Problem is, I don’t think Cameron is the kind of politician that does those kinds of deals.

3. Will the other member states sign up to the deal and, if so, at what price? Will Greece, for example, demand a further debt 'haircut' and/ or greater help with the refugee crisis?

If Cameron’s able to convince them that there’s something in it for them, I don’t see why not!

4. Who will lead the 'out' campaign in the UK? Who should?

Nigel is likely to push all the other candidates down the lift shaft if he thought they were stealing the job he’d been auditioning for during his entire political career. My one joy if the UK does leave will be watching all those greedy UKIP fuckwits who’ve been merrily milking the EU system they claim to despise suddenly realising that they’re unemployed and in need of a proper job!

5. Will the timing of the referendum affect the outcome eg: if in summer at the peak of the 'Mediterranean crossing season', will that queer the pitch?

As the key issue for many is immigration, then having it during the peak season might not be helpful. OTH, the IN camp need to be better at pointing out that a) there are a large number of British migrants elsewhere in the EU who are claiming benefits, taking jobs etc. If the UK had to fund them, it would add a lot more to the benefits bill than we’re currently paying out.

The other problem is the complete disconnect between people’s attitudes to their own migration rights – as many people believe they should have the right to settle and work anywhere in the EU they like. OTH, the same people don’t want those pesky migrants coming here and doing the same!

6. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, how would you vote?

I’ll be voting IN. Partly because I couldn’t look some of my friends in the face if I didn’t. And partly because I work in a sector that depends on the UK having access to the EU single market. Yes, I’m all about the self interest!

I’ve no problems with people who believe we should leave the EU on ideological grounds, but the OUT camp needs to front up to the fact that there will be consequences and not all of them will be great. Sectors heavily dependent on EU investment and membership – agriculture, science, infrastructure, manufacturing, financial services etc – are going to lose jobs and investment. Leaving the EU won’t do the UK any favours economically.

Tubbs

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It looks like a Cameron win on this, as most of the big beasts in the Tory party are falling into line. I don't think this is because of the overpowering strength of his argument, but because of internal dynamics in the Tory party. This is part of my annoyance, that we are all being roped into this internal struggle, that is, to neutralize the skeptics. I am tempted to vote Out just to register my annoyance, but that is probably pointless.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

FTR, unless anything humungously spectacular happens between now and whenever the referendum is, I shall vote to stay but I would really really like to see more democratic accountability within the EU institutions; if that has to come at the price of diminishing the powers of the member states, so be it.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

The other problem is the complete disconnect between people’s attitudes to their own migration rights – as many people believe they should have the right to settle and work anywhere in the EU they like. OTH, the same people don’t want those pesky migrants coming here and doing the same!

I will admit to finding a certain dark humour in Viktor Orbán complaining that Mr Cameron was discussing migrant workers as though they were vermin ...

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It looks like a Cameron win on this, as most of the big beasts in the Tory party are falling into line. I don't think this is because of the overpowering strength of his argument, but because of internal dynamics in the Tory party. This is part of my annoyance, that we are all being roped into this internal struggle, that is, to neutralize the skeptics. I am tempted to vote Out just to register my annoyance, but that is probably pointless.

Me too! I'm generally in favour of EU membership (not as much as I used to be), but I resent being co-opted into saving Cameron's career and party.

The polls (for what they're worth this far out) are showing a slight lead for "remain", but we now know that Tory voters are under-represented in polling samples. As they tend to be more euro-sceptic, I wouldn't rule out a surprise vote to "leave" whenever this wretched referendum (neverendum?) is finally held.

I'm torn...my head says "leaving would be a really stupid, retrograde step", but it would be such fun to see Cameron resign in ignominy, then sit back and observe the subsequent succession battle/civil war/split. Redwood vs Corbyn in 2020 perhaps? Last time I checked you could get 8 to 1 on Jez to win the next general election....

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

It appears that there is a significant minority (perhaps even a small majority, who knows?) who are unhappy with our membership of the EU. If, in the modern political age, we're going to have referendums on things like a Welsh Assembly and a Mayor of London, a referendum on EU membership seems fair enough.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I wasn't necessarily objecting to the referendum itself, although I do consider them undemocratic (which is why dictators have always been so keen on them.) Most people are either too busy or too lazy to engage properly with the issues and cast their vote on the basis of rival personalities; witness the AV referendum a few years ago when it was portrayed as something that nasty Nick Clegg wanted.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It appears that there is a significant minority (perhaps even a small majority, who knows?) who are unhappy with our membership of the EU. If, in the modern political age, we're going to have referendums on things like a Welsh Assembly and a Mayor of London, a referendum on EU membership seems fair enough.

If there's a problem which the "out" campaign have to address it is to present a realistic alternative that is more than wish list. I'm sure they will suggest the UK has the same sort of arrangement as the non-EU members of the EEA have but some sharp questioning about what these countries (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) plus Switzerland, have to do to maintain their membership of the EEA will liven up the debate no end.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
it would be such fun to see Cameron resign in ignominy, then sit back and observe the subsequent succession battle/civil war/split.

Cameron has already said that he has no intention of resigning whatever the result.
He said the same about Scottish Independence; one might think this was his major contribution to keeping Scotland in the UK.

[ 09. February 2016, 19:23: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

As Cameron has also said he will not serve another full parliamentary term, if the referendum result goes against him he will be the lamest of lame ducks. He'll find a bottle of whisky and a revolver on his desk.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Have any other shipmates actually worked on one or more EU-funded projects? I have, and it's turned me from a onetime waverer to a hardline sceptic, questioning if there's a single core EU function that couldn't be handled more efficiently and accountably by national governments.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

For me, two Framework projects. Neither of which would have been possible without relatively modest EU funding (accounting for maybe 20% of total costs, the rest being met by assorted national funding from assorted sources in different countries). The EU Framework provided enough to get people together who would otherwise either not met, or if they had met would never have managed to organise a multi-national research project.

A fair amount of bureaucracy that we found many of our partners struggled with (ie: they were not used to having to file receipts for all expenses), but was nothing more than would be required of UK funded research.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
OddJob: Have any other shipmates actually worked on one or more EU-funded projects?

I have, a lot. I have the feeling that the bureaucratic part of it has gotten better over the past 15 years.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I won a call for tender for an EU-funded project and have worked for many more.

The bureaucracy is mind-numbing but as Alan says, I'm not convinced it would be any simpler within any other organisation.

The experience has made me more pro-EU. One agenda of Interreg projects is to get elites working cross-culturally and this has certainly been a big part of the experience for those involved.

I was also completely unaware beforehand of how much local communities can and do benefit from EU funding: I think one of the biggest weaknesses of the EU is its poor PR.

But then again, I'm in France, steeped in the political ethos of "European Union", whereas those in the UK were sold the prospect of a "Common Market" - a very different notion.

(I'm old enough to remember the last UK referendum on this subject and convinced the Yes campaign won because the lapel badges were cool)

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Has anyone promoting the idea of a Brexit considered what might happen to the hundreds of thousands of British ex-pats living in other EU member states in the event of a 'Leave' vote? There's an article in the 'Guardian' here and there was also one in this morning's 'Independent' to which I can't yet link referring to the potential impact on British pensioners living in EU states who might have to return to the UK with the resultant strain on housing and social care...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think this is just another example of how the technical implications of a Brexit have not been thought out at all - much like Scottish independence, perhaps?

In the linked article, I also note this quote from a Brit in France

quote:
“I live near Ypres, a part of the world that was flattened during the first world war, in the war to end all wars, and the EU has a particular importance for people. They don’t understand this in the UK because they’ve never been occupied.”

I entirely agree with this view. It wasn't until I saw a wartime photograph of a Wehrmacht soldier in front of the little-changed frontage of the local equivalent of BHS that this difference of perception due to the Occupation came home to me.

(Unlike her, however, I already have two passports. My decision to apply for French nationality was spurred by Le Pen père making it through to the second round of the presidential election in 2002).

[ 10. February 2016, 10:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

If Britain leaves the EU, I will most definitely be applying for a French passport. I will probably wait a while until I become eligible to apply on the basis of being married to a French person (you can apply after four years of marriage) because the process is simpler. Nonetheless, in the current climate, “get French nationality” is definitely on my to-do list.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the linked article, I also note this quote from a Brit in France
quote:
“I live near Ypres, a part of the world that was flattened during the first world war, in the war to end all wars, and the EU has a particular importance for people. They don’t understand this in the UK because they’ve never been occupied.”
I entirely agree with this view. It wasn't until I saw a wartime photograph of a Wehrmacht soldier in front of the little-changed frontage of the local equivalent of BHS that this difference of perception due to the Occupation came home to me.

Or to put it another way, the EU prevents Germany (and to a lesser extent France) from going to war for control of the continent by just handing it to them on a silver platter instead.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There's an article in the 'Guardian' here

There's something about people who haven't lived here for decades and have no intention of doing so in the future calling themselves "British to the core" that makes me feel quite angry. How can you be "British to the core" if you don't even want to live in Britain?

If you want to live in Italy for the rest of your life, become Italian. If you want to live in France for the rest of your life, become French. And if the only reason you want Britain to stay in the EU is so that you can take up permanent residence somewhere else without having to jump through a few bureaucratic hoops then forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic to your cause.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although the structures of the EU are designed to prevent that (or, at least, significantly curtail the influence of the larger nations within Europe). Which is why, though I would want reform of those structures to increase democratic accountability, any reform has to be very carefully considered. A European Parliament with members approximately proportional to population will be heavily skewed in favour of the larger nations. Removal of the requirement for unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers removes some opportunities for smaller countries to influence the whole. By and large I think the EU does a not bad job of balancing the interests of all the nations which comprise it.

There is, IMO, an exception to that. The Euro has been heavily biased towards supporting the German and French economic interests, and I think there were some mistakes made in introducing the currency - not least that one of the biggest economies in Europe stayed out.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: If you want to live in Italy for the rest of your life, become Italian. If you want to live in France for the rest of your life, become French.

So what am I?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
If Britain leaves the EU, I will most definitely be applying for a French passport. I will probably wait a while until I become eligible to apply on the basis of being married to a French person (you can apply after four years of marriage) because the process is simpler. Nonetheless, in the current climate, “get French nationality” is definitely on my to-do list.

Yes - the same is true for my son in Germany, he has been there for six years now. It'll be sad if it comes to that 'tho.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Euro has been heavily biased towards supporting the German and French economic interests

Yes, an entire continent being heavily biased towards their economic interests is exactly what I meant by them controlling it. And if we were part of the Euro then our economy would now be being run for their benefit as well.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: If you want to live in Italy for the rest of your life, become Italian. If you want to live in France for the rest of your life, become French.
So what am I?

No idea - where do you want to live for the rest of your life?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: No idea - where do you want to live for the rest of your life?

At the moment, I'm living in 4 or 5 countries at the same time and it's going to stay like this for a while. When I get older, I'll eventually want to retire in Brazil.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There's an article in the 'Guardian' here
There's something about people who haven't lived here for decades and have no intention of doing so in the future calling themselves "British to the core" that makes me feel quite angry. How can you be "British to the core" if you don't even want to live in Britain?

Oh I get that. There have been plenty of people throughout history who consider themselves British but have lived overseas. In the Dominions, to give one example.

But what I don't get is that these people talk as if no Briton ever lived on the continent before 1972. We have, obviously.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Euro has been heavily biased towards supporting the German and French economic interests
Yes, an entire continent being heavily biased towards their economic interests is exactly what I meant by them controlling it. And if we were part of the Euro then our economy would now be being run for their benefit as well.

It's a case of "what if"'s.

The Euro was established by treaty, the terms of that treaty did not need to be what they are. If the UK had entered into Euro currency project maybe the negotiations would have taken a different course. And, if the Scandinavian countries had joined in, things might have been different yet again. Who knows? We can't turn back the clock and set things up differently. But, maybe from inside the EU the UK could still have an influence over the future direction of the EU.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, maybe from inside the EU the UK could still have an influence over the future direction of the EU.

It's a nice aspiration. The Europhile MP Sarah Wollaston today said:

quote:
David Cameron was right that the EU will need further reform but if this [David Cameron's deal] is the best that can be grudgingly conceded when there is a serious risk of a British exit, what chance of any meaningful further reform if and when we are tied-in long term by the referendum?

Today she backed Brexit (and I would link to her blog on this at drsarah.org.uk, but for some reason this site isn't having it).

[ 10. February 2016, 17:39: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Euro has been heavily biased towards supporting the German and French economic interests
Yes, an entire continent being heavily biased towards their economic interests is exactly what I meant by them controlling it. And if we were part of the Euro then our economy would now be being run for their benefit as well.

OK, I get the idea you don't want to be in the EU. What alternative do you propose? Do you really think we can get an EEA or Swiss deal? If not, we will be in a far worse situation and may as well ask Washington if the USA govern us, reversing the arrangement devised back in the eighteenth century.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you want to live in Italy for the rest of your life, become Italian. If you want to live in France for the rest of your life, become French.

It is this very nationalist attitude that makes what you say impossible. Gaining an Italian citizenship doesn't make one Italian in any cultural or social way. You are always where you came from in the eyes of everyone else.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: (and I would link to her blog on this at drsarah.org.uk, but for some reason this site isn't having it).

It's the Ship's political filter [Razz]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Do you really think we can get an EEA or Swiss deal? If not, we will be in a far worse situation and may as well ask Washington if the USA govern us, reversing the arrangement devised back in the eighteenth century.

We're the fifth largest economy in the world, why would European countries not want to trade with us?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Do you really think we can get an EEA or Swiss deal? If not, we will be in a far worse situation and may as well ask Washington if the USA govern us, reversing the arrangement devised back in the eighteenth century.
We're the fifth largest economy in the world, why would European countries not want to trade with us?

We're only a "big economy" because people trade with us, and most of that trade is financial. If we leave the EU a lot of European companies will put more trade through Frankfurt.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Do you really think we can get an EEA or Swiss deal? If not, we will be in a far worse situation and may as well ask Washington if the USA govern us, reversing the arrangement devised back in the eighteenth century.
We're the fifth largest economy in the world, why would European countries not want to trade with us?
We're only a "big economy" because people trade with us, and most of that trade is financial. If we leave the EU a lot of European companies will put more trade through Frankfurt.

People said exactly this sort of thing when we were thinking about whether or not to join the Euro.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, an entire continent being heavily biased towards their economic interests is exactly what I meant by them controlling it. And if we were part of the Euro then our economy would now be being run for their benefit as well.

German and French companies (state-owned companies, some of them) own and run a significant part of our infrastructure already, with the profits made from UK tax payers heading abroad.

That ship sailed along time ago under the flag of privatisation, and has nothing at all to do with the Euro.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Yes, it's rather funny that the same people who say "we should get out of the EU lest the French and Germans control our things" are usually eager to privatise stuff and sell it to the same French and Germans.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If you want to live in Italy for the rest of your life, become Italian. If you want to live in France for the rest of your life, become French.
It is this very nationalist attitude that makes what you say impossible. Gaining an Italian citizenship doesn't make one Italian in any cultural or social way. You are always where you came from in the eyes of everyone else.

I love this line of argument. If you're right then those cultural and social differences are why any desire to see the EU as anything more than a free trade zone is a nonsense, which is what I'm arguing. And if you're wrong then I'm right. Way to give me a win-win situation [Smile]

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gaining an Italian citizenship doesn't make one Italian in any cultural or social way. You are always where you came from in the eyes of everyone else.

Fortunately this is not true in Australia, where about 30% of the population was born overseas (including my wife who was born in Britain) FWIW, while still living in UK she voted for Britain to join the Common Market, way back in 1974.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, an entire continent being heavily biased towards their economic interests is exactly what I meant by them controlling it. And if we were part of the Euro then our economy would now be being run for their benefit as well.
German and French companies (state-owned companies, some of them) own and run a significant part of our infrastructure already, with the profits made from UK tax payers heading abroad.

The difference between a foreign company winning a competitive bidding process and being awarded a franchise to run some of our trains for a few years and a foreign country telling us what we can and can't do with our entire currency and economy is large enough to drive a whole fleet of buses through.

It's the difference between BP having contracts to extract, refine and sell oil in the USA and the UK government having overall control of what happens in Washington. Since the USA is fine with one and fought a war to end the other, I'd say that's a difference that actually matters.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
There's an article in the 'Guardian' here
There's something about people who haven't lived here for decades and have no intention of doing so in the future calling themselves "British to the core" that makes me feel quite angry. How can you be "British to the core" if you don't even want to live in Britain?

Oh I get that. There have been plenty of people throughout history who consider themselves British but have lived overseas. In the Dominions, to give one example.

But what I don't get is that these people talk as if no Briton ever lived on the continent before 1972. We have, obviously.

Yes, but with nowhere near the same perks that we do now re: benefits, access to healthcare, free movement, etc

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Marvin, I think you misunderstand me; when I say I am seriously looking at applying for French nationality, it's not because I'm afraid of not being able to stay here. They'll never send me back anyway because I have availed myself of that time-honoured way of staying in a country of which one is not a citizen i.e. marry a native.

If I apply for a French passport, it will be because I consider there are major advantages to being a citizen of an EU member state and I don't wish to lose them. If my British passport no longer makes me an EU citizen, I shall get a French one.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

If I apply for a French passport, it will be because I consider there are major advantages to being a citizen of an EU member state and I don't wish to lose them. If my British passport no longer makes me an EU citizen, I shall get a French one.

And I will take up my right to an Irish one. Though a Scottish one might also become available. If anything would bring on another Indie ref hereabouts, it would be a vote to leave the EU.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

If I apply for a French passport, it will be because I consider there are major advantages to being a citizen of an EU member state and I don't wish to lose them. If my British passport no longer makes me an EU citizen, I shall get a French one.

I'm annoyed. My brothers and their families can get Irish passports (different father). I think my wife and our children can too thanks to her father and forebears and I think my wife and our youngest can get Maltese passports since we entered the EU.

Looks like I'm lumbered. Would I rather be a citizen or a subject?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
If I apply for a French passport, it will be because I consider there are major advantages to being a citizen of an EU member state and I don't wish to lose them.

Can you list these advantages for me? I'm going to assume freedom of movement within the EU is one*, but what are the others?

.

*= Though it's not one I value particularly highly. I have no intention of leaving Britain for anything longer than a holiday, and if I ever had to emigrate then I'd want to go somewhere where they speak English. Probably New Zealand. As for holidays, I can't see that going to France or Italy would suddenly become any more difficult than going to places like Cuba, Egypt, Morocco or Mexico.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for holidays, I can't see that going to France or Italy would suddenly become any more difficult than going to places like Cuba, Egypt, Morocco or Mexico.

I'm sure France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and the rest could make it bloody difficult in minutes.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

So could any country. But why would they?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you're right then those cultural and social differences are why any desire to see the EU as anything more than a free trade zone is a nonsense, which is what I'm arguing.

I'd suggest there is quite a lot of space between 'the EU should be a free trade area only' and 'European identity should subsume national identities' ...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I love this line of argument. If you're right then those cultural and social differences are why any desire to see the EU as anything more than a free trade zone is a nonsense, which is what I'm arguing. And if you're wrong then I'm right. Way to give me a win-win situation .

I love the assertions about cultural and social differences, because there are demonstrable cultural and social differences between streets a few miles apart almost everywhere in Britain alone. That's certainly the case in Newport. Further afield, Venetians, Romans and Sicilians may as well be from different countries (Italy is a pretty recent concept) and Castillians, Bascues and Catalans, while nominally Spanish can't understand each other, using their own languages.

Some of these cultural and social differences, like xenophobia and poverty, are worth eradicating, and I reckon the EU can do that, although it will have to tak on the selfishness of certain nations and make itself more democratic to do so.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

And just try to get a Bavarian to accept that, other than a shared federal government, s/he has anything in common with a Rhinelander...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I love the assertions about cultural and social differences, because there are demonstrable cultural and social differences between streets a few miles apart almost everywhere in Britain alone. That's certainly the case in Newport.

Are those differences significant enough that they would constitute a barrier to someone seeking to move from one place to another?

quote:
Further afield, Venetians, Romans and Sicilians may as well be from different countries (Italy is a pretty recent concept) and Castillians, Bascues and Catalans, while nominally Spanish can't understand each other, using their own languages.

All of those places (with the possible exception of Rome, which is the power the other Italians want independence from) have separatist movements - some very popular, others less so - seeking independence from the larger country. And in every case, if it ever came to a referendum on independence I would support the "yes" campaign.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And just try to get a Bavarian to accept that, other than a shared federal government, s/he has anything in common with a Rhinelander...

Language?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Like us and the Americans, you mean? (Churchill quote in there somewhere I think.) And that's before we get into the differences between High and Low German...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
If I apply for a French passport, it will be because I consider there are major advantages to being a citizen of an EU member state and I don't wish to lose them.
Can you list these advantages for me? I'm going to assume freedom of movement within the EU is one, but what are the others?

Anybody else who feels the same can answer this as well, by the way. There's no need to wait for LVER.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like us and the Americans, you mean?

Yes. I would say we have far more in common socially and culturally with Americans than with, say, Germans.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Funny, because I feel the opposite...which I suppose illustrates the divide brought into sharp relief by the referendum: those who feel 'Atlanticist' like you are more likely to vote to leave whereas those like me who feel European will probably vote to stay.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like us and the Americans, you mean?
Yes. I would say we have far more in common socially and culturally with Americans than with, say, Germans.

Who's to say that the Americans will give us a better deal than will the rest of Europe? We might not have a perfect relationship with Europe but, as the saying goes, it's better to be inside the tent, pissing out than outside, probably in a stormy gale, annoying those on the inside.

Besides which you haven't yet brought a single tangible benefit of being out to the party. Come on, we're waiting.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like us and the Americans, you mean?
Yes. I would say we have far more in common socially and culturally with Americans than with, say, Germans.

So, if we compare something cultural like what sports we enjoy what do you get? Oh look, Britain and the rest of Europe play proper football rather than that strange game they call football over there. Or, if we go with politics, in neither the UK nor the rest of Europe would Bernie Sanders be considered an extreme left-wing politician.

Of course, we share a common language with the US which means that we get US TV, music and movies ... but, everyone else in the world gets them as well, so I'm not sure what that means.

When it comes down to it Britain is a nation comprised of peoples from Britain (there are still a few) with significant numbers of people from throughout Europe - people from the Roman Empire, Germanic "barbarians" (Saxons, Angles, Jutes etc), Scandanvians and French. We're European to the core of our mongrel nation.

The same as the US on that count.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Funny, because I feel the opposite...

I have no intention of arguing against what you feel, as that is for you and you alone.

However, I will ask this: how many American TV shows have you watched in the last year compared to the number of German ones? How many American movies have you seen compared to German ones? How many albums/tapes/CDs/downloads of American singers/bands do you have compared to German ones?
How many current American or German politicians can you name without using Google?

And if the answer to all of those is that America outranks Germany, which cultural or social factors are you thinking about when you make your judgement about who you have more in common with?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anybody else who feels the same can answer this as well, by the way. There's no need to wait for LVER.

The answer is obvious. For an individual, the possession of an EU passport conveys the right to live and work anywhere in the EU. That's a pretty big advantage for a small number of people. There are, as far as I can see, almost no disadvantages for an individual who acquires an EU passport. The only things that spring to mind are compulsory military service and inheritance issues. The former is pretty easy to avoid. I don't know how inheritance works. I know that France, for example, gives quite strong rights to your children as regards inheritance, but I think they apply to French residents, not just French citizens. I don't know whether they apply to French citizens who are resident in some other country.

This is an almost entirely different question from the one about whether membership of the EU is good for the UK.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

However, I will ask this: how many American TV shows have you watched in the last year compared to the number of German ones? How many American movies have you seen compared to German ones? How many albums/tapes/CDs/downloads of American singers/bands do you have compared to German ones?
How many current American or German politicians can you name without using Google?

And if the answer to all of those is that America outranks Germany, which cultural or social factors are you thinking about when you make your judgement about who you have more in common with?

They're rather skewed criteria for questions, aren't they? I could shoot back at you with "Who plays in the Six Nations Rugby?" What great classical composers do you listen to? Name 10 great medieval theologians. Etc

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if we compare something cultural like what sports we enjoy what do you get? Oh look, Britain and the rest of Europe play proper football rather than that strange game they call football over there.

As does Latin America. If you're trying to claim that the UK is culturally closer to Argentina, Brazil, or Mexico than it is to the US based on a shared love of football then I'm going to laugh at you.

Or consider that quintessentially English sport, cricket. Cricket's geographical popularity has a rather obvious link with the bounds of the British Empire, but it doesn't follow that India and Pakistan, for example, are culturally similar to the UK. There are elements of shared culture, owing to our shared history, but that's rather a different thing.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Based on the totally incontrovertible evidence of 'Who feels more foreign to me when I am associating with them?', I would vote Americans as more foreign than North Europeans and less foreign than Mediterranean Europeans.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Who's to say that the Americans will give us a better deal than will the rest of Europe?

Who said anything about getting a deal from America? I can assure you I'm no more keen to become part of the United States of America than I am to become part of a United States of Europe.

quote:
Besides which you haven't yet brought a single tangible benefit of being out to the party. Come on, we're waiting.

I asked first, and I note that nobody is falling over themselves to provide an answer.

But lest this fall into a childish game of "you first", I'll provide a short list of the key benefits to my mind of independence:

Self Determination (this one always needs to be at the top of lists like this)
Economic control, including but not limited to
- inflation rates.
- interest rates.
- exchange rates - this is a key one as the ability to devalue the currency in order to stimulate inwards investment is a vital last resort to have available in situations of economic crisis. Just ask Greece.
Not having to hand over a proportion of our tax revenue to foreign interests.
Being able to decide such things as human rights, immigration, education, healthcare etc. for ourselves without having to negotiate them with other countries who may not share our values.
- Note that this is purely a matter of principle - I know the current political climate suggests that membership of the EU would pull the UK to the left, but I would have exactly the same objection were that to be reversed. I would not want to see a socialist Britain forced to the right by a neoliberal Europe either.
keeping pounds, pints, miles, stones, ounces, feet, yards and all the other little things we do differently to Europe that add up to form part of our distinctive national identity.

Your turn

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Anybody else who feels the same can answer this as well, by the way. There's no need to wait for LVER.
The answer is obvious. For an individual, the possession of an EU passport conveys the right to live and work anywhere in the EU. That's a pretty big advantage for a small number of people.

So freedom of movement throughout the continent is the only advantage, and even then it's only an advantage for a small group of people?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So freedom of movement throughout the continent is the only advantage, and even then it's only an advantage for a small group of people?

I think you missed the last paragraph in my post, when I say that the advantages/disadvantages for an individual such as our friend LVER to hold an EU passport are not at all the same thing as the advantages/disadvantages for a country such as the UK to be an EU member.

But yes, for the average European, the fact that they, personally, possess an EU passport is pretty irrelevant. The thing that makes a difference is the fact that their country is an EU member.

[ 12. February 2016, 16:17: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[ETA: in response to Marvin]

This is what Brits don't get about the EU, as mentioned upthread.

The political motivation for setting up the EU in continental Europe was "never again" in the aftermath of WW2. It's not just about banana sizes.

It's hard to get across the way occupied Europe and defeated, humliated Germany experienced the war and its aftermath compared to the UK. It took me many years living here to grasp this. "The European project" may sound desperately vague, bureaucratic and even ominous to British ears, but I do think there's something worth upholding amid it all.

[ 12. February 2016, 16:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA: in response to Marvin]

This is what Brits don't get about the EU, as mentioned upthread.

The political motivation for setting up the EU in continental Europe was "never again" in the aftermath of WW2. It's not just about banana sizes.

It's hard to get across the way occupied Europe and defeated, humliated Germany experienced the war and its aftermath compared to the UK. It took me many years living here to grasp this. "The European project" may sound desperately vague, bureaucratic and even ominous to British ears, but I do think there's something worth upholding amid it all.

It does indeed distort the view. But the anti-EU faction are not really concerned about the benefit of much of Britain itself, so....

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
and even then it's only an advantage for a small group of people?

As this is a fair description of your political posts here, why would you have issue?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Self Determination (this one always needs to be at the top of lists like this)

This supposes that self-determination is primarily a question of what one can legislate for, which, if I may say so, is a rather statist view.

It seems to me, for example, that the EU has rather more negotiating power than the UK in creating a free trade agreement with America. Likewise, to tackle the migrant crisis, or control fish stocks in the North Sea, rather more options are available to a bloc of countries working together than to the UK alone.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA: in response to Marvin]

This is what Brits don't get about the EU, as mentioned upthread.

The political motivation for setting up the EU in continental Europe was "never again" in the aftermath of WW2. It's not just about banana sizes.

It's hard to get across the way occupied Europe and defeated, humliated Germany experienced the war and its aftermath compared to the UK. It took me many years living here to grasp this. "The European project" may sound desperately vague, bureaucratic and even ominous to British ears, but I do think there's something worth upholding amid it all.

This is I think a reason why Mr Cameron's natural allies are in Eastern Europe. Whereas the founder members see French or German nationalism (or at least their excesses) as an internal threat, and European unity as a means of neutralising it, in Eastern Europe (where the memory of occupation is more recent), Polish or Czech identity is something that needs protecting, specifically against the external threat of Russia and the legacy of Comecon, and the EU is a means of assuring national security.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Leaving the EU would probably mean, and I admit to being uninformed about this, the loss of grants for farmers, under the Common Agricultural Policy. A quote from the government's website:

"Farmers' incomes are supported by the European Union by means of direct payments. In return, farmers are obliged to carry out agricultural activity and to respect a number of standards regarding food safety, environmental protection, animal welfare and the maintenance of land in good environmental and agricultural condition."

OK, they call the shots, but the farmers get the money. As farming is an industry that's been struggling for a while, what arrangements might there be to replace this, if any?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, if we compare something cultural like what sports we enjoy what do you get? Oh look, Britain and the rest of Europe play proper football rather than that strange game they call football over there.
As does Latin America. If you're trying to claim that the UK is culturally closer to Argentina, Brazil, or Mexico than it is to the US based on a shared love of football then I'm going to laugh at you.

I was only comparing the US and the rest of the EU, an illustration of how the UK is further from the US and closer to the rest of Europe. I could have come up with some other examples, and probably some of them make us closer to latin America than the US as well - in part because latin America has inherited a fair bit of European culture (as has the US).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
However, I will ask this: how many American TV shows have you watched in the last year compared to the number of German ones? How many American movies have you seen compared to German ones? How many albums/tapes/CDs/downloads of American singers/bands do you have compared to German ones?

Which is irrelevant. The US has a dominant cultural presence throughout the world - US music, fastfood, TV and films dominate even outwith Anglophone countries, including Europe. That the UK has been flooded by US cultural products doesn't mean that we are culturally close to the US, by that argument you can say that Germany, France and Japan are as culturally close to the US.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Economic control, including but not limited to
</font>inflation rates.
interest rates.
exchange rates - this is a key one as the ability to devalue the currency in order to stimulate inwards investment is a vital last resort to have available in situations of economic crisis. Just ask Greece.

And Spain. And Portugal. If I were British, a degree of economic autonomy would be the main reason I'd want to keep clear of the EU.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It seems to me, for example, that the EU has rather more negotiating power than the UK in creating a free trade agreement with America.

The real winners in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are going to be large transnational companies.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Those who think greater European integration will prevent another war seem to have forgotten that civil wars are a thing.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If I were British, a degree of economic autonomy would be the main reason I'd want to keep clear of the EU.

Well, we escape that anyway by not having joined the euro.

FWIW I think the euro needs major reforms to be viable, and once the current playground spat over Greece dies down they will probably occur. The non-euro countries will then want new assurances and a new settlement. If this happens we will see real reforms and Mr Cameron's pretend reforms will be exposed as an annoying distraction.

quote:

The real winners in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are going to be large transnational companies.

That is depressingly probable, but the EU is better equipped to stand up to multinationals than the UK alone.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Funny, because I feel the opposite...
I have no intention of arguing against what you feel, as that is for you and you alone.

However, I will ask this: how many American TV shows have you watched in the last year compared to the number of German ones? How many American movies have you seen compared to German ones? How many albums/tapes/CDs/downloads of American singers/bands do you have compared to German ones?
How many current American or German politicians can you name without using Google?

And if the answer to all of those is that America outranks Germany, which cultural or social factors are you thinking about when you make your judgement about who you have more in common with?

Surey it's about 'high culture' - Goethe, operas, paintings - not TV shows

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: How many current American or German politicians can you name without using Google?

I can name quite a number of politicians from the US. With most of them I really wouldn't want to be associated though.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surey it's about 'high culture' - Goethe, operas, paintings - not TV shows

There's always The Bridge.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surey it's about 'high culture' - Goethe, operas, paintings - not TV shows

What are you talking about? Out of any given random thousand of Brits I'd bet hard cash that no more than two would even have heard of Goethe.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

And actually, on leo's definition of high culture, ISTM that America, Britain and the rest of Europe are engaged in broadly the same thing.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And just try to get a Bavarian to accept that, other than a shared federal government, s/he has anything in common with a Rhinelander...

What a silly thing to say! Yesterday I was at a party (in Heidelberg) with two of each. Plus three English folk, a French man and an Aussie. The hostess was a Canadian girl who has a German husband. We all agreed it would be crazy for the UK to leave the EU.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Am I the only one who thinks "how many politicians / actors do the people know from that country" is a rubbish criterion for establishing economic ties with a country?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I the only one who thinks "how many politicians / actors do the people know from that country" is a rubbish criterion for establishing economic ties with a country?

You would be better off asking how many CEOs you know from a country as these have far more say in setting up and maintaining economic ties than politicians, let alone actors.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surey it's about 'high culture' - Goethe, operas, paintings - not TV shows
What are you talking about? Out of any given random thousand of Brits I'd bet hard cash that no more than two would even have heard of Goethe.

That's because we've dumbed down culture and education.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

"High-culture" is intentional class warfare.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And actually, on leo's definition of high culture, ISTM that America, Britain and the rest of Europe are engaged in broadly the same thing.

Yup.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I the only one who thinks "how many politicians / actors do the people know from that country" is a rubbish criterion for establishing economic ties with a country?
You would be better off asking how many CEOs you know from a country as these have far more say in setting up and maintaining economic ties than politicians, let alone actors. (Unquote)

As a breed, the strength of their pro-EU stance seems to be broadly in proportion to the size of their organisations.

Surely to assess the economic impact fairly, ears should also be turned to the so far under-represented small business sector and to those of us who run commercial businesses within the public sector, often facing all the drawbacks but few of the advantages.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I the only one who thinks "how many politicians / actors do the people know from that country" is a rubbish criterion for establishing economic ties with a country?

We were talking about cultural and social ties.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surey it's about 'high culture' - Goethe, operas, paintings - not TV shows
What are you talking about? Out of any given random thousand of Brits I'd bet hard cash that no more than two would even have heard of Goethe.
That's because we've dumbed down culture and education.

For a self-proclaimed socialist, you can be quite elitist at times.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Am I the only one who thinks "how many politicians / actors do the people know from that country" is a rubbish criterion for establishing economic ties with a country?
We were talking about cultural and social ties.

I think LeRoc was too. While it's true that politics is "showbiz for ugly folks" your definition is very narrow. Cultural ans social ties consist of more than fame and infamy.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surey it's about 'high culture' - Goethe, operas, paintings - not TV shows
What are you talking about? Out of any given random thousand of Brits I'd bet hard cash that no more than two would even have heard of Goethe.

How much hard cash? [Paranoid]

Our local newspaper, not a broadsheet by any stretch of the imagination, had an article on "Werther syndrome" within the last month. I can't remember whether it felt necessary to explain who Goethe was, or whether they assumed that an average reader would recognise the name.

I messaged my daughter to ask if she knew who Goethe was and she replied that he was the author of the "Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it!" meme. So I'd guess that a swathe of FB users recognise the name even if, like my daughter, they know absolutely nothing else about him.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Our local newspaper, not a broadsheet by any stretch of the imagination, had an article on "Werther syndrome" within the last month. I can't remember whether it felt necessary to explain who Goethe was, or whether they assumed that an average reader would recognise the name.

My bet would be that more people have heard of Werther's Originals than of the author and their first reaction would be that it was something to do with that.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

The article said that "Werther syndrome" was so called because of Goethe's "Sorrows of Young Werther" I can't remember if they then explained who Goethe was. There was an outline of the plot of Young Werther.

I have had a further message from my daughter who has googled and realised that Goethe wrote Faust. She had heard of Faust!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Surey it's about 'high culture' - Goethe, operas, paintings - not TV shows
What are you talking about? Out of any given random thousand of Brits I'd bet hard cash that no more than two would even have heard of Goethe.
That's because we've dumbed down culture and education.
For a self-proclaimed socialist, you can be quite elitist at times.

Very often, in fact!

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

In fairness to leo I think it's also quite snobbish to assume that only posh people are interested in high culture.

(As a matter of interest, I note that tickets to hear the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra cost between £14 and £40 (and £7 for the unemployed), whereas Liverpool Football Club, even before the latest price hikes, will set you back between £37 and £59. Let the reader decide which organisation is more proletarianly priced.)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
However, I will ask this: how many American TV shows have you watched in the last year compared to the number of German ones? How many American movies have you seen compared to German ones? How many albums/tapes/CDs/downloads of American singers/bands do you have compared to German ones?

I'm sorely tempted now to go and do a survey of my music collection. And SBS has become my favourite TV network by a mile in the last year or so - shows from everywhere. I've been watching French, Swedish and Danish stuff as well as non-network American.

PS Can we have your permanent Eurovision spot when you're finished with it? We appear to be better at that sort of thing than you are anyway, although the time difference is a real bugger for live voting.

[ 16. February 2016, 01:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

For me, Australia can have the whole Eurovision Song Festival.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

The UKIP MEPs will, of course, vote in the EU Parliament against whatever deal Cameron will end up by securing. With every day that passes, it becomes clearer that he has delivered himself bound into the hands of his internal political enemies, many of whom seem to live in an alternative universe. Yesterday, on television, a representative of 'Business for Britain', a Brexiteer organisation, exhorted the public to 'Fix bayonets and over the top!' Most of us know how that tactic used to turn out.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For me, Australia can have the whole Eurovision Song Festival.

Eurovision may be a crucial issue - will the UK be able to compete if we vote to leave the EU? Potential loss of Eurovision participation may be just too high a price for some.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Is the reverse true (Eurovision participation = EU membership)? If so Israel is, amongst others, a surprise member of the EU. I can see that getting some eschatologically-minded Christians salivating...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Surely the Eurovision Songfestival is the Beast with the Ten Horns?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Sounds like a fantastic rythm section.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Is the reverse true (Eurovision participation = EU membership)? If so Israel is, amongst others, a surprise member of the EU. I can see that getting some eschatologically-minded Christians salivating...

I know, Eurovision participation extends beyond EU membership. And, therefore is irrelevant to the question of continuing EU membership. That won't stop people raising it though, any more than the irrelevance of Syrian refugees to the question hasn't stopped that card already getting played.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Actually it turns out participation depends on membership of the European Broadcasting Union which apparently includes such surreal members as Azerbaijan, a pending application from Qatar, and of which one associate member is... Australia.

So LeRoc, we can't give them the contest: they already have it.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Ten or twenty years ago I would have been minded to vote OUT. Now I am pretty sure I will vote IN, no matter what the conditions are.

Economically I don't know whether it's beneficial for us or not. I don't think that's the point.

I think the world is geopolitically a lot more unfriendly than it was twenty years ago. I think Russia in particular is dangerous. I think we need to appreciate our friends and hang together lest we all hang separately.

If we leave the EU then there is a danger that the EU may crumble. I have always considered myself very lucky not to have experienced war in Europe. It could easily happen. The EU has dominated the post-war European settlement. Destabilizing Europe is historically a really bad idea.

And we already promised. As Matt Black said, if people didn't realise what they were getting into in 1975, they were stupid. They really ought to have known what they were getting into, no matter what the politicians said at the time.

Therefore I think I would now vote to stay in the EU even if I thought it was extremely damaging to our national interest.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Actually it turns out participation depends on membership of the European Broadcasting Union which apparently includes such surreal members as Azerbaijan, a pending application from Qatar, and of which one associate member is... Australia.

So LeRoc, we can't give them the contest: they already have it.

As anyone who actually follows Eurovision would already know. However, with associate membership we don't have the right to participate, we have to have an invitation.

Also, what's surreal about Azerbaijan being in there? It's generally regarded as a transcontinental country. It's Armenia you should be worried about.

Anyway, I wasn't suggesting the UK would lose the right to be in Eurovision, I was suggesting it might withdraw from it, in a fit of anti-European sentiment and also because the UK seems to be increasingly crap at the competition. 2015 entry was abysmal.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: As anyone who actually follows Eurovision would already know.

(I did know. My joke was that Australia could have all of Eurovision. But jokes get worse once you explain them.)

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And just try to get a Bavarian to accept that, other than a shared federal government, s/he has anything in common with a Rhinelander...
What a silly thing to say! Yesterday I was at a party (in Heidelberg) with two of each. Plus three English folk, a French man and an Aussie. The hostess was a Canadian girl who has a German husband. We all agreed it would be crazy for the UK to leave the EU.

Why silly? Bearing in mind - for both of us - that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data', this doesn't square with my knowledge of Germans at all. For example, a Bavarian lady I know at our Catholic parish church takes great umbrage at being referred to as 'German': the first time I made that mistake, she insisted she was Bavarian, "just like the [then] Pope; I wouldn't want you to confuse me with a Protestant Prussian!" ('Prussian' here seems to be a semi-derogatory term used to describe anyone from north of the Riven Main, rather than someone specifically from Brandenburg or points east from there.) I can think of several similar examples from German acquaintances and friends.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My point was, Matt Black, that everyone - in this whole EU debate - needs to stop generalising.

It's silly, it's unfair and it's narrow minded. I would like people to accept folks for who they are, just like my sons friends do. It's marvellous chatting and socialising with people from all nations, I just wish all the 'out' campaigners could experience this and realise people are people, wherever they are from.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think we need to appreciate our friends and hang together lest we all hang separately.

There's a difference between appreciating ones friends and entering into a massive polygamous marriage with them all.

quote:
If we leave the EU then there is a danger that the EU may crumble. I have always considered myself very lucky not to have experienced war in Europe. It could easily happen. The EU has dominated the post-war European settlement. Destabilizing Europe is historically a really bad idea.

I'm not convinced that the EU is as strong a bulwark against war as so many make it out to be. Destabilisation is happening anyway (Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.), and in many ways the EU is itself to blame for that because it forces countries to stick to the economic plan that best suits Germany and France regardless of the impact on anyone else. I can envisage a future where the next European war is between countries that want to leave the EU and countries that don't want to let them.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Thanks, Boogie. My point was that differences can and do exist within countries/ 'nationalities' as well as between them and yet those differences are (IMO) not a good reason for there not to be unity and a sense of 'togetherness' both within and between those countries.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My point was, Matt Black, that everyone - in this whole EU debate - needs to stop generalising.

Physician, cure thyself.

quote:

It's marvellous chatting and socialising with people from all nations, I just wish all the 'out' campaigners could experience this and realise people are people, wherever they are from.

I know a couple of fairly outspoken "out" supporters, and they don't fit your caricature here. There certainly are some Colonel Blimp types who think that wogs begin at Calais, but the friends I am thinking of don't have anything against foreigners. Indeed, if it's not too much of a cliche, I can happily tell you that they enjoy spending time with their friends of a variety of backgrounds, and do indeed understand that their friends are people.

What they have is a political opposition to the EU, rather than a principled opposition to any kind of supra-national body. Their problem is not that the EU exists, but that the EU that exists is full of "statists".

I don't know that they're right in their assertion that by leaving the EU, they'd actually gain any more of their conception of freedom, but that's a different question.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
if people didn't realise what they were getting into in 1975, they were stupid. They really ought to have known what they were getting into, no matter what the politicians said at the time.

No we weren't. I still have the various booklets that were given to us before the referendum and they were all about a 'common market', nothing more.

We were lied to.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
For me, Australia can have the whole Eurovision Song Festival.
Eurovision may be a crucial issue - will the UK be able to compete if we vote to leave the EU? Potential loss of Eurovision participation may be just too high a price for some.

If I thought we could get rid of Eurovision, I would vote for brexit.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
if people didn't realise what they were getting into in 1975, they were stupid. They really ought to have known what they were getting into, no matter what the politicians said at the time.
No we weren't. I still have the various booklets that were given to us before the referendum and they were all about a 'common market', nothing more.

We were lied to.

'Self-under/mis-informed' more like it: the Treaty of Rome was scarcely a secret document and the political union intent is spelled out quite explicitly there. Maybe it was spun to you in a misleading manner, but that's spin for you....

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I still have the various booklets that were given to us before the referendum and they were all about a 'common market', nothing more.

We were lied to.

This seems a rather odd point to stand on. Virtually every other political arrangement ever has changed once entered into (and those who were voting at the time had plenty of such occurrences during living memory), the belief that this political arrangement - of all things - would be frozen in time simply because a referendum was involved seems touchingly naive.

Furthermore, I believe that a lot of the sorts of things people are complaining about (regulations for instance) are things that would have been imposed on us whether or not we were in the EU. That we got them with the EU is no guarantee that we wouldn't have had them without the EU (and in fact a glance around the world would prove otherwise).

[ 17. February 2016, 16:34: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Indeed: regulations can and do emanate just as readily from Westminster (or Cardiff, Edinburgh and Stormont these days) on a home-grown basis and/or in response to international (trade and other) treaties negotiated by our government.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
if people didn't realise what they were getting into in 1975, they were stupid. They really ought to have known what they were getting into, no matter what the politicians said at the time.
No we weren't. I still have the various booklets that were given to us before the referendum and they were all about a 'common market', nothing more.

We were lied to.
'Self-under/mis-informed' more like it: the Treaty of Rome was scarcely a secret document and the political union intent is spelled out quite explicitly there. Maybe it was spun to you in a misleading manner, but that's spin for you....

Who isn't 'under-informed'. Who has the time to read all the stuff?

In the year of the referendum I was a newly qualified teacher commuting 90 mins. either way and doing 4 hours of prep. and marking every day - probably the busiest year of my life.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Did you vote in the two General Elections the previous year in that way?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Marvin the Martian:

Regarding the Economics of withdrawal, the majority of the business sector favours EU membership.
The advantage to withdrawal from the EU seems mostly to be for Tory politicians. In that they will have less resistance to continue reducing worker rights, consumer rights and pollution controls.

[ 17. February 2016, 17:24: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

In the year of the referendum I was a newly qualified teacher commuting 90 mins. either way and doing 4 hours of prep. and marking every day - probably the busiest year of my life.

You were sold a pup by going into teaching too. Successive Education ministers have moved the goalposts simply to show they have been around (National Curriculum, SATs, LMS, GCSE for a start). Who are you going to complain to about that?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
]Who isn't 'under-informed'. Who has the time to read all the stuff?

In the year of the referendum I was a newly qualified teacher commuting 90 mins. either way and doing 4 hours of prep. and marking every day - probably the busiest year of my life.

And this is exactly what politicians count on.
When we can't be arsed, the arse is exactly what we get.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Our laws changed substantially under the The Single European Act from 1986. My (accountancy) law lecturer at the time was bilingual and earning extra on the side translating this one and telling us about the implications. And Maggie signed that one for us.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I know a couple of fairly outspoken "out" supporters, and they don't fit your caricature here. There certainly are some Colonel Blimp types who think that wogs begin at Calais, but the friends I am thinking of don't have anything against foreigners. Indeed, if it's not too much of a cliche, I can happily tell you that they enjoy spending time with their friends of a variety of backgrounds, and do indeed understand that their friends are people.

When I read this, Gisela Stuart came to mind. A Birmingham MP and one of Labour's prominent (few?) EU-sceptics, she comes originally from Bavaria. Hardly a Colonel Blimp-type figure.

(Don't know whether she self-identifies as British, German or Bavarian though...)

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not even in the small print but in the main body of the Treaty of Rome and the other 1950s treaties that set up what is now the EU. I find it hard to understand therefore people who say that they thought all they were voting for in 1975 was a Common Market (which already existed from 1968 and was merely the first (customs union) stage towards integration).

I suspect most voters hadn't read the Treaty of Rome when they stood in the polling booth (and I don't really blame them). They may, however, have thought this because of the language on the ballot paper.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Furthermore, I believe that a lot of the sorts of things people are complaining about (regulations for instance) are things that would have been imposed on us whether or not we were in the EU. That we got them with the EU is no guarantee that we wouldn't have had them without the EU (and in fact a glance around the world would prove otherwise).

Furthermore, many of them are either intrinsic to the functioning of a Common Market, or at least make the functioning of a Common Market much more achievable.

Unhindered trade in goods is facilitated by common standards and regulation. Unhindered access to services is facilitated by free movement of service providers. So, 1975 might not have signed us up to a common currency and to political union, and we have neither at present - though it could be reasonable in the event of their being a proposed political union, or a UK entry into the Euro, that we have a referendum on whether to take that step. But, in 1975 we did sign up to common standards on goods and services, with the bureaucracy to support that, and to movement of labour within Europe. That's what a common market in goods and services means.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They may, however, have thought this because of the language on the ballot paper.

As I've said, I'm old enough to remember that referendum (although not old enough to have voted in it!) I'm sure the words "Common Market" were used on the ballot paper because, as I've said earlier on this thread, that was the prevailing term used in the UK.

I don't think this necessarily represents stealth tactics at the time. As I have also said, I think the approach to the EU was fundamentally and culturally different for the founding nations compared to non-occupied, WW2-victorious, island Britain.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think we need to appreciate our friends and hang together lest we all hang separately.
There's a difference between appreciating ones friends and entering into a massive polygamous marriage with them all.

Indeed. But if you are in a serious relationship, then get cold feet and decide to leave, your suggestion of "we'll still be good friends, right?" may not work out as well as you hope.

quote:

I'm not convinced that the EU is as strong a bulwark against war as so many make it out to be. Destabilisation is happening anyway (Greece, Spain, Italy, etc.), and in many ways the EU is itself to blame for that because it forces countries to stick to the economic plan that best suits Germany and France regardless of the impact on anyone else.

I agree that it is not such a strong bulwark as all that. What I am saying is that its break-up would actively cause wars, both internal and external.

quote:

I can envisage a future where the next European war is between countries that want to leave the EU and countries that don't want to let them.

I can envisage this too. That's (one of the reasons) why I don't want countries to try to leave.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

So, the summit starts today - what do we think is going to happen?

Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on :

Do you think that this will be the end of it? If we vote to stay the UKippers and others won't go away. If we vote to leave, then the EU will come back with a better offer to tempt us to stay.

Whatever happens we will have to do this all again sooner or later

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, the summit starts today - what do we think is going to happen?

Cameron will come back waving a piece of paper (sic) that will be highly significant in the short term but meaningless in the longer term.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Venue should be moved to Munich then...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Did you vote in the two General Elections the previous year in that way?

Yes - but the issues were more obvious in their case.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They may, however, have thought this because of the language on the ballot paper.
As I've said, I'm old enough to remember that referendum (although not old enough to have voted in it!) I'm sure the words "Common Market" were used on the ballot paper because, as I've said earlier on this thread, that was the prevailing term used in the UK.

I don't think this necessarily represents stealth tactics at the time. As I have also said, I think the approach to the EU was fundamentally and culturally different for the founding nations compared to non-occupied, WW2-victorious, island Britain.

According to the Daily Heil, Ted Heath lied to us.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Did you vote in the two General Elections the previous year in that way?
Yes - but the issues were more obvious in their case.

Did you read the parties' manifestos? In full?

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
They may, however, have thought this because of the language on the ballot paper.
As I've said, I'm old enough to remember that referendum (although not old enough to have voted in it!) I'm sure the words "Common Market" were used on the ballot paper because, as I've said earlier on this thread, that was the prevailing term used in the UK.

I don't think this necessarily represents stealth tactics at the time. As I have also said, I think the approach to the EU was fundamentally and culturally different for the founding nations compared to non-occupied, WW2-victorious, island Britain.
According to the Daily Heil, Ted Heath lied to us.

Complaining that politicans lie is a bit like complaining that Winter is cold ... [Roll Eyes]

Tubbs

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to the Daily Heil, Ted Heath lied to us.

The Daily Mail says that Heath lied to us, I therefore conclude that he told us the truth.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Now I see that Cameron is "battling for Britain".

I rest my case as to WW2 being the decisive paradigm for viewing Europe. All we need now are Spitfires doing victory rolls over cornfields [Disappointed]

(French pundit on the radio this lunchtime seems to think any agreement today will either be purely cosmetic, or unenforceable due to a complete lack of mandate on the part of the participants for the breadth of changes that would be required).

[ 18. February 2016, 16:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Anything significant in changing the way the EU functions would require some form of formal, negotiated, treaty. A few heads of state with some advisors in tow meeting for a few hours isn't going to cut it.

Which is possible, but isn't going to happen before any UK referendum.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

If it's so important for the EU to stay together, regardless of the negative impact it may have on any particular nation state, then why don't they just give the UK everything it wants so that it stays in?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Alan Cresswell

quote:
The Daily Mail says that Heath lied to us, I therefore conclude that he told us the truth.

Old news, but the Mail is right on the money.

When government papers from 1975 were released under the 30 year rule they contained a wealth of evidence that the IN campaign in that year's referendum made a decision to ignore any mention of the "ever-closer union" thing. If you doubt that, this from the supposedly impartial Government leaflet may be illuminating:

quote:
Fact No 2: No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament. ... It is the council of ministers, and not the Market’s officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.

Quite apart from the fact that it has become more and more that "market officials" make so many of the decisions, the second part about the agreement of all member states and a veto for every member state have gone - courtesy of the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties.

Being old enough to remember attending meetings in 1975, I can tell you that direct questioning about political integration - specifically mentioning defence and justice issues - were laughed at by people from the YES campaign. People who spoke on behalf of the YES campaign were specifically told to deny there was any intention for foreign affairs, immigration, etc, to become a matter for European decision making - so we must be imagining that the EU has a Foreign Minister, embassies, proposes a joint army, or that Schengen Agreement was signed within 10 years of Britain deciding to remain in the EEC.

As for the current frantic round of schmoozing (sorry, "negotiations" being undertaken by Mr Cameron, this from the NO campaign leaflet of 1975 sums it up perfectly:

quote:
The present government, though it has tried, has on its own admission failed to achieve the ”fundamental re-negotiation” it promised at the last two General Elections. All it has gained are a few concessions for Britain, some of them only temporary. The real choice before the British peoples has been scarcely altered by re-negotiations.

That was true in 1975 and is true now.

As for the Mail: Roy Jenkins made no secret of the fact that a tactical decision was made by the YES campaign of 1975 to deny anything about "ever-closer union", and when the 30 year papers were released in January 2005 Ted Heath just wondered what all the fuss was about.

Now there are people claiming we need the EU for matters of defence, justice, etc: to which the answer is that we have NATO and INTERPOL - both organisations are independent of the EU and, in the case of INTERPOL, are vastly superior to the EU equivalent.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
When government papers from 1975 were released under the 30 year rule they contained a wealth of evidence that the IN campaign in that year's referendum made a decision to ignore any mention of the "ever-closer union" thing.

By the same measure, the other side also made a decision to ignore that, or were totally incompetant at putting across that argument.

Why should one side of a campaign spend time talking about aspects of the EU that favour the other side (if indeed they do)? Next thing you'll be saying is that an honest election campaign needs Labour to praise the Tory policies they like and vice versa. If you hadn't noticed, that isn't how political campaigns have ever worked.

Failure to point out down sides in EU membership (which might include further political union, although personally that is a good thing) is a fault in the out campaign, not the in.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: If it's so important for the EU to stay together, regardless of the negative impact it may have on any particular nation state, then why don't they just give the UK everything it wants so that it stays in?

Go back to the analogy EU ≡ marriage, and see if this makes any sense.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

(French pundit on the radio this lunchtime seems to think any agreement today will either be purely cosmetic, or unenforceable due to a complete lack of mandate on the part of the participants for the breadth of changes that would be required).

and realistically at this point Cameron would probably be happy with an unenforceable mandate as long as it sounded dramatic (in the grand scheme of things the amounts being talked about in many cases are piddling when set against costs to the UK from other things).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And you can bet that the BBC will turn anything that Cameron obtains into something highly dramatic and important, even if it's new kinds of perforation in loo paper. Although I suppose the right-wing press will pour cold water on his cosmetic offerings.

For me, Cameron looks humiliated, charging round Europe, trying to fake an orgasm. And all this is to unify the Tory party?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'll have what he is having.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: If it's so important for the EU to stay together, regardless of the negative impact it may have on any particular nation state, then why don't they just give the UK everything it wants so that it stays in?
Go back to the analogy EU ≡ marriage, and see if this makes any sense.

Of course it doesn't. Which means that there are considerations at play other than "the EU must stay together in order to prevent war".

As an aside, in marriage analogy terms I think the UK is currently engaged to someone who will almost certainly (based on past behaviour) become an abusive spouse, and the wedding date is rapidly approaching. And I'm really hoping we see sense and call the whole thing off before it's too late.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Actually I think you may find that the reason Mr Cameron is looking so chipper (he was looking very chipper this morning) is because the EU is saving him from having to be a PM that promotes staying in while secretly wishing he could lead the OUT campaign.
I'm sure Mr C has read The Prince...

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Marvin the Martian: If it's so important for the EU to stay together, regardless of the negative impact it may have on any particular nation state, then why don't they just give the UK everything it wants so that it stays in?
Go back to the analogy EU ≡ marriage, and see if this makes any sense.
Of course it doesn't. Which means that there are considerations at play other than "the EU must stay together in order to prevent war".

There are. But there shouldn't be. I don't think any of the member states are taking this danger seriously enough. The Germans sort of get that the EU is more important than national interest, but I don't think even they are really thinking in these terms. I think they ought to be, though.

I would extend the quote by adding: "and so that if war comes, we have a better chance of forming a solid bloc rather than being played off against each other by whoever it might be, i.e. the Russians."

quote:

As an aside, in marriage analogy terms I think the UK is currently engaged to someone who will almost certainly (based on past behaviour) become an abusive spouse, and the wedding date is rapidly approaching. And I'm really hoping we see sense and call the whole thing off before it's too late.

Too late already Marvin. Stay together for the sake of the children.

For those who are complaining that they were lied to in 1975 - I get that, and I agree it was highly reprehensible. But part of the point of a referendum ought to be that for a change you are making your own decision rather than having a representative deciding for you. Ergo it is not enough to shift responsibility onto Heath et al.. You should have found out the truth rather than accepting the government booklets.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Rabbit pulled from hat.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It probably has myxomatosis.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Marvin the Martian: there are considerations at play other than "the EU must stay together in order to prevent war".

Duh.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It probably has myxomatosis.

If that isn't the case then the mercury in the hat has probably made it go mad.

More seriously, if the other 28 states all agree to the deal, it really can't be much of a deal. Maybe Cameron, in his heart of hearts wants "out" and through this deal will get that although he won't have to campaign for it.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

More seriously, if the other 28 states all agree to the deal, it really can't be much of a deal. Maybe Cameron, in his heart of hearts wants "out" and through this deal will get that although he won't have to campaign for it. [/QB]

I've been wondering that for a while - either Cameron genuinely did go into these negotiations thinking (unrealistically) that he could secure real reform, and has become disillusioned by the lack of progress, or it was indeed all a cynical ploy to bring about Brexit. Also if he campaigns for "in" and loses he has a perfect excuse to resign and get himself on the lucrative lectures and consultancy gravy train - he's probably been casting envious glances in Blair's direction for some time.

In a way I can share his frustration - the EU is in real danger of losing its second-largest net contributor and the general attitude seems to be a Gallic shrug and a "whatever..".

Of course, Cameron made the mistake of showing his hand from the beginning. Everyone knew he would never campaign for "out".

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The so-called 'deal' is, as widely predicted, nothing of the sort. No curb on benefits for migrant workers' non-resident children until 2020, details of how to limit other benefits have to be agreed on a state-by-state basis. No mention of a brake on migration.

Yes, specific mention that the UK can remain outside the Eurozone - but that was the case already, just not down in any treaty.

Yes, the UK government can act unilaterally on regulation and taxation of financial services - but only within certain parameters where this has always been the case; any change has to be agreed by at least 17 other states and I can't see that happening, can you?

All mention of security is a red-herring: in any case, as journalists in Europe have noted in the past, many of our problems in the UK have been of our own making through allowing the existence of 'Londonistan' in the 80s and early 90s, and no amount of co-operation, either through the EU or otherwise, can alter that. What could help is for the European Court of Human Rightsto stop handing down lunatic judgments along the lines of 'right to family life' trumping concerns of national security - but that is not something the EU can change or control.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If you want light relief try this:
http//www.private-eye.co.uk/current-issue

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry - try this
current-issue; click on "covers" if it doesn't take you straight to it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Aaand 23 June is the fateful day.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I see that Mr. Cameron has returned from Europe triumphantly bearing a piece of paper which presumably has upon it the signature of (among many others) the German Chancellor ....

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Will be interesting to see the detail behind the referendum arrangements, and the repercussions that are possible.

I know that for all the detail, the referendum question will simply be in our out. But if we vote to leave in June, it's not as if that's going to mess up this summer's holiday plans is it? It's going to take years and years and years to actually get out isn't it? The practicalities are enormous.

We could still be in by the time of the next general election, which could lead to all sorts of strange promises being made by other parties to get us back in....

Labour will be campaigning to stay in, according to Corbyn. So if the PM loses the in vote, they'll surely be going on about how much of a loser he is (literally....). Would they go for a vote of no confidence in the government?

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
....

Labour will be campaigning to stay in, according to Corbyn. So if the PM loses the in vote, they'll surely be going on about how much of a loser he is (literally....). Would they go for a vote of no confidence in the government?

Which might well be what Cameron will need to reunite the Conservative party!!

Frankly I'm underwhelmed - all the promises and bold statements have resulted in virtually no change. I'm still undecided, but doubt that we'll be able to see any hard facts in the blizzard of spin that will now follow.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Malcolm Rifkind says that Putin will be "dancing in the Kremlin" if Britain leaves. I agree with him of course.

I think the explicit removal of "ever closer union" is very significant and more ought to be made of this. When I was a Eurosceptic this would have convinced me to stay in. Now it worries me a little because I suspect federation would be a good long-term goal (for most of the reasons outlined in "The Federalist Papers").

Interesting that "Le Figaro" is distressed by the concessions made to Britain and says they have "put the worm into the fruit". They feel that Britain staying on these terms is as bad as Brexit for the European project.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think the explicit removal of "ever closer union" is very significant and more ought to be made of this.

Can you find that claim in writing? From the (French) sites I have read, François Hollande is claiming no treaty concessions have been made, and as has been posted above I don't see how they could have been; the negotiating group did not have that power.

As far as I can see this claim of opting out of "ever-closer union" actually refers to a re-iteration of the UK's right to opt out of the Euro, which I understand was already assured.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think the explicit removal of "ever closer union" is very significant and more ought to be made of this.
Can you find that claim in writing? From the (French) sites I have read, François Hollande is claiming no treaty concessions have been made, and as has been posted above I don't see how they could have been; the negotiating group did not have that power.

As far as I can see this claim of opting out of "ever-closer union" actually refers to a re-iteration of the UK's right to opt out of the Euro, which I understand was already assured.

According to the European Council meeting conclusions, p. 16, they've agreed on the substance and will make the treaty changes at the next revision:

quote:
It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.

The references in the Treaties and their preambles to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties.

These references do not alter the limits of Union competence governed by the principle of conferral, or the use of Union competence governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. They do not require that further competences be conferred upon the European Union or that the European Union must exercise its existing competences, or that competences conferred on the Union could not be reduced and thereby returned to the Member States.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I've been wondering that for a while - either Cameron genuinely did go into these negotiations thinking (unrealistically) that he could secure real reform, and has become disillusioned by the lack of progress, or it was indeed all a cynical ploy to bring about Brexit. Also if he campaigns for "in" and loses he has a perfect excuse to resign and get himself on the lucrative lectures and consultancy gravy train - he's probably been casting envious glances in Blair's direction for some time.

I think Mr Cameron's entire political philosophy is that being Prime Minister is an end in itself regardless of any actual achievements in that role. In order to be Prime Minister, it is sometimes necessary to perform these little theatrical pieces to keep the backbenchers happy, but that should not be confused with the substance of the job.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
According to the European Council meeting conclusions, p. 16, they've agreed on the substance and will make the treaty changes at the next revision

Thank you.

I'm not an expert, but that to me seems to be a clarification of what I for one had also assumed: that the references to "ever closer union" are an expression of broad aspiration rather than imposing specific measures; and that no mesure can be imposed without recognition by existing Member States. In other words, that any treaty change will simply specify that this aspiration does not entail binding obligations on the UK - but then it never did anyway.

Certainly on this side of the Channel and at this end of it, there has always appeared (to me at least) to be plenty of leeway in how much that "ever closer union" is applied, so there's nothing new there.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think the explicit removal of "ever closer union" is very significant and more ought to be made of this.
Can you find that claim in writing? From the (French) sites I have read, François Hollande is claiming no treaty concessions have been made, and as has been posted above I don't see how they could have been; the negotiating group did not have that power.

As far as I can see this claim of opting out of "ever-closer union" actually refers to a re-iteration of the UK's right to opt out of the Euro, which I understand was already assured.

Here is Donald Tusk's letter. If you look at the section about "sovereignty" and the first link within the letter, it spells out in some detail that the UK is not committed to further political integration.

Although in line with what I've said previously, and people's experiences in 1975, I think one would be well advised to recognise that in voting to stay, one may well de facto be voting for eventual political union.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Sorry - cross-posted - the conclusions document posted by Dave W. says it better.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
If you look at the section about "sovereignty" and the first link within the letter, it spells out in some detail that the UK is not committed to further political integration.

I'm not spending the time on this it doubtless deserves, but I note that he writes, emphasis mine,

quote:
in light of the UK's special situation under the Treaties, it is not committed to further political integration

In other words, as I said this is a clarification and not something new. I guess (but it is a guess, based on what I recall Hollande as saying) that this existing provision relates the UK not being in the Eurozone. If anyone knows better, feel free to correct me.

quote:
I think one would be well advised to recognise that in voting to stay, one may well de facto be voting for eventual political union.

Yes, there is a sense of this simply being kicked down the road - but, I would venture to suggest, by decades at the very least. And even a week is a long time in politics (which is why I think Cameron's foray into referendum territory is such a ridiculous gamble).

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I am not sure that circumstances will allow us the luxury of decades. I think external and internal pressures will force things to a point sooner than that.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I've been wondering that for a while - either Cameron genuinely did go into these negotiations thinking (unrealistically) that he could secure real reform, and has become disillusioned by the lack of progress, or it was indeed all a cynical ploy to bring about Brexit. Also if he campaigns for "in" and loses he has a perfect excuse to resign and get himself on the lucrative lectures and consultancy gravy train - he's probably been casting envious glances in Blair's direction for some time.
I think Mr Cameron's entire political philosophy is that being Prime Minister is an end in itself regardless of any actual achievements in that role. In order to be Prime Minister, it is sometimes necessary to perform these little theatrical pieces to keep the backbenchers happy, but that should not be confused with the substance of the job.

If we look down the telescope the other way and ask not 'is Britain better off in or out of the EU' and ask instead, 'is the EU better off without the UK' we can come to some concluions. The answer to the second question, as far as the leaders of the other EU countries is a resounding NO!

The EU is better off with the UK in membership. So Mr Cameron was always going to get some kind of deal. The complication is that other Prime Ministers (such as Greece) have taken the opportunity to negotiate their deals ai the same time (the Greek one being about their refugee crisis).

There was always going to be some kind of deal.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
If you look at the section about "sovereignty" and the first link within the letter, it spells out in some detail that the UK is not committed to further political integration.
I'm not spending the time on this it doubtless deserves, but I note that he writes, emphasis mine,
quote:
in light of the UK's special situation under the Treaties, it is not committed to further political integration
In other words, as I said this is a clarification and not something new. I guess (but it is a guess, based on what I recall Hollande as saying) that this existing provision relates the UK not being in the Eurozone. If anyone knows better, feel free to correct me.

I suppose Hollande is entitled to his own opinion, but I don't see anything in the meeting conclusions that connects an exemption from "ever closer union" only to remaining outside the Eurozone.

Immediately after a paragraph on p. 9 that begins

quote:
Recalling that the Treaties, together with references to the process of European integration and to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, contain also specific provisions whereby some Member States are entitled not to take part in or are exempted from the application of certain provisions or chapters of the Treaties and Union law ...

the document notes some of these provisions with respect to the UK:

quote:
Recalling in particular that the United Kingdom is entitled under the Treaties:
not to adopt the euro and therefore to keep the British pound sterling as its currency (Protocol No 15),
not to participate in the Schengen acquis (Protocol No 19),
to exercise border controls on persons, and therefore not to participate in the Schengen area as regards internal and external borders (Protocol No 20),
to choose whether or not to participate in measures in the area of freedom, security and justice (Protocol No 21),
to cease to apply as from 1 December 2014 a large majority of Union acts and provisions in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty while choosing to continue to participate in 35 of them (Article 10(4) and (5) of Protocol No 36),
Recalling also that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has not extended the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom to rule on the consistency of the laws and practices of the United Kingdom with the fundamental rights that it reaffirms (Protocol No 30) ...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though, all of those provisions are written into several different treaties. Because, each step towards "growing political union" has followed a new European treaty agreed by all member states. In some cases, that agreement has only been achieved by writing in provisions to exclude some member states from the full effect of the treaty.

The irony is that when the next treaty comes along the UK will ensure there are some provisions in it to keep the UK outside the full implementation, and the UK government will sign us up. I guarantee that we won't be offered a referendum at that point when we could be offered a 3-way vote (accept the full treaty, accept the treaty with the provisions that keep us a bit outside, reject the treaty). Because we'll have had the referendum for our generation, which will be a vote on Cameron's worthless bit of paper.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What an utter, utter non-event. A total irrelevance.

Is there a true cost benefit to this vain little farce?

How much do EURO BENEFIT SCROUNGERS cost 'us'?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What an utter, utter non-event. A total irrelevance.

Is there a true cost benefit to this vain little farce?

How much do EURO BENEFIT SCROUNGERS cost 'us'?

About a fiver...

There is an actual figure our there somewhere but I can't be bothered to find it. The actual money is so tiny as to be hilarious.
[Disappointed]

So, here's my two-cents (Euro) worth...

I am emotionally euro-skeptic. But, I will be voting to stay in the EU. Having looked at the facts, there is no doubt in my mind that Britain (for lots of reasons) is much better off in the EU. That's not to say the EU doesn't need some meaningful changes:

Here are the top 2:
1) The common agricultural policy needs sorting out. Big time.
2) Stop the nonsense of holding the parliament in two different cities...

What's so ridiculous is how the whole circus is an attempt by Cameron to tinker around the edges of completely unimportant issues so he can pretend to be a macho defender of Britain (or rather England really... Think St George against the Dragon). Why has he done this? To deal with internal politics of the Conservative party. Boris is still playing politics with it.

So, here we are; a national referendum on a vital issue with Cameron (complete waste of time negotiations) on one side against Farage & half the Conservative Party (fantasy politics) on the other do try and stop the Tory party tearing itself apart.

It's all so depressing. This is David Cameron who considers himself a strong leader...

AFZ

P.S. Only kidding that was my tuppence worth: good of BRITISH pound none of your foreign money here...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

We seem to have gone a long way from the noble ideals set out by the author of the future EU, Robert Schumann, who said in 1949: "We are carrying out a great experiment, the fulfillment of the same recurrent dream that for ten centuries has revisited the peoples of Europe: creating between them an organization putting an end to war and guaranteeing an eternal peace".

He also said, "The European spirit signifies being conscious of belonging to a cultural family and to have a willingness to serve that community in the spirit of total mutuality, without any hidden motives of hegemony or the selfish exploitation of others. ... Our century ... must attempt and succeed in reconciling nations in a supranational association. This would safeguard the diversities and aspirations of each nation while coordinating them in the same manner as the regions are coordinated within the unity of the nation".

[ 21. February 2016, 08:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Agreed AFZ and q at the top of the page. This is ONLY about Conservative Party politics, it has NO effect on any real human being.

There are Tory weirds like Grayling and Gove (who WAS decent to George Galloway after he was attacked, which DOES go a long way) that even Boris must feel queasy about being associated with, who get their British history from Geoffrey of Monmouth.

The ever more excellent Alex Salmond (it's me that's changed, not he) said from Aberdeen on the truly pathetic, empty, hollow, supine, flaccid, high Tory BBC yesd'y or Friday, it's about thirty MILLION quid, a £ a taxpayer head, compared with the £10,000 a head we English are trying to rip off the Scots.

Thanks to the Union the Scots will keep us in regardless.

Cameron: 'Judge me on Europe.'. I have.

[ 21. February 2016, 09:22: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Bugger. £3bn / 5m (Scots) = 600, half of whom are tax payers: 250 => £1,200, rounded = £1,000 a tax payer.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Apparently IDS thinks the UK staying in the EU increases the risk of terrorist attacks there [Paranoid]

Next thing you know, they'll be putting fluoride in the water...

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Apparently IDS thinks the UK staying in the EU increases the risk of terrorist attacks there

Next thing you know, they'll be putting fluoride in the water...

The games begin.

I may change my mind on this referendum. It may be just what the UK needs. I mean watching the Tory party tear itself apart is always good sport and ultimately very good for Britain.

Please God, give them over to their own ridiculousness.

AFZ

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Actually I think all he did was point out that Schengen has made it much easier for everyone to move around, and that includes people terrorists.

And that is nothing more than the truth - you only have to look at the ease with which the people responsible for the November Paris attacks moved around to see the proof of that.

So, strengthened border controls, and no special right of entry for EU citizens, should make it possible for the UK to exert some control over who does and who doesn't enter the country.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually I think all he did was point out that Schengen has made it much easier for everyone to move around, and that includes people terrorists.

The last time I looked a) the UK wasn't in Schengen b) residency of a non-EU citizen in a EU country does not automatically grant access to the UK, so just how the UK leaving would change that is beyond me.

I suppose he has a point in that invariably, the UK doesn't bother to check at all who leaves its soil [Disappointed]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually I think all he did was point out that Schengen has made it much easier for everyone to move around, and that includes people terrorists.
The last time I looked a) the UK wasn't in Schengen b) residency of a non-EU citizen in a EU country does not automatically grant access to the UK, so just how the UK leaving would change that is beyond me.

I suppose he has a point in that invariably, the UK doesn't bother to check at all who leaves its soil

The vast majority of terrorist attacks on UK soil have been carried out by those who have a perfectly good right to residence in the UK. Most were born here. EU/Schengen membership is an irrelevance in almost all instances of terrorism in the UK.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What an utter, utter non-event. A total irrelevance.

Is there a true cost benefit to this vain little farce?

How much do EURO BENEFIT SCROUNGERS cost 'us'?
About a fiver...

There is an actual figure our there somewhere but I can't be bothered to find it. The actual money is so tiny as to be hilarious.

The figure I saw for child benefit amounted to about 30m over 10 years.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

As has been pointed out by Andrew Rawnsley and others, with his own party split down the middle, Cameron is now reliant on Labour delivering a large block of "in" voters to save his premiership (not his party, the Tory party will go on without him.)

Jeremy Corbyn must be very torn, he has internationalist instincts but no great love for the EU in its present form. He seems to be planning to remain largely aloof from all this, possibly hoping the Tories will tear themselves to shreds without any assistance from him...he may not be wrong.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

(Rant alert)
Everyone true-born Englishperson is an immigrant, or a descendant of immigrants.

We mustsurely be insane even to think of closing the door on hard-working, willing Eastern Europeans but opening the door to oligarchs and kleptocrats who bring or bank their loot here.

The end of Brexit is that our country will become a glorified tax haven, and, however prosperous Switzerland may be, that in an inglorious example to follow.

(End of rant.)

I wish you all joy in a world run by the likes of Donald, Vladimir and Boris.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vast majority of terrorist attacks on UK soil have been carried out by those who have a perfectly good right to residence in the UK. Most were born here. EU/Schengen membership is an irrelevance in almost all instances of terrorism in the UK.

It's the same in France. Which hasn't stopped the current government trying to drive through legislation to strip binationals of their French nationality on the back of the terrorist attacks (even though they've admitted it would make no actual difference).

It depresses me to see people capitalising on events to argue in favour of erecting walls (hasn't someone else been in trouble for that lately?) when the trouble is as much domestic as international, and resort to fear instead of rational discourse. It's at times like these that I veer towards believing the likes of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Terrorism is a gift to conservative politics.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Terrorism is a gift to conservative politics.

The current president and government in France are supposedly socialist (European definition), although their hard left have a hard time believing that themselves right now.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Terrorism is a gift to conservative politics.
The current president and government in France are supposedly socialist (European definition), although their hard left have a hard time believing that themselves right now.

Point taken.
Terrorism is a gift to those unscrupulous enough to use its threat to gain power or win points.

[ 21. February 2016, 16:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Boris Johnson is going for the out campaign. Which will at least add a bit of spectacle to the spectacle....

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Well folks, who needs Strictly Come Dancing or Big Brother with The Referendum Show in town?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The figure I saw for child benefit amounted to about 30m over 10 years.

There is the amusing possibility that if benefits paid to children in Poland are benchmarked to the cost of living in Poland, instead of to whatever arbitrary figure the Teeasury thinks it can get away with, then children in Poland could end up getting it at a higher rate ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Thanks Chris. What a sodding farce.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The Establishment, sorry, The Economist says:

By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars [of UCL & Milan] estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribution of recent arrivals from the eastern European countries that have joined the EU since 2004 has amounted to almost £5 billion. Even during the worst years of the financial crisis, in 2007-11, they made a net contribution of almost £2 billion to British public finances. Migrants from other European countries chipped in £8.6 billion.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

The Economist also says:

"Mr. Putin has for several years been giving material support to populist and nativist parties in Europe that oppose the EU"

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The Economist also says:

"Mr. Putin has for several years been giving material support to populist and nativist parties in Europe that oppose the EU"

Which in Eastern Europe is certainly true, in the same way that the west has been funding opposition parties in the former Soviet Republics.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Meanwhile IDS says staying in the EU raises the risk of terrorism in the UK [Roll Eyes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409

I'm sure before the previous referendum his position was that the only way to keep Scotland safe was the vote 'no and keep Scotland in the EU.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

And I see Borry is all for Leaving. I believe this in the same way as I believe in Trump's Christian values - a cynical ploy to get a certain constituency onside so that they will support his ultimate personal ambition.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I mean WHAT could that be? Apart from the bleeding obvious. He gets to be prime minister of little England? Is that it? He must have always been anti-EU. So ambition is secondary to that. Surely?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Meanwhile IDS says staying in the EU raises the risk of terrorism in the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409

Ahem.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I think that there are those for whom ambition is second to nothing - not even to bonking everything with a pulse.

Not that I am even thinking of a specific application.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Is this a Heseltine vs. Thatcher moment? Or even better, Portillo vs. Major?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He must have always been anti-EU. So ambition is secondary to that. Surely?

I believe he consistently supported Ken Clarke as leader. Mr Clarke is one of the most pro-EU Tories around. Make of that what you will ...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
And I see Borry is all for Leaving. I believe this in the same way as I believe in Trump's Christian values - a cynical ploy to get a certain constituency onside so that they will support his ultimate personal ambition.

I'm sure that's bang on, and so's the parallel.

One thing the announcement over the weekend has done, is that it's flushed the farts out of the foliage. I decided months ago that I will vote to stay in. But would any sane person want to follow a movement which has Nigel Farage, Chris Grayling, Boris Johnson and Gorgeous George Galloway squabbling over which of them is going to run it?

Cameron is no scintillator. Nor is Tusk or any of the other ones. And Baptist Trainman's comment is telling.

quote:
I see that Mr. Cameron has returned from Europe triumphantly bearing a piece of paper which presumably has upon it the signature of (among many others) the German Chancellor ....

But it isn't just about trading. The EU is a major reason why since 1945 our neighbours and ourselves have bickered in acrimonious words rather than with bombs, guns and trenches.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Some argue that peace in Europe is thanks to NATO rather than the EU.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course, for much of the time since 1945 Europe has been divided, with an uneasy peace. France, Britain, Germany (and other former western European "great powers") have been united in the belief that the Soviet Union was a bigger threat than each other.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

As Enoch said, the Leave campaign now resembles a weird kind of Punch and Judy show, where all the puppets are drunk or broken. What an unattractive bunch.

I'm baffled why Cameron has called this referendum, I suppose it has revealed how many strange people and strange ideas exist in British politics.

I was briefly tempted by Leave, just to protest at Cameron's bizarre ploy of using a referendum to sort out the Tory party, but Boris joining is the final straw. Leave is becoming a right-wing bunch of, well, right-wing nutters, plus odd-balls like Galloway and Field. Entertaining though, they should do a song and dance act.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But Boris has produced the argument of all arguments against the EU - they have restricted the suction power of vacuum cleaners.

Is this why Magna Carta was signed? Is this why our 'Enery lifted his leg over his brother's wife's (leg)? Is this why the white cliffs of Dover are composed of billions of invertebrates?

Vote Leave for more power to your suction! Your spouse/partner will be delighted as never before!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I'm baffled why Cameron has called this referendum,

Distraction. Another tool of the politician.
Speaking of tools, has anyone ever seen Boris and Trump in the same room?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As Enoch said, the Leave campaign now resembles a weird kind of Punch and Judy show, where all the puppets are drunk or broken. What an unattractive bunch.

Ohhh for Spitting Image to return to our screens!

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As Enoch said, the Leave campaign now resembles a weird kind of Punch and Judy show, where all the puppets are drunk or broken. What an unattractive bunch.
Ohhh for Spitting Image to return to our screens!

No need. Boris is a living, breathing spitting image puppet - with Cameron in his pocket like the two Davids.

Boris clearly sees political advantage in this - he's betting that whatever the outcome of the referendum, the Tory party will want their next leader to be a bona fide Eurosceptic.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm baffled why Cameron has called this referendum

Were you baffled by the Welsh Assembly, AV and Scottish independence referendums?

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

[/qb][/QUOTE]Boris clearly sees political advantage in this - he's betting that whatever the outcome of the referendum, the Tory party will want their next leader to be a bona fide Eurosceptic. [/QB][/QUOTE]

You've hit the nail on the head there!

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

Sorry, I mucked up the quoting then! [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The AV referendum was baffling. I'm still not sure what that was about, except trying to keep the Libdems onboard by giving a referendum for an electoral reform that no one actually wanted.

Of course, the devolution referenda were different. They were responses to increasing demands for further sovereignty in Scotland and Wales. And, offered by Labour (so, nothing to do with Tory internal politics). Ditto for the Scottish Independence referendum.

It would have made much more sense for the government to put a statute in place that would guarantee a referendum to decide on the next European treaty. As it is, when common sense prevails and we get a massive majority in favour of remaining in the EU, and then the next treaty will be passed through Westminster without any direct say by the electorate.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

I find the notion that, without the EU, we would be in danger of invading Poland bizarre to say the least.

So far the whole campaign, on both sides, resembles two small armies of straw men beating the air.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Of course, the devolution referenda were different. They were responses to increasing demands for further sovereignty in Scotland and Wales. And, offered by Labour (so, nothing to do with Tory internal politics). Ditto for the Scottish Independence referendum.

Support for leaving the EU isn't currently much lower than support for Scottish independence, at least if one trusts the polls.

I think Mr Cameron's renegotiation is an annoying distraction, but I think he is right to try to put the issue to rest. (Though the rushed nature of the referendum will have the opposite effect.)

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The AV referendum was baffling. I'm still not sure what that was about, except trying to keep the Libdems onboard by giving a referendum for an electoral reform that no one actually wanted.

Me, me, me!

I'm in favour of AV!!!

I am. It's not a bad system at all, for lots of reasons but hey... according to the No to AVposters it kills babies and doesn't support our boys and girls in uniforms so it must be evil...

So, our current Prime Minister is using a referendum on an issue of national importance to try and manage the idiots in his own party. The most charismatic candidate to replace him as leader (and hence potential PM) is using the same referendum to play politics to serve his own ambition over the national interest.

What a proud party they must be.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, I also voted in favour of AV - it has the advantage of being better than FPTP (which is easy, since anything is better than FPTP). I would still have prefered either an additional member system similar to what we have in Scotland, or a proper proportion representation (and, I think the majority of the LibDems at the time would have done so as well).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

alienfromzog wrote:

quote:
So, our current Prime Minister is using a referendum on an issue of national importance to try and manage the idiots in his own party. The most charismatic candidate to replace him as leader (and hence potential PM) is using the same referendum to play politics to serve his own ambition over the national interest.

Disillusioned with politics? Why?

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

And that staunch and lifelong Eurosceptic, Jeremy Corbyn, is sticking to his principles, by backing the 'remain' campaign.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chapelhead: And that staunch and lifelong Eurosceptic, Jeremy Corbyn, is sticking to his principles, by backing the 'remain' campaign.

I for one find it refreshing to see someone who is a bit more nuanced than a black and white "You're either for the EU or you're against it".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
And that staunch and lifelong Eurosceptic, Jeremy Corbyn, is sticking to his principles, by backing the 'remain' campaign.

Any chance of a citation or two regarding his lifelong Euroscepticism? I remember he voted against the Euro, but then so did many people.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Chapelhead: And that staunch and lifelong Eurosceptic, Jeremy Corbyn, is sticking to his principles, by backing the 'remain' campaign.
I for one find it refreshing to see someone who is a bit more nuanced than a black and white "You're either for the EU or you're against it".

Like Boris Johnson.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
And that staunch and lifelong Eurosceptic, Jeremy Corbyn, is sticking to his principles, by backing the 'remain' campaign.
Any chance of a citation or two regarding his lifelong Euroscepticism? I remember he voted against the Euro, but then so did many people.

How far back do you want to go - his vote against British membership of the EEC in 1975?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I suspect that changing your mind once in 40 years is allowed.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Mr Corbyn voted against remaining in the EEC in 1975 - in fact he campaigned against the EEC with (amongst others) Tony Benn and Enoch Powell.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Mr Corbyn voted against remaining in the EEC in 1975 - in fact he campaigned against the EEC with (amongst others) Tony Benn and Enoch Powell.

Whereas Boris Johnson will be campaigning against remaining in the EU, 8 months after he wrote that he supported staying in the EU. In doing so he will campaign alongside George Galloway.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Chapelhead: And that staunch and lifelong Eurosceptic, Jeremy Corbyn, is sticking to his principles, by backing the 'remain' campaign.
I for one find it refreshing to see someone who is a bit more nuanced than a black and white "You're either for the EU or you're against it".

Yep, his article in the Guardian explaining his position was clear, well thought-through and well-reasoned.

Compare and contrast.

The greatest irony for me is all the nonsense about UK sovereignty. The real threat to our national sovereignty is TTIP. If the EU signs that then all of Europe (EU members, I mean) has a problem. The biggest supporters of TTIP within the EU? Have a guess, go on...

Now that I want a referendum on!

Let me put it like this:
[b]Should foreign corporations be allowed to use arbitration outside our legal system to challenge government decisions? artbitration

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Bugger, messed up the code:

The greatest irony for me is all the nonsense about UK sovereignty. The real threat to our national sovereignty is TTIP. If the EU signs that then all of Europe (EU members, I mean) has a problem. The biggest supporters of TTIP within the EU? Have a guess, go on...

Now that I want a referendum on!

Let me put it like this:
Should foreign corporations be allowed to use arbitration (Investor-state dispute settlement) outside our legal system to challenge government decisions?

By the way; the answer is NO!

AFZ

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chapelhead: Like Boris Johnson.

I hope you see the irony in the fact that we're discussing the need for nuance in talking about the EU, and all you've given us so far are one-liners.

quote:
alienfromzog: The real threat to our national sovereignty is TTIP.

Fuck yes.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

As I wrote earlier, the campaigns on both sides seem to be little more than knocking down straw men and overblown claims of minimal substance. Where are the serous and solidly grounded arguments that deserve more than one-line response?

And there's another four months of this <bangs head on desk>.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chapelhead: Where are the serous and solidly grounded arguments that deserve more than one-line response?

It was mentioned that Jeremy Corbyn wrote down his arguments in the Guardian. I'd need to find the link again, but maybe it contains serious and solidly grounded arguments.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Jeremy Corbyn article in Guardian

eta correct spelling - 5 words [Roll Eyes]

[ 23. February 2016, 06:43: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Chapelhead: Where are the serous and solidly grounded arguments that deserve more than one-line response?
It was mentioned that Jeremy Corbyn wrote down his arguments in the Guardian. I'd need to find the link again, but maybe it contains serious and solidly grounded arguments.

That would be kind of you - I've had a quick look at the Guardian website (I admit it was quick, w*rk calls) and I couldn't see anything that looked like the article mentioned.

One of the other problems with the EU campaign is that there seem to be two tribes with no sensible debate between them - even more separate than in the general election campaign. I know the internet is often not the place for sensible discussion, but even so, apparently half of the internet profoundly hates the EU and all its detestable enormities and the other half is convinced that all eurosceptics are swivel-eyed loons who eat babies.

[ETA - x-posted with Curiosity killed ... will get back later]

[ 23. February 2016, 06:52: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I shall probably vote to stay in on the basis of germany making a better friend than it does enemy. A united Germany couldn't have been foreseen in 75 , one must hope their increased influence remiains benign.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I shall probably vote to stay in on the basis of germany making a better friend than it does enemy. A united Germany couldn't have been foreseen in 75 , one must hope their increased influence remiains benign.

As stated above I will vote to stay in. However I do not think Germany's influence is entirely benign. In economic terms, much of the blame for the current mess of the Euro zone must be laid at their feet.

I wonder whether a properly engaged UK would have more influence to counteract this. Of course our current economic policy is equally ill-thought out. The only virtue being that Britain is inflicting self-harm whereas Germany is doing well at the expense of others.

AFZ

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Bugger, messed up the code:

The greatest irony for me is all the nonsense about UK sovereignty. The real threat to our national sovereignty is TTIP. If the EU signs that then all of Europe (EU members, I mean) has a problem. The biggest supporters of TTIP within the EU? Have a guess, go on...

Now that I want a referendum on!

Let me put it like this:
Should foreign corporations be allowed to use arbitration (Investor-state dispute settlement) outside our legal system to challenge government decisions?

By the way; the answer is NO!

AFZ

This.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

Absolutely agree! [Mad]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I wonder whether a properly engaged UK would have more influence [/QB]

I think that the lack of proper engagement in Europe has been one of the biggest problems the UK has. Those advocating leaving say a lot about sovereignty, and they have a point in that successive UK governments have by and large surrendered our sovereignty within Europe by not exercising it - putting us in a situation similar to Norway and Switzerland, constrained by decisions made in Europe without any say in those decisions, and leaving the EU will simply formalise that arrangement. I'm not sure what's worse - stay in the EU and not exercise our sovereignty, or leave the EU and surrender the sovereignty we currently don't exercise? The best is, of course, to be in the EU, properly engaged in the processes of Europe and thus maximise our sovereignty.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I shall probably vote to stay in on the basis of germany making a better friend than it does enemy.

I can't say I see any necessary connection between not being in an organisation like the EU and being enemies.

There are plenty of countries we're on good terms with without ever discussing union to the extent that the EU has joined. We have a heck of a lot of connections with New Zealand for example, but only ever the very faintest suggestions of things like a common currency.

I occasionally wonder what the EU actually achieves for the UK. One of the things that struck me on my European trip last year was border arrangements. It's kind of obvious that on the continent, things are sped up quite a bit by not having to deal with border controls. I caught the train from Amsterdam to Paris, piece of cake at either end and passing through Belgium was barely noticeable.

But I had to go through passport procedures to catch the Eurostar from Paris to London. And I had to go through controls between Edinburgh and Reykjavik... and I didn't have to go through controls to travel from Reykjavik, outside the EU, to Copenhagen inside it. It's perfectly possible to enter into arrangements on particular matters, like Schengen, without having a general principle of union like the EU.

It's funny, it's only in the last couple of years that I've started turning my views against the EU. It started with coming to the view that the Euro is a bad idea, at the height of the Greek crisis. For much of the rest of it, I kind of wonder what the point is.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I occasionally wonder what the EU actually achieves for the UK.

Loads and loads. Here's my list off the top of my head (and, I know that in some cases others may see what I think of as a good thing differently)

Freedom of employment across the EU. That allows other European nationals to bring their skills and experience to the UK, supporting UK businesses by billions of pounds per year. And, it allows UK nationals to work elsewhere in Europe, often gaining skills and experience that eventually benefits UK businesses.
A massive market for UK goods and services, without tariffs, with common standards on labelling, consumer safety etc.
Assorted human rights legislation, working hours directives etc, with a court to back up and interpret them.
Regional development funds, industrial restructuring support
Participation in Europe-wide scientific and technological development and research
Environmental protection, sustainable protection of trans-national fish stocks (because no one has yet figured out to tell fish not to swim across the boundaries between national waters), farm subsidies that secured European food supplies

Just for starters.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I occasionally wonder what the EU actually achieves for the UK.
Loads and loads. Here's my list off the top of my head (and, I know that in some cases others may see what I think of as a good thing differently)
Freedom of employment across the EU. That allows other European nationals to bring their skills and experience to the UK, supporting UK businesses by billions of pounds per year. And, it allows UK nationals to work elsewhere in Europe, often gaining skills and experience that eventually benefits UK businesses.
A massive market for UK goods and services, without tariffs, with common standards on labelling, consumer safety etc.
Assorted human rights legislation, working hours directives etc, with a court to back up and interpret them.
Regional development funds, industrial restructuring support
Participation in Europe-wide scientific and technological development and research
Environmental protection, sustainable protection of trans-national fish stocks (because no one has yet figured out to tell fish not to swim across the boundaries between national waters), farm subsidies that secured European food supplies
Just for starters.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that you don't actually need the EU to do all of that.

I accept that it can be a little easier and quicker to do many of those things if you have a standing arrangement, but I look at your list and for most of those things I can think of deals we have with other countries that are along similar lines. For example we have free trade agreements with a number of countries to remove tariffs, and several instances of common standards with New Zealand as well as various standards that are truly international, and a lot of development assistance we provide to countries in Oceania. They're just not wrapped up in a single structure with a Parliament.

[ 23. February 2016, 12:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

True, we don't need the EU for many of those things. It could be arranged by a series of bi-lateral agreements and treaties. But, there is an efficiency in having a central organisation to organise harmonisation of (for example) consumer protection rather than have everyone sit down and work out what would be a safe level of mercury in fish, produce a treaty, and then go through it all again with pesticides in cucumbers. A treaty that says "we'll establish a commission to do the technical stuff and then act on their conclusions without needing heads of state to get together and sign a treaty every time" saves a lot of hassle. It's pretty much an essential for a free-trade area IMO.

Likewise, free trade requires free movement of labour. And, when people start moving and noticing that their rights are not universally accepted then a multi-jurisdictional organisation to determine what rights are universal across the free trade zone. Again, a single organisation established by treaty to rule on that seems much more efficient than a series of ad-hoc treaties following consideration of each individual case.

Besides which, I didn't mention that I think one of the biggest things that the EU can give to the UK is increasing political union throughout Europe. But, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that is a bad thing.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It gets tricky, I think, when your political union has so many separate languages and historically different cultures.

Australia is essentially the result of an 1890s free trade agreement. However, that was between half a dozen colonies that were all British, and several of them had been founded by people from other colonies. That's very different to finding the common interest and understanding between Finns, Portuguese and Bulgarians. "Europe" as an entity is far more diverse than Australia, or the United States or Canada - at least once those places were colonised by Europeans.

EDIT: This is even the problem with the Euro - it seeks to tie together economies/cultures that don't have enough in common.

[ 23. February 2016, 12:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There is no necessary correlation between it being good to do something and it being easy.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

As someone who has lived and worked all over Europe, without constantly farting about with different eligibility rules, I shall be voting to stay in.

I've also worked in Switzerland, who are the subject of a BBC article about the pros and cons of being half in and half out.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is no necessary correlation between it being good to do something and it being easy.

There's no necessary reverse correlation, either.

It is entirely a question of whether the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa. I was merely pointing out that the more diverse the groups you're trying to unify, the greater some of the cons.

Especially while en route. Certainly, some of the discussions about the Euro at the time of the Greek crisis persuaded me that a common currency amongst separate political units is inherently good for the strongest of the tied economies, such as Germany, and inherently bad for the weakest ones, such as Greece.

And Schengen has been disrupted by the migration from Syria, because not all countries in the EU are equally attractive as destinations.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
alienfromzog wrote:

quote:
So, our current Prime Minister is using a referendum on an issue of national importance to try and manage the idiots in his own party. The most charismatic candidate to replace him as leader (and hence potential PM) is using the same referendum to play politics to serve his own ambition over the national interest.
Disillusioned with politics? Why?

Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?

Disillusioned with politics - why? Because the electoral is too cynical to accept that politicians often have good and noble motives and are good and noble people. We do not deserve the high quality of politicians that we have.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?

In which case, why all the shuttle diplomacy to get his piece of paper? What has been gained?

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

I'm inclined to agree with Orfeo - the EU has grown so big and diverse that many of its people have very little in common with one another.

It seems to me that there is a lot wrong with the EU - over-expansion, lack of accountability of its officials, the pettiness of some of the rules it has imposed - which makes me feel a certain sympathy with those who want Britain to leave.

However, I think if I had a vote (which I don't) I'd probably be swayed by the idea that the EU is basically a bit broken, and Britain isn't going to be able to mend it from outside.

I also suspect that (as seemed to be the case with the Scottish independence referendum) there are probably practical issues (such as the status of British citizens living and/or working in other parts of the EU, and vice versa) which haven't been thought through properly.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

TurquoiseTastic wrote:

quote:
Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?

Well, that is possibly true. There is of course an alternative view, that Cameron gave that committment in order to placate his own right wing (mainly Eurosceptic), and also placate possible UKIP voters. So he was saying, only a Tory govt will give you a referendum, in which you can oppose the EU.

Well, we don't have mind-reading equipment, so we can't directly enquire. We can only go off the runes, that is, indirect evidence and information.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
...the EU is basically a bit broken, and Britain isn't going to be able to mend it from outside.

If we're outside, we won't have to.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides which, I didn't mention that I think one of the biggest things that the EU can give to the UK is increasing political union throughout Europe. But, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that is a bad thing.

I can't understand why anyone thinks it's a good thing.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hah, I'll bite. How about perhaps the Prime Minister is calling a referendum because he actually wants to give us a voice - as many people have been requesting - as to whether we remain in the EU or not? Perhaps he is a principled man who wants to keep a promised electoral commitment?
In which case, why all the shuttle diplomacy to get his piece of paper? What has been gained?

In order to clarify several issues that Eurosceptics said they were particularly concerned about, such as "ever closer union". And so it has.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I shall probably vote to stay in on the basis of germany making a better friend than it does enemy. A united Germany couldn't have been foreseen in 75 , one must hope their increased influence remiains benign.

Do you think the Federal Republic of Germany was an enemy between 1949 - 1972? I don't think it was.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Chapelhead: Where are the serous and solidly grounded arguments that deserve more than one-line response?
It was mentioned that Jeremy Corbyn wrote down his arguments in the Guardian. I'd need to find the link again, but maybe it contains serious and solidly grounded arguments.

Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday, when he contrasted his great affection for Europe with his decision that he would support the campaign to leave the EU.

But most of Corbyn’s article was about the irrelevance of David Cameron’s negotiations last week (something many people across the stay/leave spectrum would agree with). But the irrelevance of the negotiations is not a reason to stay in the EU – if anything, it is a reason to want to leave, as significant reform of the EU is not on the agenda.

The article also looks at areas where reform of Europe is needed, and I think that this is where the ‘stay’ argument is weakest in this piece. It seems to be a common line in Europhile arguments to say that what is needed is a reformed EU – but a reformed EU isn’t what we have. There is a logical fallacy* in this thinking, along the lines of

quote:
Person 1: “In this choice between ‘X’ and ‘Y’, I favour ‘X’.“
Person 2: “You are wrong to favour ‘X’, because ‘A’ is better’.”

The problem is that ‘A’ isn’t an option. The choice isn’t between leaving the EU and a reformed EU with all the problems fixed. The problems would have been fixed long ago, if there were the will to do so (the need to fundamentally reform the CAP has been discussed since before many of the people reading this were born – it wasn’t suddenly noticed two minutes ago). Apart from further enlargement, the most significant change to the EU we are likely to see in the foreseeable future is that we will have EU + TTIP, and that’s the EU people will be voting on. With the EU getting larger, reform will be even harder, so the choice is about the real EU we have now, not some fantasy EU where lions lie down with lambs and infants play safely near cobra’s nests.

Overall, there doesn’t seem much of substance in Jeremy Corbyn’s article for the ‘remain’ campaign (and not very much for the ‘leave’ campaign).

*There may even be a name for this particular fallacy, but if there is then it escapes me.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
...the EU is basically a bit broken, and Britain isn't going to be able to mend it from outside.
If we're outside, we won't have to.

We'll have to trade with someone, and our former European partners are going to be mighty pissed off if we go. Setting up bilaterals with them is going to be like trying to stay friends after a divorce.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
*There may even be a name for this particular fallacy, but if there is then it escapes me.

If there isn't, we can call it the Brussels fallacy for three weeks a month and the Strasbourg fallacy for the remainder.

(Completely agree, though.)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chapelhead: Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday

First you complain that no-one is nuanced, now everyone is. I think the best thing is to look at what people are saying and see whether you agree with it or not, than doing nuance pissing contests. (I'm very bad at those.)

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We'll have to trade with someone, and our former European partners are going to be mighty pissed off if we go. Setting up bilaterals with them is going to be like trying to stay friends after a divorce.

Not necessarily. They'll still want to trade. The reason some will be pissed off is because some will probably wish they'd done the same thing themselves.

It also means the billions spent on membership of the EC club can finally be put to good use elsewhere in the country, like the NHS. It means not having to negotiate not wanting to underwrite bailouts and all the rest of it. We can finally get back to trading without the superstate hanging over us, and not having to haggle over harmonizing laws and having legislation imposed on us which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

Yes, it is a leap in the dark in some ways but sometimes you have to take a chance. Staying in does have its advantages but at the same time it's always going to be unhappy and full of negotiations for opt-outs to this, that and the other. What we will lose is the right to sit at the table and put forward proposals for changes, but as they usually seem to have to be ratified by most of the heads of state of Europe who mostly just throw them out again, it's not that much of a loss really.

However, this may all be academic as nobody actually knows how the vote will really go. We could end up just continuing as we are.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Chapelhead: Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday
First you complain that no-one is nuanced, now everyone is. I think the best thing is to look at what people are saying and see whether you agree with it or not, than doing nuance pissing contests. (I'm very bad at those.)

I never complained about a lack of nuance. And it was you who complained about one-line posts - so I gave you a fuller analysis. But your lack of ability to come up with an argument means that you can only reply with an insult. So much for getting a sensible discussion.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chapelhead: I never complained about a lack of nuance.

You did here. We're losing ourselves in meta-stuff. I still fail to see what your actual argument is about leaving the EU or not. I might join you again when I do.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It also means the billions spent on membership of the EC club can finally be put to good use elsewhere in the country, like the NHS.

The amount we pay to be in EU is less than 1% of government expenditure. Some of that comes straight back, through support for infrastructure projects and other schemes (although since enlargement has introduced more nations that are significantly more in need of such funds that proportion has dropped). The amount of additional tax revenue gained from reduced trading costs boosting exports, from EU nationals working in the UK and other benefits is probably incalculable. Add in the savings gained by not having to maintain our own human rights courts, the efficiencies gained through European structures sorting out standards and regulations compared to doing that through bilateral negotiations with individual nations, and almost certainly leaving the EU will result in savings of a few billion and the loss of tax revenue (and trade) significantly in excess of the savings.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Add in the savings gained by not having to maintain our own human rights courts

Are you thinking of the European Court of Human Rights, which is separate to the EU?

I don't think this is a reason to stay, since we've done human rights in this country reasonably well before joining the Common Market. We also did the role of the supreme court quite cheaply too, until Blair couldn't resist tinkering and decided to vandalise Middlesex Guildhall.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Chapelhead: I never complained about a lack of nuance.
You did here. We're losing ourselves in meta-stuff. I still fail to see what your actual argument is about leaving the EU or not. I might join you again when I do.

Fail. Serious and solidly grounded does not equal nuanced.

And the point I've very clearly made is about the lack of good arguments being put forward by either side. On the whole, at present I find the 'sovereignty' argument by the 'leave' campaign the most persuasive, but I'd be happy to hear a strong case by either side.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

Well, Jeremy Corbyn’s article was nuanced in that it was neither entirely in favour nor against close ties with Europe – but then so was Boris Johnson’s statement to the press outside his house on Sunday, when he contrasted his great affection for Europe with his decision that he would support the campaign to leave the EU.

Except that Boris' position is anything but (even once you ignore the fact that a mere 6 months ago he was supporting staying in the EU). He supports a vote to leave the EU out of the odd belief that if we vote to leave we'll get a better deal, after which we can then vote to stay.

I leave it to you to imagine the kind of flak Corbyn would get for adopting anything similar, but of course it's boris and he always gets an easy ride from the press because he's seen as one of them.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Add in the savings gained by not having to maintain our own human rights courts
Are you thinking of the European Court of Human Rights, which is separate to the EU?

Yes, I know. Just like Eurovision.

But, still generally associated with the whole EU project. As evidence, at some point in any discussion on leaving or staying in the EU someone will bring up the ECHR and how it's over-riding our sovereignty and courts.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Except that Boris' position is anything but (even once you ignore the fact that a mere 6 months ago he was supporting staying in the EU). He supports a vote to leave the EU out of the odd belief that if we vote to leave we'll get a better deal, after which we can then vote to stay.

I leave it to you to imagine the kind of flak Corbyn would get for adopting anything similar, but of course it's boris and he always gets an easy ride from the press because he's seen as one of them.

As I've said, the arguments from both sides seem to be pretty poor - and the idea that a 'leave' vote could be used as leverage in further negotiations is poor squared. But a caveat - is this Boris' position? It seems to be a case of the usual vague, unattributable 'sources say' that Boris might be thinking of ...

As for Jeremy Corbyn, my understanding is that he has previously been been a consistent Eurosceptic - the Labour party has had a pro-Europe line and this is one of the many areas on which he has been a persistent rebel, until now. Perhaps someone could say if his voting record indicates something different.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Chapelhead: And the point I've very clearly made is about the lack of good arguments being put forward by either side.

The point you were making, the one I reacted to, is that candidates should take a binary position, either pro-EU or anti-EU, and stick to it their whole lives. This is the criticism you levelled at Corbyn. It is what you are still talking about in your latest post. I stick to my point that formulating things in terms of a binary pro-EU or anti-EU stance is unhelpful.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

But a caveat - is this Boris' position? It seems to be a case of the usual vague, unattributable 'sources say' that Boris might be thinking of ...

It was strongly implied in his telegraph column, and is in fact the position the PM portrayed Johnson as taking.

He has also signaled his support for this 'double referendum' idea in the past via the Sunday Times, which is a reasonable record of his views given his relationships with the press.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Chapelhead: And the point I've very clearly made is about the lack of good arguments being put forward by either side.
The point you were making, the one I reacted to, is that candidates should take a binary position, either pro-EU or anti-EU, and stick to it their whole lives. This is the criticism you levelled at Corbyn. It is what you are still talking about in your latest post. I stick to my point that formulating things in terms of a binary pro-EU or anti-EU stance is unhelpful.

Someone criticised Boris Johnson for picking a side which seems inconsistent with his previous position - I pointed out that Jeremy Corbyn has done the same thing. That's not saying that someone should hold the same view all their lives, just highlighting the Yes Prime Minister irregular verb nature of the argument

quote:
Bernard: It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it: I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he is round the twist.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:

But a caveat - is this Boris' position? It seems to be a case of the usual vague, unattributable 'sources say' that Boris might be thinking of ...
It was strongly implied in his telegraph column, and is in fact the position the PM portrayed Johnson as taking.

He has also signaled his support for this 'double referendum' idea in the past via the Sunday Times, which is a reasonable record of his views given his relationships with the press.

Thanks for the elucidation. There a lot of vagueness in that Telegraph column as well.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

This from The Guardian (sorry) is very good analysis.

AFZ

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides which, I didn't mention that I think one of the biggest things that the EU can give to the UK is increasing political union throughout Europe. But, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that is a bad thing.
I can't understand why anyone thinks it's a good thing.

Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides which, I didn't mention that I think one of the biggest things that the EU can give to the UK is increasing political union throughout Europe. But, for some reason, a lot of people seem to think that is a bad thing.
I can't understand why anyone thinks it's a good thing.
Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.

Ah. I see. It's because civil wars don't happen!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.

Are you asserting that those are our only options? We're either part of a superstate or doomed to constant war?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah. I see. It's because civil wars don't happen!

Great minds think alike [Big Grin]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

As has already been mentioned, NATO and the need to remain united against the Soviet Union probably had more to do with that than the EU.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
It also means the billions spent on membership of the EC club can finally be put to good use elsewhere in the country, like the NHS. go. We could end up just continuing as we are.

Membership apparently costs 10 euros per person per annum in the UK - one of the cheapest clubs around.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Operation Leave strikes me more and more as a right-wing fantasy, where regulations are swept away, including workers' rights and conditions, wages are permanently low, ditto taxes, and brown people are kept at a distance. What could go wrong?

I think many people on the left are ambivalent, as traditionally the EU was seen as a 'capitalist club' with few benefits. However, the 'social chapter' warmed the left to it more, although today the EU is probably seen as another carrier of the neo-liberal virus.

But for the left to ally with Boris and Gove would be certainly bizarre.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because it's a hell of a lot better than the preceding 1000+ years of European history, of which we were as much of a part as others.
Are you asserting that those are our only options? We're either part of a superstate or doomed to constant war?

There is, of course, a spectrum of positions. At one end there is the 100% sovereign nation state, at the other multi-national, global (if we're going to the very extreme) super-state.

I don't think anyone would argue that the first extreme is a good idea, especially in the modern world. About the closest example of such a state at the moment would be North Korea. That is a route that would lead to tensions over access to markets and resources, and historically those tensions have boiled over into armed conflict on many occasions.

The other extreme is certainly impractical at the moment. Though it is a utopian vision many hold. To minimise internal tensions it would need to be a state of equals, if one part of the whole dominates over others then eventually the state will collapse - which is part of where the EU struggles at the moment with the Eurozone dominated by Germany (and to a lesser extent Benelux and France) with Greece and Portugal very much the inferior partners. Most of the other EU institutions are not as bad, with more equal status for the nations that comprise the Union. That will be severely damaged by some countries pleading special status though.

In Europe we are certainly somewhere between those extremes. And, since 1945 have been on a trajectory that has been moving slowly towards a regional political union. Put of that impetus has been purely practical, a level of political union is needed to maintain a free trade zone, to manage fish stocks, to coordinate agricultural subsidies (initially to rebuild shattered farms to make Europe less dependent on imported foods, now more for environmental protection), to cooperate on security and criminal justice, etc. Part of the impetus has been ideological, a belief in the benefits of ever closer union, and that ideological impetus has sometimes pushed things slightly beyond the practical (eg: rushing the introduction of the Euro, which resulted in structures dominated by one nation and Eurozone members who still had economic issues that meant they were not ready to join - at least, not without the greater sharing of benefits between the member nations).

For me, I'm ideologically in favour of greater political union. I think that where the EU currently is is slightly short of where I think it could be from a practical perspective - I think we could practically manage more power to the European Parliament (I wouldn't change the powers of the Commission much, but put the Commission further under the Parliament to create greater accountability), I also think we could expand the Eurozone further (there's no practical reason why the UK and Scandanavian countries couldn't be in) although I don't see it as vital at this stage. Of course, that requires national governments to cede some powers to the EU, I also think it needs national governments to cede some powers downwards to regions within their national borders - so further devolved powers, even independence from Westmister, to Scotland, Wales, NI and other regions of the UK; likewise for Germany, France etc.

But, I recognise I'm an idealist. I have no particular attachment to the UK as a political entity.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.

This seems to me like a potential case of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. After this, therefore because of this.

I'm not convinced, not least because there is plenty of evidence of cases where unwise or undesired political unions didn't dampen friction, they created friction.

For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests. Late last century Europe got to watch Yugoslavia blowing itself apart. The EU is not automatically like that, but any kind of broad idea that people will get along if you make them part of a political union is pie-in-the-sky thinking. They have to want it, and they have to want it to work. Grudging involvement just provides fuel for the grudge.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It's not exactly post hoc ergo propter hoc, because the likes of Monnet and Schumann, in particular in putting forward the basis for the ESCS Treaty in 1951, did advance this as a reason: put France and Germany's heavy industry under supra-national control, they said, and you'll remove their capacity to go to war with each other again.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests.

And, the same can be said of large parts of Africa and Asia. But, was the problem that the resulting nations were multi-ethnic, or that the lines divided people who shouldn't have been divided? Would a multi-ethnic nation covering the whole of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran which contained virtually the whole of the original ethnic groups (not putting an artificial line in the sand between them) have been more stable? Most of the tensions within those artificial nations have been because minority groups with substantial representation in neighbouring nations have been suspect - when faced with a choice between loyalty to fellow Kurds (say) or an artificial nation called "Iraq" there will be difficulties, if all the Kurds (and other groups) live within the same nation that potential conflict in loyalty is removed.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests.

I believe they are originally administrative units of the Ottoman Empire established precisely so as to cut across natural groupings and common interests.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?

No, I would say that's a different situation. Though a lesson on the dangers of allowing one group of people (in Yugoslavia, the Serbs) within a nation to dominate. Within the EU, that would translate as ensuring the EU is a union of equals, and taking whatever steps are necessary to reduce the possibility of same nations being more equal than others (which has been part of where the EU has fallen below what it could have been).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?

In spades. Yogoslavia was created post-WWI out of bits of the Astro Hungarian empire and the Kingdom of Serbia. The history of the area was such that most of the ethnic groups had past grievances against certain other ethnic groups, and all of them ultimately had a greater loyalty to their concept being a Serb or Croat than being a citizen of Yugoslavia.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests.
I believe they are originally administrative units of the Ottoman Empire established precisely so as to cut across natural groupings and common interests.

The material I can find on Ottoman subdivisions suggests not, in that there's no clear relationship between these territories and the carve-up of territory that occurred around 1920.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?
In spades. Yogoslavia was created post-WWI out of bits of the Astro Hungarian empire and the Kingdom of Serbia. The history of the area was such that most of the ethnic groups had past grievances against certain other ethnic groups, and all of them ultimately had a greater loyalty to their concept being a Serb or Croat than being a citizen of Yugoslavia.

That's the exact opposite of Alan's point, and is actually more in favour of my concerns.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Fair point, Alan. But can the same be said in relation to Yugoslavia?
No, I would say that's a different situation. Though a lesson on the dangers of allowing one group of people (in Yugoslavia, the Serbs) within a nation to dominate. Within the EU, that would translate as ensuring the EU is a union of equals, and taking whatever steps are necessary to reduce the possibility of same nations being more equal than others (which has been part of where the EU has fallen below what it could have been).

Agreed. And that is indeed a problem some federations or similar arrangements face. Czechoslovakia is another example of a country that foundered because the partnership was seen as unequal (though of course it's dissolution was far more peaceful than Yugoslavia). Belgium has struggled a bit because Flanders economically dominates Wallonia.

In Canada and Australia the history is more of two strong units that hold each other in check plus a group of smaller units, though new and different tensions arise as the balance of power gradually shifts.

The EU seems to have a French/German axis.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The EU seems to have a French/German axis.

Whereas, it should have multiple axes - with the UK as one of the main balancing nations/groups, along with blocks for Scandanavia, Iberia, the Balkans, etc. All providing checks and balances against one or two nations dominating.

In the UK, the Euro-sceptics have succeeded in mainting the UK at a distance from the EU, stopping us taking up our position within the EU as part of that system of checks and balances. And, now having kept the UK voice as not much more than a whisper, they're using that as evidence that the UK has no voice in the EU.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Membership apparently costs 10 euros per person per annum in the UK - one of the cheapest clubs around.

I didn't ask to join it.

And I'm not convinced. Isn't it £55 million a day?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The figures I've seen for the gross UK government payments to the EU is £6-7 billion per year (works out at about £15-20 million per day, 30p per person per day). Of course, the net amount will be smaller than that as quite a bit of that comes back to the UK.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

According to Wikipedia in 2014 the UK contribution was €11 billion, close enough to the £6-7 billion I'd seen elsewhere (but can't immediately find the source of).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Membership apparently costs 10 euros per person per annum in the UK - one of the cheapest clubs around.

That's as maybe. The question is whether it's a club we want to be members of in the first place.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

30p a day works out at about £110 per person per year, which is a bit more than 10 euros a year/about £7.80.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is, of course, a spectrum of positions. At one end there is the 100% sovereign nation state, at the other multi-national, global (if we're going to the very extreme) super-state.

I don't think anyone would argue that the first extreme is a good idea, especially in the modern world. About the closest example of such a state at the moment would be North Korea.

Not at all. 100% sovereign doesn't mean the state can't enter into treaty agreements with other states, it just means the state freely chooses to enter such treaties and can freely choose to leave them if it would be in its interests to do so.

quote:
The other extreme is certainly impractical at the moment. Though it is a utopian vision many hold. To minimise internal tensions it would need to be a state of equals, if one part of the whole dominates over others then eventually the state will collapse - which is part of where the EU struggles at the moment with the Eurozone dominated by Germany (and to a lesser extent Benelux and France) with Greece and Portugal very much the inferior partners.

The Eurozone is not a partnership of equals, it is a German Empire by another name. That alone is reason enough to steer well clear.

quote:
I have no particular attachment to the UK as a political entity.

I guess that's why you support those who are trying to destroy it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
100% sovereign doesn't mean the state can't enter into treaty agreements with other states, it just means the state freely chooses to enter such treaties and can freely choose to leave them if it would be in its interests to do so.

But, once you enter treaty negotiations with another state you automatically lose some sovereignty. It's called negotiation, giving up something to gain something. Unless you happen to be strong enough to dictate "take it or leave it" terms to the other party both sides will give something. And, once the treaty is signed you can't just walk away without any consequences, those consequences will again impact your sovereignty (eg: your ability to enter treaty negotiations with someone else).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would a multi-ethnic nation covering the whole of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran which contained virtually the whole of the original ethnic groups (not putting an artificial line in the sand between them) have been more stable?

I don't know. Would it have prevented the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting each other for dominance? Would it have prevented the Kurds from wanting their own nation rather than being a minority voice in another one?

Or would it be better to have separate nations for the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to rule as they see fit?

quote:
when faced with a choice between loyalty to fellow Kurds (say) or an artificial nation called "Iraq" there will be difficulties, if all the Kurds (and other groups) live within the same nation that potential conflict in loyalty is removed.

I fail to see how the potential conflict is removed where people have loyalty to their own group rather than the larger nation they happen to be part of. I mean, in the UK itself we've seen a certain amount of unrest because so many people have loyalty to Scotland rather than the United Kingdom. In Spain there are ongoing issues because some people are loyal to Catalonia rather than Spain. Many other countries have similar issues. It's simply not true to say that if a group who want independence and the right to govern themselves all happen to be under the control of the same larger state then the potential for conflict will be removed.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

We will never remove the potential for conflict. The best we can do is reduce the potential for conflict, and provide means for disagreements to be resolved without recourse to shooting at each other.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The EU seems to have a French/German axis.
Whereas, it should have multiple axes - with the UK as one of the main balancing nations/groups, along with blocks for Scandanavia, Iberia, the Balkans, etc. All providing checks and balances against one or two nations dominating.

Should have, but doesn't. And it won't ever have. Germany (and to a lesser extent France) are never going to surrender the dominance they've carefully built up over the last few decades. Those two countries have always wanted a united Europe, but only if they're the ones calling the shots - if, say, Spain and Portugal ever became dominant they'd lose their enthusiasm for the project in a flash.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I guess what Alan is saying is that Germany has been able to build up this dominance at least in part because the UK has always been in the EU with only one toe.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes, that and that therefore the UK has created the situation that the Eurosceptics now want to pull us out of. It's an exercise of "what if", but if we'd been move involved in developing the EU we'd have a greater influence, and the EU would work more in our favour.

Although ideally we shouldn't even be talking about the EU working "for the UK" or "for Germany", but it working for all the people of Europe.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For a large part of this century the world has been dealing with the abominable mess created by boundary lines that marked out Iraq and Syria with little regard to natural groupings and common interests.
I believe they are originally administrative units of the Ottoman Empire established precisely so as to cut across natural groupings and common interests.
The material I can find on Ottoman subdivisions suggests not, in that there's no clear relationship between these territories and the carve-up of territory that occurred around 1920.

Sykes-Picot agreement IIRC

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It gets tricky, I think, when your political union has so many separate languages and historically different cultures.

Oh, I don't know: the Swiss have managed to successfully bring French, German and Italian speakers together over the last 700+ years. And the Indians have performed pretty well with their own Tower of Babel since 1947.

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The figures I've seen for the gross UK government payments to the EU is £6-7 billion per year (works out at about £15-20 million per day, 30p per person per day). Of course, the net amount will be smaller than that as quite a bit of that comes back to the UK.

Alan - I think your source is wrong on this.
According to the BBC website:

..the UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out, only France and Germany contribute more. In 2014/15, Poland was the largest beneficiary, followed by Hungary and Greece.

The UK also gets an annual rebate that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher and money back, in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers, which added up to £4.6bn in 2014/15. According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10.
The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn.

(Emphasis mine)

The quoted figures for 2015, according to

the House of Commons Library are:

£ billions
Gross Contribution 17.8
Thatcher's Rebate 4.9
Total Contribution 12.9

Total Public Sector receipts 4.4
Net contribution 8.5

The figures are close to those quoted by the BBC.

Edited because I hit enter too quickly!

[ 24. February 2016, 13:59: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, once you enter treaty negotiations with another state you automatically lose some sovereignty. It's called negotiation, giving up something to gain something. Unless you happen to be strong enough to dictate "take it or leave it" terms to the other party both sides will give something.

Yes, that's what I said. But in treaty negotiations a free and independent nation is always able to walk away. With greater EU integration we do not have that freedom, regardless of whether the treaty is in our interests or not.

quote:
And, once the treaty is signed you can't just walk away without any consequences, those consequences will again impact your sovereignty (eg: your ability to enter treaty negotiations with someone else).

Sure. And if I choose to leave a shared rental agreement with someone because it's in my interests to do so then anyone else is entitled to take that into consideration when deciding whether to become my flatmate or not. But that doesn't mean I'm not still free to decide where and with whom I will live in the future.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We will never remove the potential for conflict. The best we can do is reduce the potential for conflict, and provide means for disagreements to be resolved without recourse to shooting at each other.

Like NATO and the UN?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that and that therefore the UK has created the situation that the Eurosceptics now want to pull us out of. It's an exercise of "what if", but if we'd been move involved in developing the EU we'd have a greater influence, and the EU would work more in our favour.

I for one plan to cast my vote in the referendum based on the actual situation, rather than on speculative "what ifs".

quote:
Although ideally we shouldn't even be talking about the EU working "for the UK" or "for Germany", but it working for all the people of Europe.

As long as the voting population of Europe is primarily human, that will never happen. Even in the smallest democratic nations the people of one area seek to get as much for themselves as they can. On the continental scale that would be even more true.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
I have no particular attachment to the UK as a political entity.
I guess that's why you support those who are trying to destroy it.

Not really destroy, reform within the context of the rest of Europe.

But, I really don't have any sense of the UK being somehow special, or important. I just don't get it.

Geographically, the UK occupies the majority of a section of the European continental shelf forming a group of islands seperated from the majority of the land mass of Europe by a narrow strip of water.

Ethnically we have a small number of descendants of ancient britons, especially around the "celtic fringe". But, mostly we're descended from various Germanic tribes and Scandanavians (including the Normans - who were descended from Norsemen). That is, we're Europeans. And, our language shares those same European roots (except for the Gàidhlig and Cymraeg).

Perhaps we should look at our monarchy. Who are German, and before that Dutch.

We could look at our history, but there's little to be proud of there. An empire that subjugated other nations to provide us with resources and markets. A better than many record on ending our colonialism and leading those colonies to independence, but better to have not conquered them in the first place. We invented concentration camps in Southern Africa. Participation in a European arms race and cold war that lead directly to two world wars. Follow that up with aiding in proxy wars in the second half of the 20th century as the world again followed the cold war and arms race path (fortunately without falling into the destruction of out right war). And, we're left with this bizarre belief that we need to be some form of military global power, and we need to maintain an obscene (ie more than zero) number of nuclear warheads.

So, what do we have that really makes us special? What is it that says these small islands need to be sepearate from the rest of Europe? What makes the European peoples living on one side of a narrow stretch of water different from the European peoples living on the other side? Is that we play cricket (not very well) enough?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We invented concentration camps

without wishing to Fisk your entire post (largely because life is too short), this is just wrong. The fact that people repeatedly state it doesn't make it any truer.

Quite apart from the conflation of concentration camp and death camp (the UK's camps in the Boer war est 1900 were not the latter) there is the small point that Spain established Reconcentrado camps in Cuba 1896-7, and the USA opened concentration camps for the Cherokee in 1838. Amongst others.

I'm not for a minute suggesting it was a sensible policy, but it wasn't a British contribution to the world.

[ 24. February 2016, 15:20: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Nor was it something that we should look back on with any sense of pride. It's one more part of colonial history, to which can be added encouraging drug dealing and a whole host of other evil, the whole of which should be a cause for repentance. Instead we get people looking back to those days "when Britain was great", the Royal Navy ruled the waves, and somehow deciding that this should be who we are. Bollocks to that.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, I really don't have any sense of the UK being somehow special, or important. I just don't get it.

This much is obvious.

quote:
Ethnically we have a small number of descendants of ancient britons, especially around the "celtic fringe". But, mostly we're descended from various Germanic tribes and Scandanavians (including the Normans - who were descended from Norsemen). That is, we're Europeans. And, our language shares those same European roots (except for the Gàidhlig and Cymraeg).

Sure. And if you go far enough back we're all Ethiopians. The question is how far back you go.

quote:
Perhaps we should look at our monarchy. Who are German, and before that Dutch.

Anyone whose family has been here for longer than the USA has existed doesn't really count as German/Dutch any more.

quote:
We could look at our history, but there's little to be proud of there.

Are you kidding me?

Alfred the Great handing the Vikings their asses. The Norman Conquest (notable in that it remains the most recent time this island was successfully invaded, and even then it was only because Harold's army had been busy handing another lot of Vikings their asses less than a month earlier). Chaucer. Agincourt. The CofE. The Spanish Armada sent packing. Shakespeare. Britannia rules the waves. Burns. Byron. One of the longest-standing Parliamentary Democracies in the world. An Empire upon which the sun never set. A true world superpower. The birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. Stephenson, Telford and Watt. Railways. The Brontes. When Napoleon sought to subjugate the entire continent, we were the ones who stopped him. Waterloo. Florence Nightingale. Darwin. Rorke's Drift. Cadbury's chocolate. WW1 was a massive clusterfuck, but even then we still won it. Brunel. Dickens. Doyle. When Hitler sought to subjugate the entire continent, we were the ones who stopped him. Tolkien. The NHS. Crick and Watson. The Internet.

Nope, nothing there at all.

quote:
What is it that says these small islands need to be sepearate from the rest of Europe?

In the end, and despite everything I've just said above, there's only one answer that matters: because we want to be. It's called self-determination, and it's a principle that should not be casually abandoned.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Nor was it something that we should look back on with any sense of pride.

I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that it was. Just to be absolutely clear on this, I certainly wasn't, so I'm a little unsure as to why you should choose to start a post with a sentence like that. Unless of course you've come across repeated assertions that the internment camps of the Boer War were a Good Thing, in which case I can't say I envy your explorations of the internet.

Could you write a list of comparable length of contributions of Britain to the world that you *are* proud of, to put alongside the ones that you aren't? Just in the interest of balance. If you are proud of nothing, then why are you ashamed of anything?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would a multi-ethnic nation covering the whole of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran which contained virtually the whole of the original ethnic groups (not putting an artificial line in the sand between them) have been more stable?
I don't know. Would it have prevented the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting each other for dominance? Would it have prevented the Kurds from wanting their own nation rather than being a minority voice in another one?

Or would it be better to have separate nations for the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to rule as they see fit?

Probably not. That's the approach that was taken in Cyprus and Ireland and Palestine.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Nor was it something that we should look back on with any sense of pride.
I wasn't aware that anyone was suggesting that it was. Just to be absolutely clear on this, I certainly wasn't, so I'm a little unsure as to why you should choose to start a post with a sentence like that.

No, I've not suggested that anyone has claimed that concentration camps were a good thing (whoever had the idea first).

I am suggesting that there is a harkening back to the days of the empire, and taking pride in the fact that we had an empire on which the sun never set, when the Royal Navy ruled the waves. It's that pride in empire that I take objection to, and you don't have to look very far to find examples of it. It was an empire that was founded on the exploitation of others; plantations in the Caribbean worked by slaves, the Raj living it up while the native population sweated and toiled to profit the East India Company, that navy that ruled the waves sailing gunboats up Chinese rivers to force the Chinese to allow British merchants to sell them opium. And, yes, rounding up Boers into concentration camps as well. The empire was a disgraceful period in British history, and I want nothing to do with the nationalist flag waving that suggests that not only was that when Britain was great, but that we still are great because of it.

quote:
Could you write a list of comparable length of contributions of Britain to the world that you *are* proud of, to put alongside the ones that you aren't? Just in the interest of balance. If you are proud of nothing, then why are you ashamed of anything?

There are individual British people who I admire, but I'm not sure that's the same as being proud of Britain. Writers, artists, musicians, engineers, scientists, explorers ... but their individual achievements stand regardless of the status of our nation. Shakespeare will still be Shakespeare whether we tear up all our treaties and sit in isolation from the world or whether we're a founding member of a new European state (or, anywhere inbetween).

I'm proud of the NHS, it's a wonderful health service that stands up there with the best health services in the world. Likewise the welfare state. In both cases I am deeply saddened that our government seems intent on systematically dismantling them. But, there are equally good health and welfare systems within Europe. And, in a future European State I would be equally proud of a European Health Service, European Welfare, if they are built on the same principles of health care for all, a safety net and support for all, regardless of ability.

I also take some pride in the achievements of the European Union and associated structures. The EU has achieved wonderful things, regional development and restructuring funds have encouraged the poorer nations in Europe to prosper and helped communities affected by radical changes in the global economy to adjust (eg: assist areas dependent on particular industries diversify). The ECHR is a wonderful institution, and the introduction of human rights and equality legislation across Europe is something to be rightly proud of. Things like working time directives have reduced the injustice of people being forced to work excessive hours. The EU has contributed to one of the longest periods of peace in Europe ever (in Western Europe at least), did it contribute to the fall of the Soviet empire in the east? Possibly, and that's something to be proud of as well.

Could the EU do more? Of course, it's not perfect. I would like the EU to be more welcoming of those fleeing war and poverty. To do more to help lift non-European countries out of poverty. To do even more to help the poor within Europe. The same with the UK, and I believe that we're most effective doing that together rather than apart.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I think the fallacy in your last sentence is that an integrated EU would use its great powers to do precisely that. There is no guarantee that it will.

There is in fact no guarantee that it would (or in fact does) do what the majority of its inhabitants want, given that its lawmaking bodies are not only unelected but extremely remote from the people who the laws it makes affect. I am all for assisting the poorer parts of Europe - although I am even more in favour of assisting the poorer parts of the world, which are all outside the rich man's club of the EU - but I remain unconvinced that a large secretariat in Brussels is the best way to do it. I would have thought a better way of doing that was by way of treaties that facilitate trade - something which few in the UK would object to, and which was in fact all the EU amounted to until the 1990s. It is surprising to hear people argue that closer political union is necessary to save Europe from itself. The history since 1945 suggests that a comprehensive trade deal did the job perfectly well

Alan, I recollect that you were in favour of Scottish independence. To my mind, by far the best argument in favour of independence was that it would have taken governance closer to the Scottish people. The manner in which the EU is developing is quite the opposite. If further lawmaking powers are to be removed to Brussels - or even the European Parliament, I don't see how we can expect lawmakers to keep in reasonable touch with their constituents or how they would exercise their votes on the basis of what their constituents want, as opposed to what the prevailing political culture of the Parliament wanted. In short, I do not see how democracy could function in any meaningful way.

By contrast, the UK is a very stable and long-standing political entity with mature civic institutions. That doesn't make it special - plenty of other countries can say the same - but it is a very good reason not to give it up - and as the EU is not going to stop developing, this is the real choice in this referendum.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

That's where logic for me falls down: the case of Scotland. It seems bizarre that the very people who don't want Scotland to be independent of the UK do want the UK to be independent of the EU and vice versa: either one believes in the autonomy of small nation states or the existence of a supra-national state, or one doesn't, surely?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Matt Black: That's where logic for me falls down: the case of Scotland. It seems bizarre that the very people who don't want Scotland to be independent of the UK do want the UK to be independent of the EU and vice versa: either one believes in the autonomy of small nation states or the existence of a supra-national state, or one doesn't, surely?

It's because they can recognise a false dichotomy.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

As a principle, it's not false, surely?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It is quixotic that Leave would probably lead to the break-up of the UK, if, as foretold, the Scottish people would demand a referendum, in order to be independent and join the EU.

I don't mean that Leave intends to break up the UK, but it is ironic that in the attempt to be independent, this result might happen, when presumably many Leave supporters are proud of the integrity of the UK.

[ 24. February 2016, 17:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's where logic for me falls down: the case of Scotland. It seems bizarre that the very people who don't want Scotland to be independent of the UK do want the UK to be independent of the EU and vice versa: either one believes in the autonomy of small nation states or the existence of a supra-national state, or one doesn't, surely?

It may be that Scots regard the EUs promises over limits to integration as more trustworthy than the rUKs promises on further devolution. Or that they don't mind losing control over the competencies the EU is likely to take over as long as they can gain sovereignty over other issues through independence. You may disagree with their premises, but it isn't necessarily an illogical position for them to take.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Sovereignty and independence are not single binary options. There are degrees of both independence and sovereignty, and both apply across a wide range of areas. So, there's no reason why a nation can't be independent in issues of, say, spending on education and welfare while being in political union (another non-binary option) with other nations over environmental protection and foreign policy.

There is no logical reason why the people of Scotland can't want to take more control over areas of policy controlled by Westminster while at the same time wanting to cede other powers to Brussels.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's where logic for me falls down: the case of Scotland. It seems bizarre that the very people who don't want Scotland to be independent of the UK do want the UK to be independent of the EU and vice versa: either one believes in the autonomy of small nation states or the existence of a supra-national state, or one doesn't, surely?

I supported Scottish independence, for the same principal reason I support British independence - self-determination.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The main question is the definition of "self". That can range from individuals to the entire European population. And, on some levels there quite clearly isn't any realistic "self determination" - how many local authorities in the UK are there which consistently return non-Tory councils, yet their "self-determination" to not be Tory is denied at the national level when the rest of the UK votes in a Tory government? In a democracy we can't even manage to get the government chosen by the majority of the electorate, is that not also a limit on "self determination"?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.

But, generally speaking, democracies don't go to war with other democracies (and I can't think of a modern example of that happening). Presumably the main reason why the six founder EEC members didn't all start invading each other (other than the whole NATO / Soviet threat thing) is that they were democratic countries?

I struggle to believe that the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, has only continued to be a democracy because of the existence of the EEC.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's where logic for me falls down: the case of Scotland. It seems bizarre that the very people who don't want Scotland to be independent of the UK do want the UK to be independent of the EU and vice versa: either one believes in the autonomy of small nation states or the existence of a supra-national state, or one doesn't, surely?

Well in my case (and this might be a widely-shared view, I don't know) I am British, I like Britain, I'm proud to be British, I like being British and I want to continue being British, therefore I want to see the continuance of the United Kingdom. By contrast, I suppose I am European in a geographical sense, but don't feel it, I don't believe in a politically united Europe with Britain in and therefore would like Britain to leave the EU.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
I have no particular attachment to the UK as a political entity.
I guess that's why you support those who are trying to destroy it.
Not really destroy, reform within the context of the rest of Europe.

But, I really don't have any sense of the UK being somehow special, or important. I just don't get it.

Geographically, the UK occupies the majority of a section of the European continental shelf forming a group of islands seperated from the majority of the land mass of Europe by a narrow strip of water.

Ethnically we have a small number of descendants of ancient britons, especially around the "celtic fringe". But, mostly we're descended from various Germanic tribes and Scandanavians (including the Normans - who were descended from Norsemen). That is, we're Europeans. And, our language shares those same European roots (except for the Gàidhlig and Cymraeg).

Perhaps we should look at our monarchy. Who are German, and before that Dutch.

We could look at our history, but there's little to be proud of there. An empire that subjugated other nations to provide us with resources and markets. A better than many record on ending our colonialism and leading those colonies to independence, but better to have not conquered them in the first place. We invented concentration camps in Southern Africa. Participation in a European arms race and cold war that lead directly to two world wars. Follow that up with aiding in proxy wars in the second half of the 20th century as the world again followed the cold war and arms race path (fortunately without falling into the destruction of out right war). And, we're left with this bizarre belief that we need to be some form of military global power, and we need to maintain an obscene (ie more than zero) number of nuclear warheads.

So, what do we have that really makes us special? What is it that says these small islands need to be sepearate from the rest of Europe? What makes the European peoples living on one side of a narrow stretch of water different from the European peoples living on the other side? Is that we play cricket (not very well) enough?

Alan, with all due respect to your attempted rhetoric, the fact is that being on an island has significantly affected the history and culture of the people on that island. For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.

Nor is a population of over 60 million a "small island".

The existence of countries is not some random accident which can be erased with the stroke of a pen, except in those parts of the world where Europeans created countries at the stroke of a pen to suit their own needs. Countries in Europe reflect the effect of history, and geography (eg Portugal diverging from Spain), of religions and languages (eg Belgium, Croatia vs Serbia).

You may very well have no attachment to any of this, but the fact is the great majority of people, even ones in favour of the EU, do have some attachment to it. "Europe" is simply too large a concept to readily relate to. People don't speak "European", and they don't go to "European" restaurants, and they don't learn one unified history of Europe in schools.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

By the way, if you're looking for impressive bits of English history, specifically, in the last week or so I've learned that: the Anglo-Saxons were the first Germanics to start writing things like laws in their own language, and created a strong literary tradition long before others, and by a few centuries later they had the best system of coinage in Europe.

Of course it was the Irish who basically preserved large chunks of Western European civilisation after the Roman Empire fell, but you can't have everything.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The existence of countries is not some random accident which can be erased with the stroke of a pen, except in those parts of the world where Europeans created countries at the stroke of a pen to suit their own needs. Countries in Europe reflect the effect of history, and geography (eg Portugal diverging from Spain), of religions and languages (eg Belgium, Croatia vs Serbia).

Yet, history hasn't stopped. History is replete with examples of the borders of nations changing, of nations splitting into smaller nations and small nations uniting into larger ones. There's no reason why we should assume that the borders of our nations have suddenly become permanently set along their current lines.

Just on our 'small island' (I'm borrowing the phrase from Bill Bryson, of course) the current UK borders aren't even a century old. Less than a thousand years ago the English monarchy ruled large sections of France, but none of Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

It may, probably will, take much more than a stroke of a pen. But, sooner or later the borders of all our nations will change in some way or another.

quote:
You may very well have no attachment to any of this, but the fact is the great majority of people, even ones in favour of the EU, do have some attachment to it. "Europe" is simply too large a concept to readily relate to. People don't speak "European", and they don't go to "European" restaurants, and they don't learn one unified history of Europe in schools.

Well, I'm British and do have some attachment to this cold and damp island. It's attachment to our landscape, our food and drink, the people who live here. None of which is going to change if our relationship with Europe changes (except, some nutters seem to be wanting to force some of the people who live here out of their home to some other country - and it would certainly be a sad day for Britain if such people ever get any sort of political power).

But, it's not easy to be attached to an abstract idea such as a nation - I can form attachments to a few people, friends and family, but what sort of attachment do I have with 60 million people? I can be proud of what my children achieve, how can I be proud of the achievements of someone I don't know, achievements I have had no part in? If I'm expected to relate to 60 million people, why not 500 million? There's probably a threshold of the number of people you can relate to, and when those people become some form of concept - I'm not sure but it's probably a few hundred, maybe as many as a couple of thousand. Certainly orders of magnitude less than 60 million of 500 million.

School history curriculum can be adjusted to include more European history (my recollection of history lessons 30 years ago was that we did cover some European history upto O level - a broad overview of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, some where it intersected British history such as Spain leading up the Armada and the French Revolution leading the the Napoleonic Wars, and of course a lot of late 19th and 20th century history of Europe). Most schools will teach European languages - although Chinese and other non-European languages are also taught. I know you won't be fluent just from school lessons, but leaving school with a decent foundation in two European languages is a good start.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The existence of countries is not some random accident which can be erased with the stroke of a pen, except in those parts of the world where Europeans created countries at the stroke of a pen to suit their own needs. Countries in Europe reflect the effect of history, and geography (eg Portugal diverging from Spain), of religions and languages (eg Belgium, Croatia vs Serbia).
Yet, history hasn't stopped. History is replete with examples of the borders of nations changing, of nations splitting into smaller nations and small nations uniting into larger ones. There's no reason why we should assume that the borders of our nations have suddenly become permanently set along their current lines.

Just on our 'small island' (I'm borrowing the phrase from Bill Bryson, of course) the current UK borders aren't even a century old. Less than a thousand years ago the English monarchy ruled large sections of France, but none of Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

It may, probably will, take much more than a stroke of a pen. But, sooner or later the borders of all our nations will change in some way or another.

I know they change. I'm talking about WHY they change. One of the issues about the EU is that it's trying to create change via a mechanism that is fairly new and novel: bureaucracy.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although currently there have been no changes in borders as a result of EU membership, and at present there are no proposals to do nor anything in the foreseeable future when such proposals will be made.

There have been changes in the nature of some of the internal borders within the EU, enabling free movement of goods and people across those borders. Those changes were the result of international negotiations followed by treaties.

If there are any future changes to borders within the EU I'm not expecting those changes to be made by anything other than international negotiation followed by treaties.

The EU has a substantial bureaucracy (but, probably less than the sum total of the bureaucracy of the individual nations if everything the EU does had to be achieved by constant, ongoing negotiations and writing of treaties). But, that has nothing to do with national borders.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

This entire conversation was based on propositions about the end goal of the EU being political union. I don't personally have a particularly strong view on whether that's the intended end goal or not, but my contributions have been entirely on that basis, because that is what Marvin was raising in a couple of posts.

And there certainly are at least some signs that political union IS the end goal. I'm not entirely convinced that the EU is simply a treaty-making exercise like other treaty-making exercises, because when I go to Wikipedia I find maps with comments like "obliged to join the Eurozone" and "legally obliged to join Schengen area". There's a very real sense that doing particular deals on particular topics is not an option, and in fact has been deliberately excluded as an option.

Not even the major trade deals that we have been involved in go that far. They are deals with respect to things like tariffs and quotas, they don't oblige us to then go on to other topics like our general financial policy.

[ 25. February 2016, 08:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The main question is the definition of "self". That can range from individuals to the entire European population.

Out of interest, if we'd just given everyone in the Empire a vote instead of breaking it up into separate countries, would you be OK with the situation?

quote:
And, on some levels there quite clearly isn't any realistic "self determination" - how many local authorities in the UK are there which consistently return non-Tory councils, yet their "self-determination" to not be Tory is denied at the national level when the rest of the UK votes in a Tory government?

The Scottish problem in a nutshell. But given the absence of any serious independence movement in places like Liverpool I presume the people there are content with their current level of self-determination. Were such movements to exist I would support them, but it's not for me to say they should (except in the area where I live, of course!).

quote:
In a democracy we can't even manage to get the government chosen by the majority of the electorate, is that not also a limit on "self determination"?

The issue there is that none of the potential governments on offer was chosen by a majority of the electorate. If one of them had been, it would now be in power.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It may, probably will, take much more than a stroke of a pen. But, sooner or later the borders of all our nations will change in some way or another.

Yes, they will. But that doesn't mean they must change in a specific way. Any such changes should be - will be, I hope - driven by what the people living in the affected regions want, not by what a bunch of bureaucrats or ideologues think would be best for them.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.

Are you suggesting then that the people of south-east England didn't trade with the chaps across the Channel?? What about (in no particular order but how they've come into my mind): the textile trade with Flanders in the High Middle Ages; the fact that Calais was part of England from 1347 to 1558; the marriage of the Frankish princess Bertha to Aethelbert of Kent in the 590s and the subsequent 'importation' of Catholicism to England; the fact that the landowning elite had estates on both sides of the Channel from 1066 to at least 1204?

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Any such changes should be ... driven by what the people living in the affected regions want, not by what a bunch of bureaucrats or ideologues think would be best for them.

That's not just an argument for leaving the EU - that's an argument for the dismantling of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland superstate*, a complete re-ordering of the constitutional settlement which would require Parliament to relinquish its sovereignty, something I suspect its members are not prepared to do. It may even be an argument for the proper devolution of power to people outside the south-east of England.

* It may just be (with apologies to the late Helmut Schmidt) Portugal With Missiles by now, but it is still a supra-national body, and still highly centralized despite the devolutionary process begun in 1999.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.
But, generally speaking, democracies don't go to war with other democracies (and I can't think of a modern example of that happening). Presumably the main reason why the six founder EEC members didn't all start invading each other (other than the whole NATO / Soviet threat thing) is that they were democratic countries?

I struggle to believe that the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, has only continued to be a democracy because of the existence of the EEC.

Well, Germany was a democracy from 1919 to around 1930 and that still didn't stop it from going to war less than a decade later with the other democracies of Britain and France.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The existence of countries is not some random accident which can be erased with the stroke of a pen, except in those parts of the world where Europeans created countries at the stroke of a pen to suit their own needs. Countries in Europe reflect the effect of history, and geography (eg Portugal diverging from Spain), of religions and languages (eg Belgium, Croatia vs Serbia).
Yet, history hasn't stopped. History is replete with examples of the borders of nations changing, of nations splitting into smaller nations and small nations uniting into larger ones. There's no reason why we should assume that the borders of our nations have suddenly become permanently set along their current lines.

Just on our 'small island' (I'm borrowing the phrase from Bill Bryson, of course) the current UK borders aren't even a century old. Less than a thousand years ago the English monarchy ruled large sections of France, but none of Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

It may, probably will, take much more than a stroke of a pen. But, sooner or later the borders of all our nations will change in some way or another.

Indeed: when people talk about the need to preserve 'Great Britain' as if it is some kind of timeless entity, I'm curious as to which 'Great Briatin' they refer: is it the devolved country from the late 1990s; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1921 to then; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801; the Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland from 1707; the Kingdom of Great Britain consisting of the personally United Kingdoms of England with the Principality of Wales and the Kingdom of Scotland plus the Kingdom of Ireland from 1603; the Kingdom of England incorporating the Principality of Wales and Kingdom of Ireland from 1541; or the Kingdom of England incorporating the Principality of Wales plus the Lordship of Ireland from 1536; etc?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I personally think that Great Britain should be Dutch again, as it was historically meant to be.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, our closest linguistic counterparts are the Friesians, so you may be onto something there!

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

But, generally speaking, democracies don't go to war with other democracies (and I can't think of a modern example of that happening).

but isn't this essentially a claim that a war with a democracy wouldn't be popular - which as Matt alludes to above has not always been the case. WWI was immensely popular in a number of countries - at least to start with.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.

Are you suggesting then that the people of south-east England didn't trade with the chaps across the Channel??

No, I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. Trading with another land is not the same thing as being completely familiar with a culture you share or have full knowledge of. That is my point. People receiving goods from China predated people knowing anything about China beyond it was the source of certain goods, by a considerable margin.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but one of the cardinal raisons d'etre of the EU was and is to prevent wars between its members which - remarkably, given the history of wars between its said members, especially it's six founders - it has succeeded in doing.
But, generally speaking, democracies don't go to war with other democracies (and I can't think of a modern example of that happening). Presumably the main reason why the six founder EEC members didn't all start invading each other (other than the whole NATO / Soviet threat thing) is that they were democratic countries?

I struggle to believe that the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, has only continued to be a democracy because of the existence of the EEC.
Well, Germany was a democracy from 1919 to around 1930 and that still didn't stop it from going to war less than a decade later with the other democracies of Britain and France.

That is a particularly spectacular example of failing to negate a point.

It's not even a point I'm particularly fond of supporting, but when someone says democracies don't tend to go to war with democracies, bringing up an example of a former democracy and explicitly pointing out to everyone that it was not a democracy when it went to war is truly bizarre.

I don't think anyone was claiming that when a democracy ceased to be a democracy, the magical qualities of being a democracy ought to carry on. Indeed, the entire point would be that having moved to a lesser form of government, it has lost the qualities it once had.

Next you'll be telling me that the fact I gained weight after I stopped going to the gym disproves the notion that going to the gym was helping me stay in shape.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Any such changes should be ... driven by what the people living in the affected regions want, not by what a bunch of bureaucrats or ideologues think would be best for them.
That's not just an argument for leaving the EU - that's an argument for the dismantling of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland superstate

If that is what the majority of people in any given part of the UK want, then yes. Scotland is the only part that has even got close to that position, and even then they (just) voted to stay part of the UK.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

If the British constitution was run on the basis of majoritism (and even if that were a good thing - Exhibit A: the governance of Northern Ireland, especially from 1921 to 1974), then we would not tolerate a system which allows a government to have a working majority based on barely a third of votes available to it in a general election.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.

Are you suggesting then that the people of south-east England didn't trade with the chaps across the Channel??
No, I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. Trading with another land is not the same thing as being completely familiar with a culture you share or have full knowledge of. That is my point. People receiving goods from China predated people knowing anything about China beyond it was the source of certain goods, by a considerable margin.

But there was far more to it than that and, arguably, there were closer ties between 'us' and 'them' between 43AD and the Reformation than there were between the Reformation and more recent years: common lingua franca (Latin); ethno-linguistic ties for the ruling elites (Roman/ Latin, then Germanic (Franks and Saxons), then French (eg: Angevins and Capetians); part of a common socio-cultural and quasi-political entity (Roman Empire, then medieval Christendom), etc. Your China analogy is a case of apples and oranges.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This entire conversation was based on propositions about the end goal of the EU being political union. ...

And there certainly are at least some signs that political union IS the end goal. I'm not entirely convinced that the EU is simply a treaty-making exercise like other treaty-making exercises, because when I go to Wikipedia I find maps with comments like "obliged to join the Eurozone" and "legally obliged to join Schengen area". There's a very real sense that doing particular deals on particular topics is not an option, and in fact has been deliberately excluded as an option.

Yes, increased political union is a goal of the EU. I'm not sure anyone has ever denied that. Therefore, it isn't the same as other treaty making excercises in establishing free-trade areas, defensive pacts etc.

But, every step along the way has been established by treaty, not by dictate from some bureocracy. And, every member state within the EU has been involved in the negotiations of those treaties and has agreed to them (although in many cases the negotiations have resulted in treaties which don't bind all member states to all the clauses).

Yes, it is expected that any new member of the EU would have to sign a treaty to join, and that would include signing up to all the existing treaties. Therefore, in theory, some elements of the EU (Schengen and Eurozone membership) would be non-negotiable - if you want to join the EU these are some of the requirements. In practice, pragmatism would probably take over and if the relevant treaties provide opt outs for some existing members then if the EU wants the new member enough I suspect they'll find a way of allowing those opt outs to apply as well. But, we won't know that until another nation enters negotiations to join and they actually write the treaty for that. If there is a Brexit then my suspicion is that the newly independent Scotland will be the first coming to the table to gain admission to the EU looking at retaining at least some of the opt outs the UK currently has.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it? Well, unless the SNP get cold feet, unlikely.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
quetzalcoatl: Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?

I have no doubt that it will.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It may, probably will, take much more than a stroke of a pen. But, sooner or later the borders of all our nations will change in some way or another.
Yes, they will. But that doesn't mean they must change in a specific way. Any such changes should be - will be, I hope - driven by what the people living in the affected regions want, not by what a bunch of bureaucrats or ideologues think would be best for them.

And, no one is suggesting that European bureaucrats or ideologues are able to impose anything on anyone without their approval. All of the regulations that have been clarified by the EU that are inforce in the UK have been approved by the UK government, and the UK government has demonstrated an ability to thwart the imposition of regulations on the UK that they think the people of the UK don't want. Now, you may want to make an argument about the UK government not representing the will of the people of the UK, but that is a radically different argument than one that says the EU bureaucracy is imposing things on the UK against the will of the UK government.

If, say, a proposal was put forward for the nations of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg to unite into a new Benelux nation then that would need to be agreed by all the people of those nations, it can't be forced on them from without. No amount of enthusiasm for that as a step towards greater European political union from French or German idealogies is going to make a jot of difference if the people of any of those nations don't like the terms of the proposed union.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
quetzalcoatl: Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I have no doubt that it will.

I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't highlight this, but maybe they don't want to ruffle the Scottish waters.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
quetzalcoatl: Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I have no doubt that it will.
I'm surprised that the Remain campaign don't highlight this, but maybe they don't want to ruffle the Scottish waters.

That's where it gets complicated - if it becomes overtly "vote In to save the UK" then the SNP is going to end up very conflicted. A massive uniform In vote on those terms would make their own aspirations for independence go a bit longer term. I can't imagine when it comes down to it that they'd be altogether unhappy with an Out vote regardless of the noises they make (provided within that Scotland has voted to remain In).

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That is a particularly spectacular example of failing to negate a point.

It's not even a point I'm particularly fond of supporting, but when someone says democracies don't tend to go to war with democracies, bringing up an example of a former democracy and explicitly pointing out to everyone that it was not a democracy when it went to war is truly bizarre.

I don't think anyone was claiming that when a democracy ceased to be a democracy, the magical qualities of being a democracy ought to carry on. Indeed, the entire point would be that having moved to a lesser form of government, it has lost the qualities it once had.

Not failing to negate the point at all: the point I am making (and which still stands) is that just because a country is a democracy now gives no guarantee of its capacity and willingness to go to war at some point in the future - in 1930s Germany's case, less than a decade.

[code]

[ 25. February 2016, 11:26: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For all you can dismiss it as a narrow stretch of water which can now be traversed very easily, it's not the case that the people of Kent a thousand years ago could just toddle across to the Franks for a spot of weekend shopping.

Are you suggesting then that the people of south-east England didn't trade with the chaps across the Channel??
No, I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. Trading with another land is not the same thing as being completely familiar with a culture you share or have full knowledge of. That is my point. People receiving goods from China predated people knowing anything about China beyond it was the source of certain goods, by a considerable margin.
But there was far more to it than that and, arguably, there were closer ties between 'us' and 'them' between 43AD and the Reformation than there were between the Reformation and more recent years: common lingua franca (Latin); ethno-linguistic ties for the ruling elites (Roman/ Latin, then Germanic (Franks and Saxons), then French (eg: Angevins and Capetians); part of a common socio-cultural and quasi-political entity (Roman Empire, then medieval Christendom), etc. Your China analogy is a case of apples and oranges.

More a case of peaches and apricots, I should think. I won't deny that the China example was deliberately hyperbolic to illustrate the point. But I was trying to point out the foolishness of the opposite claim, that the separation of Britain as an island had no bearing whatsoever. Of course it did.

For example, talking about a common lingua franca spectacularly ignores the fact that a lingua franca was needed because the native languages were different. That's like saying that everyone speaks English to each other nowadays, and therefore what they actually speak in their own home as their native tongue is a trifling detail.

Nor is the history of Christianity in Britain anything like the same as the history of Christianity on the continent. I've recently learning about this very topic, how the King of Kent married a Frankish princess, and how this was significant precisely because her kingdom was Christian and his wasn't, and how Latin Christianity arrived in the south of England at about the same time as Irish Christianity arrived from the north, and this created a fusion that was absent elsewhere.

Nor is it true that just because Franks and Saxons were both Germanic everything was the same. There was a fundamental difference in how the Franks ruled over a Latin-speaking people, compared to the Saxons who forced out a people that were Celtic with a Latin overlay. The first known document in the English language (laws of Kent) was an innovation precisely because equivalent documents in other places such as the Frankish kingdom has been produced in Latin.

Which leads neatly into the problem of claiming that the Roman Empire provided a common heritage. Not for the Angles and Saxons it didn't. They weren't ever part of it, and Roman influence in Britain disappeared for a period in a way it simply didn't in France.

Treating the Channel as having had no significance is flying in the face of reality. Picking a few things that both sides had in common in no way disproves the considerable number of things they didn't have in common. You might as well argue that all Caucasians ought to be in one country because of this common feature.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That is a particularly spectacular example of failing to negate a point.

It's not even a point I'm particularly fond of supporting, but when someone says democracies don't tend to go to war with democracies, bringing up an example of a former democracy and explicitly pointing out to everyone that it was not a democracy when it went to war is truly bizarre.

I don't think anyone was claiming that when a democracy ceased to be a democracy, the magical qualities of being a democracy ought to carry on. Indeed, the entire point would be that having moved to a lesser form of government, it has lost the qualities it once had.

Not failing to negate the point at all: the point I am making (and which still stands) is that just because a country is a democracy now gives no guarantee of its capacity and willingness to go to war at some point in the future - in 1930s Germany's case, less than a decade.

[code]

Sigh. The point you're making is no way a negation of the point that was actually being made. If someone had claimed that being a democracy now gave a guarantee about the future, you'd have successfully negated that claim. But it's a claim no-one made.

You might be negating a point. But the point, the one you claimed to be responding to? Nope. For the reasons already given.

[ 25. February 2016, 11:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

OK, we'll have to agree to differ on our 'takes' on these two points, I guess.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
That's where it gets complicated - if it becomes overtly "vote In to save the UK" then the SNP is going to end up very conflicted. A massive uniform In vote on those terms would make their own aspirations for independence go a bit longer term. I can't imagine when it comes down to it that they'd be altogether unhappy with an Out vote regardless of the noises they make (provided within that Scotland has voted to remain In).

Life is never simple, is it?

I don't think "vote In to save the UK" is ever going to be a big thing (I may live to be proved wrong). I don't think the majority of people in England care that much about Scottish independence and will vote for what they think is best for them without much consideration for whether it will be best for other parts of England much less the other nations of the UK. The debate (if, indeed it ever rises to the level of debate rather than just flinging around sound bites) will be about money, immigration, fish quotas, agriculture, the Euro, "sovereignty" ... south of the border Scottish independence won't get a look in.

The SNP will be campaigning in Scotland where the issue of independence will be part of the backdrop of the debate, and is already a major feature of the TV punditry here. I can't see the SNP campaigning for anything other than to stay in. Remember the SNP don't want a second independence referendum, they want a referendum that they will convincingly win, losing a second independence referendum will be the worst possible outcome for them. A UK 'out' vote with a strong 'in' within Scotland will almost certainly lead to a fairly rapid second referendum with a very good chance of a Yes this time round. A UK 'out' vote which is reflected in Scotland may be a justification for a second referendum, but the chances of a Yes vote are greatly reduced. A UK 'in' vote will leave things as they were a year ago, and the SNP have lost nothing.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it? Well, unless the SNP get cold feet, unlikely.

It might lead to a parting of the ways with Scotland, but how great a loss would that be?

I doubt if Wales or Northern Ireland could afford to go it alone.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The debate (if, indeed it ever rises to the level of debate rather than just flinging around sound bites) will be about money, immigration, fish quotas, agriculture, the Euro, "sovereignty" ... south of the border Scottish independence won't get a look in.

Right at the moment that is how things appear. The PM and his team haven't explained how good the deal will be nor have those who want out shown the benefits of not being in the EU. My view is that those in favour of "out" ought to state what the situation will be if we withdraw completely. It will for example save us the annual subscription and we will be able to levy purchase and sales taxes on a different basis to VAT. OTOH EU funding for "Objective 1" social projects, which has been of particular benefit in South Wales will go, although I doubt that will affect any exit voters in England. Our borders will be ours to police and patrol, goods bought in EU countries will probably be subject to UK import duty, and they are only a few details.

I'd really like to see some decent debate to look at details, but I doubt it will happen. Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!

[ 25. February 2016, 12:14: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I doubt if Wales or Northern Ireland could afford to go it alone.

By population (3 million, just short of 2 million respectively) then they are comparable to several European nations (the Baltic states, Slovenia) and much larger than some (Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus). Both have stronger economies than most of those comparable sized nations. So, I don't see that they couldn't afford to go it alone.

The biggest issue is the maturity of their Assemblies, which don't have the experience of the Scottish Government due to the significantly lower powers that Westminster gave them. They would need to follow a tough learning curve to form strong and competant governments - but I'm sure they could manage it if they set their minds to it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?

I'm sure it would lead to another referendum on Scottish independence (or, more accurately, on whether Scotland should be ruled from Brussels or London - rule from Edinburgh doesn't seem to be something anyone wants). I don't presume to know what the result of that referendum would be.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!

Given that TTIP is going to give unprecedented powers to multi-national big business, the chums of Cameron, I doubt it. In fact, there are probably more opponents of TTIP within the EU than the current UK Cabinet and staying in may be our best defense against it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Exit from the EU will lead to the break-up of the UK, won't it?
I'm sure it would lead to another referendum on Scottish independence (or, more accurately, on whether Scotland should be ruled from Brussels or London - rule from Edinburgh doesn't seem to be something anyone wants). I don't presume to know what the result of that referendum would be.

An independence referendum in the next 2-3 years would be a very high risk strategy for the SNP. It offers the chance of a short cut to independence, but the risk is another 'no' which would put any chance of independence into the long long grass for at least 30 years. But, a Brexit with a strong Scottish vote to stay in may force them to take the gamble.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!
Given that TTIP is going to give unprecedented powers to multi-national big business, the chums of Cameron, I doubt it. In fact, there are probably more opponents of TTIP within the EU than the current UK Cabinet and staying in may be our best defense against it.

I completely agree.
And for me, whilst I worry that the EU will sign us up to a raw deal on TTIP, I am certain an out-of-the-EU, Tory-run-UK would.

There are many reasons for voting to stay but in the absence of any others, I would find this compelling.

AFZ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Mind you, if an exit is a way out of TTIP then I might well vote for exit!
Given that TTIP is going to give unprecedented powers to multi-national big business, the chums of Cameron, I doubt it. In fact, there are probably more opponents of TTIP within the EU than the current UK Cabinet and staying in may be our best defense against it.

I agree that there are more opponets of TTIP at the EU than in our cabinet, but I understand that th opponents of TTIP in the EU have absolutely no influence whatsoever. It's an undemocratic mechanism being put in place, come what may, secretly and undemocratically.

All it will do is make the EU a lap-dog of corporate interests.

(x-p with AFZ, but I'm sure that even our government would do things more openly than the European Commission)

[ 25. February 2016, 13:05: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

'Abroad is perfectly bloody, and all foreigners are fiends.'
Tes, Nancy Mitford's Uncle Matthew is alive and well, it seems.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

First word of second line should have been 'Yes'. The white heat of inspiration got at my fingers.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, no one is suggesting that European bureaucrats or ideologues are able to impose anything on anyone without their approval. All of the regulations that have been clarified by the EU that are inforce in the UK have been approved by the UK government, and the UK government has demonstrated an ability to thwart the imposition of regulations on the UK that they think the people of the UK don't want.

I am no expert in EU law, but my understanding is that the European Commission is entitled to make laws (ie, directives and regulations) that have the same force in the UK as Acts of the UK Parliament. My understanding is also that it is not necessary for the UK goverment to give its approval for those laws to take effect, or alternatively they only require Royal Assent, something which is not withheld for any regulation at all.

If my understanding is correct, the only way the UK government could thwart the imposition of any regulation would be by repealing the various Acts of Parliament that empower the European Commission to do this, ie, leave the European Union.

Is there anyone a bit more knowledgeable than I who could clarify?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Establishment, sorry, The Economist says:

By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars [of UCL & Milan] estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribution of recent arrivals from the eastern European countries that have joined the EU since 2004 has amounted to almost £5 billion. Even during the worst years of the financial crisis, in 2007-11, they made a net contribution of almost £2 billion to British public finances. Migrants from other European countries chipped in £8.6 billion.

Only saw this now.

According to the article the survey says that immigrants contributed GBP 4 billion to Government coffers between 1995 and 2011, therefore immigration has positive economic benefits. The article notes that immigrants are far less likely to be in receipt of a benefit (as one might expect).

The problem is that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. If immigrantion puts increased demand on the supply of goods and services - housing being the obvious example - then prices will go up. This would translate into increased tax revenues, but would also mean that anyone with dependent children - generally not immigrants - would suffer financial hardship. This in turn would require additional benefit spending, particularly if locals missed out on jobs in favour of immigrants. So it seeems to me quite explicable to say that if there is any benefit, it goes entirely to landlords and other business owners, and possibly the State unless increased social spending on infrastructure etc outweighs the additional revenues.

I have to say that immigration is an extremely touchy point for me personally. Not at all because I am a xenophobe, but because the UK government has been shutting the door on Commonwealth immigration in favour of EU immigration, presumably because the former is the only aspect of immigration that the UK government can control. If I wish to return to the UK I now need to have a job earning at least GBP 35,000, or I need to break up my family. The reason for this is for the purely arbitrary reason that my wife is a citizen of New Zealand, and not an EU country. The EU laws are premised on something called "non discrimination", a concept that of course only applies to the inhabitants of the EU. It is a reminder to me - and it ought to be a reminder to everyone of you, that in the mind of Brussels, the world stops at the EU border, with only the vaguest admission that there may be semi-civilised areas elsewhere here and there.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Is there anyone a bit more knowledgeable than I who could clarify?

Alwyn.

I'll ask him.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If I wish to return to the UK I now need to have a job earning at least GBP 35,000, or I need to break up my family. The reason for this is for the purely arbitrary reason that my wife is a citizen of New Zealand, and not an EU country.

As a small clarification, the £35k threshold only applies to Tier 2 visas - non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job (or, non-EU citizen dependents of non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job). It would not apply to you, as you hold UK citizenship (I assume), nor to your wife and any dependent children who will be coming with you as that's a different immigration route than tier 2. The income threshold is another example of our government doing something to be seen to be restricting immigration that will affect relatively few people (rather like the restrictions on benefits payments just negotiated), probably have no direct impact on immigration (but may deter some, tourists as well as immigrants, as they make very visible "foreigners not welcome here" signs). But cause considerable hardship to lots of people for no gain (it may be justified to cause hardship if there's a benefit, though I find it hard to accept, but our government seems to delight in hardship for no gain and sometimes hardship for a loss).

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...but our government seems to delight in hardship for no gain and sometimes hardship for a loss).

Government by tabloid headline.

AFZ

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...but our government seems to delight in hardship for no gain and sometimes hardship for a loss).
Government by tabloid headline.

Or trickle-down viciousness.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

According to the radio Iain Duncan-Smith was today complaining that the way in which the civil service is struggling to cope with the stupidly-divided cabinet means he cannot do his job properly.

I assume I'm not the only one who thinks that anything that stops IDS from doing his job is a fundementally good thing? [Two face]

AFZ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
According to the radio Iain Duncan-Smith was today complaining that the way in which the civil service is struggling to cope with the stupidly-divided cabinet means he cannot do his job properly.

I assume I'm not the only one who thinks that anything that stops IDS from doing his job is a fundementally good thing?

AFZ

We (I suppose most know I'm a civil servant) have had a note round regarding the referendum which in summary means that i)) we work in support of current government policy which is that we are in the EU while ii) civil servants are not to get involved in doing any work, ie researching and briefing, for anyone on either side of the campaign.

That would appear to be at odds with this statement from some ministers who are supporting the "out" campaign. Maybe I need to read my guidance note more closely.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm a great deal readier to believe Sioni Sais's version than that of a manipulative politician who has an axe to grind and wants to complain that it's not fair.

Incidentally, Cod, it's a drastic oversimplification to say that the EU makes laws and they instantly come into force everywhere in the EU. In most cases, it is a matter of to what extent the individual states are or are not, obliged to introduce legislation that gives effect to a directive within the state's own legal system and how rigid the timetable is.

There's often quite a lot of flexibility. UK politicians, particularly the minor ones, have a nasty habit of blaming the EU for compelling them to impose changes they want to impose but they think people will grumble about. Rather than admitting, 'we don't have to do this but we've decided to', they find it easier to say that its all Europe's fault.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

Enoch, there is some truth in what you say but there are many examples of EU law having a significant impact on domestic law. Indeed where there is a conflict, EU law constitutionally supersedes domestic law. Given the democratic deficit, that seems a dangerous position to be in to me. Whilst I appreciate that some EU law has a positive effect the principle itself -i.e. that an organisation that lacks democratic legitimacy can make laws which supersedes laws that have democratic legitimacy- has the potential to be very dangerous and is precisely the principle that the UK has tried to avoid in the evolution of its parliamentary system and in the USA with its separation of powers.

My main concern about the EU is based precisely on the democratic deficit. I appreciate that the EU might evolve into a democratic organisation but at the moment it is far from that. We saw this with Greece recently. A democratically elected government unable to implement its policies because its hands are tied by financial commitments to the EU. The reality is that if you are going to have economic union you need political union and if you are going to have political union yo need democratic legitimacy in order to avoid tyranny, distrust and even civil war. The latter may sound like an exaggeration but the Civil war in Britain was caused by a lack of democratic legitimacy in the prevailing government as was the American Revolution and more recently in Yugoslavia.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
We saw this with Greece recently. A democratically elected government unable to implement its policies because its hands are tied by financial commitments to the EU.

But, the same restrictions would have largely been in place without the EU - if previous Greek governments (democratically elected) had taken out loans from US or Asian financial institutions then the current Greek government would have had it's hands tied by those financial commitments.

Of course, there are additional issues relating to membership of the Eurozone which puts additional limitations through an inability to set interest rates. But, again if Greece had not entered the Eurozone (a decision taken by the democratically elected governments of Greece) the current government wouldn't have been free to change interest rates by a considerable margin.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.

True, but it is difficult to remedy the democratic deficit in the UK whilst we are so entrenched in a huge, bureaucratic institution like the EU.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.
True, but it is difficult to remedy the democratic deficit in the UK whilst we are so entrenched in a huge, bureaucratic institution like the EU.

No it's not.
We need a better electoral system (I don't like straight PR btw). And the House of Lords needs reforming. Properly. I'm also in favour of a codified, written constitution. More important that all of that is to sort party financing, and repeal the ridiculous lobbying act that allows the corrupt lobbying whilst threatening charities in to silence.

None of which is remotely affected one way or the other by our EU membership.

AFZ

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I am no expert in EU law, but my understanding is that the European Commission is entitled to make laws (ie, directives and regulations) that have the same force in the UK as Acts of the UK Parliament. My understanding is also that it is not necessary for the UK goverment to give its approval for those laws to take effect, or alternatively they only require Royal Assent, something which is not withheld for any regulation at all.

If my understanding is correct, the only way the UK government could thwart the imposition of any regulation would be by repealing the various Acts of Parliament that empower the European Commission to do this, ie, leave the European Union.

Is there anyone a bit more knowledgeable than I who could clarify?

Unfortunately, I am not an expert in EU law either. You wrote that EU law has the same force as Acts of Parliament - I think you can go further - as Makepiece said, EU law has a higher status than national law (including Acts of Parliament). If it were otherwise, than countries would be free to undermine the free market by passing national laws (e.g. by imposing product standards which their manufacturers met but which makers of goods in other states did not).

You wrote that the European Commission is entitled to "make laws". The EU says that the Commission "initiates" the law-making process and that "The vast majority of European laws are adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council." (source). The UK has representatives in both. This doesn't mean that the UK can block anything it wants to - but it also doesn't mean that the UK is without influence when EU is made.

It simply means that UK representatives (Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the UK government in the Council) have a voice. Presumably, one of the arguments against leaving the EU is that, if the UK wanted to export goods to EU states, we would then have to comply with EU rules (e.g. on product standards) while having no voice in the making of those rules.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

The EU makes two different sorts of law - Directives and Regulations.

Directives have to be brought into force by each country via domestic legislation by a set date. Regulations are directly effective.

Dealing with the fall out in practice, the big problem I have is that EU legislation is not written like legislation in the UK. It is usually in very vague terms; as an English lawyer, I am used to very precise wording and picking through the wording to see how my particular issue is dealt with.

M.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
It simply means that UK representatives (Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the UK government in the Council) have a voice. Presumably, one of the arguments against leaving the EU is that, if the UK wanted to export goods to EU states, we would then have to comply with EU rules (e.g. on product standards) while having no voice in the making of those rules.

The campaign in favour of leaving have made comparisons with Norway and Switzerland - associated with the EU with the benefits from that, but without having all the costs of membership. Which, of course, means that they have to comply with rules that they had no voice in formulating. By not being in the EU they have surrendered sovereignty to the EU, whereas if they were in the EU they would retain more sovereignty. I'm sure Switzerland and Norway are wonderful places, but they do seem to have adopted a very strange position by being not-quite-in the EU.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

An article on this issue today shed a new light on things for me.

You may have your own views about some of the arguments in this article, but it states the following:

quote:
True, the EU has its own parliament in Strasbourg. But only the European Commission, an unelected supranational bureaucracy, has the power to propose and draft EU legislation. The Strasbourg parliament can reject but not repeal or replace these "directives"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-01/dal-santo-britain's-history-almost-demands-a-brexit-happen/7209620

Is this accurate? If so it's bad.

[Edited to deal with bizarre URL coding fail, I'll just leave you with an unadorned link.]

[ 01. March 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

Is it accurate? It's an intelligent, well-written, well-informed argument with sources. It contains plenty of accurate statements.

I have some problems with it. The argument compares Britain and Australia to the EU, to show that the EU is undemocratic. The first two of these are countries. The third is a federation of countries. They are not the same thing.

The author says that "only the European Commission, an unelected supranational bureaucracy, has the power to propose and draft EU legislation". One of the links in the article (to a page on EU law-making) says that the EU Parliament "has a right of legislative initiative that allows it to ask the Commission to submit a proposal [for a new law]". So, to me, this claim looks true in a strict sense, but misleading. It is normal, isn't it, for government departments to 'propose and draft' legislation (rather than new laws being proposed and drafted by backbench Members of Parliament)? It's normal in the UK, at least.

Perhaps the author's main objection is that, while the governments who do this are elected, the European Commission is not. Fair enough - I can see where they're 'coming from'. I guess one answer to this is that the EU is a federation of countries, not a country. It doesn't have an elected executive, any more than citizens of member states of other groups of countries (like the United Nations, NATO or the Council of Europe) can elect the heads of those international bodies.

The author says that "Somewhere between half and two thirds of the laws and regulations in force in Britain have their origins in Brussels' unaccountable couloirs". However, the House of Commons Library pointed out that "there is no totally accurate, rational or useful way of calculating the percentage of national laws based on or influenced by the EU." (source). So the article asserts an opinion as a fact. The House of Commons Library go on to say that (while there are difficulties with all ways of calculating this) "it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts". So, by saying that the figure is between 50% and two-thirds, the author presents the highest realistic figure as the lowest one, which (to me) looks misleading.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
The argument compares Britain and Australia to the EU, to show that the EU is undemocratic. The first two of these are countries. The third is a federation of countries. They are not the same thing.

The EU is going to become a country, swallowing up all its members as it goes. That is its stated ambition, its eventual goal. And I see very little hope that when that happens it will be any more democratic than it is now.

The only question to my mind is whether Britain will be able to escape that fate in the future if we vote to stay in now. If not, then the only option is to get out while we still can.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The EU is going to become a country, swallowing up all its members as it goes. That is its stated ambition, its eventual goal. And I see very little hope that when that happens it will be any more democratic than it is now.

While an eventual union into a (presumably) federal European state is the logical end of the "greater political union" aspiration in the EU founding documents, there is no certainty about that happening. I see no appetite at all anywhere in Europe for a move in that direction. The governments of France, Germany, Austria or anywhere else are not going to support such a move, and that will be reflected in the European Parliament and Councils. I agree it will happen, I will be very surprised if it happens in my lifetime (or, delighted to be the worlds oldest man).

As for the level of democracy within such a European State, why should it be the same as the current EU? If it was to happen in the next few years the first demand every nation would make when drawing up the treaty would be that it holds real democratic power in the Parliament and an executive either appointed by the Parliament (in a manner not too disimilar to the UK PM and Cabinet) or directly elected (in a manner not too dissimilar to the various Presidents in Europe). It will also probably need formal alliances of national political parties to form a small number of European parties to function. Of course, none of the national governments in Europe want to give up any power, which is why it isn't going to happen soon. But, when it happens it will of necessity involve a significant shake-up of European institutions.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I see no appetite at all anywhere in Europe for a move in that direction.

Absolutely. We've already seen that fiscal transfers of any kind of off the page - so any kind of supranational state is off the cards (except in the unlikely case that everyone becomes German).

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As a small clarification, the £35k threshold only applies to Tier 2 visas - non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job (or, non-EU citizen dependents of non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job).

Thanks Alan. Anything that dampens my wrath is welcome to me. However, it seems there is a threshhold: GBP 18K. Were my wife from any EU state my understanding is there is no threshold. If so, this is straightforward discrimination in favour of EU nationals.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Incidentally, Cod, it's a drastic oversimplification to say that the EU makes laws and they instantly come into force everywhere in the EU. In most cases, it is a matter of to what extent the individual states are or are not, obliged to introduce legislation that gives effect to a directive within the state's own legal system and how rigid the timetable is.

Hardly the point. It is a normal part of the legislative process in any well ordered country that there is a time delay for implementation, otherwise the law cannot be administered. The point is that the UK cannot legally resist implementation, even by its own democratically elected parliament. Accordingly we have the bizarre situation where a democracy cannot choose its own laws.

If my understanding is correct, this:

quote:
There's often quite a lot of flexibility. UK politicians, particularly the minor ones, have a nasty habit of blaming the EU for compelling them to impose changes they want to impose but they think people will grumble about. Rather than admitting, 'we don't have to do this but we've decided to', they find it easier to say that its all Europe's fault.

... is flat wrong. There is no choice. As a point of interest, is it true that the UK government is prevented by EU regulations from removing VAT on sanitary products?

And this

quote:
The trouble is, that UK constitution also suffers very badly from democratic deficit. As it functions at the moment, it cannot be defended.

is also a problematic remark. The UK constitution is premised on Parliamentary supremacy. While there may be some belineaged barnicles in the House of Lords, real power lies in the democratically elected Commons. Functionally speaking, if not legally, the UK is a democratic republic. Yes, we can quibble about the electoral system, but at least every member of the Commons has been directly voted for. No one in the European Council or Commission has been.

For what it's worth, I think the UK could quite easily reform its constitution, although I suspect that were it to do so within the EU, EU law would probably find an irremovable way in. So unless one thinks that the UK should permanently give up its sovereignty, constitutional reform would be more safely done outside.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
We saw this with Greece recently. A democratically elected government unable to implement its policies because its hands are tied by financial commitments to the EU.
But, the same restrictions would have largely been in place without the EU - if previous Greek governments (democratically elected) had taken out loans from US or Asian financial institutions then the current Greek government would have had it's hands tied by those financial commitments.

Of course, there are additional issues relating to membership of the Eurozone which puts additional limitations through an inability to set interest rates. But, again if Greece had not entered the Eurozone (a decision taken by the democratically elected governments of Greece) the current government wouldn't have been free to change interest rates by a considerable margin.

I think no one involved in the accession of Greece to the euro comes out with any credit, if you'll pardon the awful pun. The reality is that the Greeks were strongly encouraged to join, despite it being an open secret that its government's balance sheet was a joke. The reality is that had Greece not joined the Euro, its government would have borrowed at higher interest rates, and hence borrowed an awful lot less. There is no justification for the way the EU has handled Greece.

Alwyn,

quote:
You wrote that the European Commission is entitled to "make laws". The EU says that the Commission "initiates" the law-making process and that "The vast majority of European laws are adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council." (source). The UK has representatives in both. This doesn't mean that the UK can block anything it wants to - but it also doesn't mean that the UK is without influence when EU is made.

It simply means that UK representatives (Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the UK government in the Council) have a voice. Presumably, one of the arguments against leaving the EU is that, if the UK wanted to export goods to EU states, we would then have to comply with EU rules (e.g. on product standards) while having no voice in the making of those rules.

Thanks for this - it helps my understanding.

I think the point is for me that under present arrangements, a law can be imposed on the UK (or any particular EU state) by other countries. This is problematic, given the extreme variety of cultures within the EU.

It is true that the UK outside the EU would have to comply with EU rules on product standards etc. Presumably this is precisely what already happens with regards to UK exports to any other country in the world, ie, a much larger area than the EU. It doesn't seem to be a problem. In any event, if the EU's lawmaking powers were restricted to trade, as they used to be, this referendum would probably not be happening. Furthermore, I note there is already considerable worldwide standardisation on such things, so I question the extent of the detriminent here. While it is true that the Norwegians and the Swiss labour under some discriminatory trading rules, neither are at all keen to join the EU, both are wealthy, and the UK has a considerably larger economy than either of them.

Alan again:

quote:
While an eventual union into a (presumably) federal European state is the logical end of the "greater political union" aspiration in the EU founding documents, there is no certainty about that happening. I see no appetite at all anywhere in Europe for a move in that direction.

I would probably add "at the moment". Also it is fair to note that any Eurosceptic could point out that they have been told the same for decades now, yet integration has continued anyway, often quite clearly in the face of public opinion in countries other than Britain.

I will make the final comment that the outcome of David Cameron's negotiations do indicate the the EU cannot reform itself. It is simply too unwieldly. I think this gives rise to two questions. First, whether it is likely to be fit for purpose in the future - there is a very mid-20th century feel about the way it goes about its business. Second, there is most definately plenty of Euroscepticism outside Britain. A Brexit might result in a reformed EU - although this is unpredictable.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

If my understanding is correct, this:

quote:
There's often quite a lot of flexibility. UK politicians, particularly the minor ones, have a nasty habit of blaming the EU for compelling them to impose changes they want to impose but they think people will grumble about. Rather than admitting, 'we don't have to do this but we've decided to', they find it easier to say that its all Europe's fault.
... is flat wrong. There is no choice.

Your understanding is misleading. Whilst there are certain instances in which the specific details of regulations are spelled out, in the main there are usually a set of general principles which can be implemented in multiple ways, in which the details and timetable is left up to individual countries.

quote:

is it true that the UK government is prevented by EU regulations from removing VAT on sanitary products?

No. The EU specifies a floor - of 5% - to the level of VAT that may be levied on goods which are not VAT exempt. The UK could simply make sanitary products VAT exempt (as Ireland does).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It is true that the UK outside the EU would have to comply with EU rules on product standards etc.

as well as common industry standards, common labor protection standards and common environmental standards.

quote:

Presumably this is precisely what already happens with regards to UK exports to any other country in the world, ie, a much larger area than the EU.

No, the single market (which is what those who call for the UK to be part of the EFTA are actually calling for) is more than just a free trade area with no taxes or quotas.

The UK is unlikely to get a 'free trade' agreement with the EU in the sense you refer to, generally politics favors 'agreement platforms' rather than bilateral agreements - and so the UK would be told to join EFTA (in which case see my first paragraph).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Cod, I recognise some of your points, but most of us have actually benefitted from the EU 'meddling', as you might well put it, in our laws. The working time directive means that we have better entitlement to holidays and hours than we would have without it. Back in the 1997 election, part of the Conservative election message was 'vote for us for freedom from nasty Europe telling you how much paid holiday we've got to give you'.

There are a lot of other reasons why they lost that election, but that is yet another example of why they deserved to.

A more obscure example is that the EU public procurement regime is a lot more liberal and rational than the UK one that preceded it. That was dreadful. Pedantic and inflexible it gave the impression that it was designed to trip people up. The EU regime actually encourages good procurement practice.

Even though some EU regulation is irritating, there are plenty of other examples where the EU's regulatory impact has been largely beneficial.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, Labour used to be hostile to the EU as a capitalist club, then warmed to it, because of the social chapter, and is still fairly warm, but has reservations over the superfluity of neo-liberalism. I suppose it depends partly on whether you want neo-liberalism administered (partly) from Brussels, or neo-liberalism administered rough and raw up the jacksie by Boris, Gove, et. al. Most people in Labour seems to be inclining to the former, although yer Jez is looking a bit piano about it.

[ 03. March 2016, 14:51: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Labour used to be hostile to the EU as a capitalist club, then warmed to it, because of the social chapter, and is still fairly warm, but has reservations over the superfluity of neo-liberalism.

That pretty much sums up my thinking about the EU over the years.

My current reservation is over TTIP, which removes 'sovreignty' in many areas - however, I understand that it would be easier to fight TTIP within the EU if we worked with other MEPs who are opposed to it.

If there was BREXIT we'd likely have TTIP forced on us by the US

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Labour used to be hostile to the EU as a capitalist club, then warmed to it, because of the social chapter, and is still fairly warm, but has reservations over the superfluity of neo-liberalism.
That pretty much sums up my thinking about the EU over the years.

Mine too, except that I was never too hot on the social chapter. It appeared to me as too little, too late.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That pretty much sums up my thinking about the EU over the years.

My current reservation is over TTIP, which removes 'sovreignty' in many areas - however, I understand that it would be easier to fight TTIP within the EU if we worked with other MEPs who are opposed to it.

If there was BREXIT we'd likely have TTIP forced on us by the US

A post BREXIT administration of rump Conservatives who had campaigned for it would lie on their backs towards TTIP and wave their little paws in the air.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I see the French president has fired the first shot in the *you can check out but you can't leave* campaign. He's spoken of "consequences", one of which being a strange irony that the UK could end up with greater, not lesser, influx of migrants if it leaves the EU.

H'mmmm.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That pretty much sums up my thinking about the EU over the years.

My current reservation is over TTIP, which removes 'sovreignty' in many areas - however, I understand that it would be easier to fight TTIP within the EU if we worked with other MEPs who are opposed to it.

If there was BREXIT we'd likely have TTIP forced on us by the US
A post BREXIT administration of rump Conservatives who had campaigned for it would lie on their backs towards TTIP and wave their little paws in the air.

Isn't TTIP directly in opposition to the concept of sovereignty, to a greater extent than anything the 'Kippers and Euro-sceptics can imagine on one of their more febrile days?

So having saved our sovereignty from Brussels they sell it to corporate interests? Like it hasn't gone there already [Frown]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As a small clarification, the £35k threshold only applies to Tier 2 visas - non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job (or, non-EU citizen dependents of non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job).
Thanks Alan. Anything that dampens my wrath is welcome to me. However, it seems there is a threshhold: GBP 18K. Were my wife from any EU state my understanding is there is no threshold. If so, this is straightforward discrimination in favour of EU nationals.

Well, it's discrimination. Indeed, bigotry might be an appropriate term. It's a xenophobic jerk against all immigrants. It's just that being in the EU protects some immigrants (those from the EU) from the worst excesses of the stupidity of politicians pandering to racists. The way to end that discrimination isn't to leave the EU and extend the idiocy to all immigrants, but to cancel these ridiculous rules and stop trying to keep racists bastards happy.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As a small clarification, the £35k threshold only applies to Tier 2 visas - non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job (or, non-EU citizen dependents of non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job).
Thanks Alan. Anything that dampens my wrath is welcome to me. However, it seems there is a threshhold: GBP 18K. Were my wife from any EU state my understanding is there is no threshold. If so, this is straightforward discrimination in favour of EU nationals.

As Alan states above - this isn't so much a case of anyone discriminating in favour of EU nationals so much as the UK government trying to discriminate against foreigners generally and being prevented from discriminating against EU nationals by EU regulations.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I see the French president has fired the first shot in the *you can check out but you can't leave* campaign. He's spoken of "consequences", one of which being a strange irony that the UK could end up with greater, not lesser, influx of migrants if it leaves the EU.

I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that one of the most despicable aspects of this debate is the way people on both sides are playing on people's fears rather than on the positive arguments for and against.

That is no way to ensure an informed discussion ahead of the vote nor to achieve the best outcome. Fear is not a good basis for policy.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that one of the most despicable aspects of this debate is the way people on both sides are playing on people's fears rather than on the positive arguments for and against.

I was thinking about this very aspect this morning (in the light of Ian Duncan Smith's hypocritical wah-wah they're being so nasty to us article. It's in the Mail. Find it yourselves.)

It is, of course, ironic, that the things that most make the EU worth being in - cross-border environmental controls, free movement of people, workers' rights, common standards, joint policy decisions, amongst others - are exactly the things that Cameron et al hate.

So it's not exactly a surprise that he doesn't stand up and say "You are protected from working more than 48 hours a week by our membership of the EU". The best arguments are the ones that will be political suicide for him to make, and the ones he tried hardest to negotiate away.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There is also a reverse weirdness, that I sometimes find myself supporting Cameron when I see him making a particular speech on Europe. I just can't get the hang of this.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Bottom line for me is this:
Looking at what we know about the EU, its governance, etc, would I choose to join if the UK weren't already in the "club".
So, do I want to join something that is a byword for corruption, mismanagement, disastrous fiscal control, etc?
No.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Bottom line for me is this:
Looking at what we know about the EU, its governance, etc, would I choose to join if the UK weren't already in the "club".
So, do I want to join something that is a byword for corruption, mismanagement, disastrous fiscal control, etc?
No.

You can't look at the downsides without the benefits, such as those mentioned by Doc Tor above, and the EU Objective funding that has kept a lot of social services running in poorer areas of South Wales.

As for corruption and mismanagement would you like to compare and contrast the EU with the UK? Our MPs expenses saga doesn't look good even compared to that of MEPs and our defence procurement has always been been a model of mismanagement.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Bottom line for me is this:
Looking at what we know about the EU, its governance, etc, would I choose to join if the UK weren't already in the "club".
So, do I want to join something that is a byword for corruption, mismanagement, disastrous fiscal control, etc?
No.

You already have those three at national level with MPs expenses, government bailouts for Tory councils, gerrymandering, PFI, IT projects, defence spending, austerity, tax evasion on an industrial scale - the list is not exhaustive.

You can argue you don't want more of it, but you can't argue that you want to leave because you don't want it at all.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Bottom line for me is this:
Looking at what we know about the EU, its governance, etc, would I choose to join if the UK weren't already in the "club".
So, do I want to join something that is a byword for corruption, mismanagement, disastrous fiscal control, etc?
No.
You already have those three at national level with MPs expenses, government bailouts for Tory councils, gerrymandering, PFI, IT projects, defence spending, austerity, tax evasion on an industrial scale - the list is not exhaustive.

You can argue you don't want more of it, but you can't argue that you want to leave because you don't want it at all.

being fair, government bailouts for governing party councils - Labour are just as bed when they're in the driving seat. Looking after your own isn't a Tory besetting sin, it's a government one.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Oh, I'm far from suggesting Labour are squeaky clean on this: PFI was/is an utter catastrophe, many of the IT projects it signed off on just fell apart after wasting billions, and working tax credits was probably the worst idea anyone's had in a very long time.

But to suggest that our home-grown politicians are models of probity and excellence, while those rascally Europeans are just in it for what they can get, is naive at best.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Or, indeed, that Westminster/ Whitehall don't produce any regulations, red tape or other manifestations of bureaucracy without any help from Brussels.

Because they do. Shitloads of it.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

One thing occurs to me:

The Outers say that Britain could negotiate free trade deals with Europe from outside the EU, but who do they imagine will be leading those negotiations?

Are they relying on David Cameron negotiating a settlement he campaigned against, even though they also think he failed utterly to negotiate a settlement the first time round? Or do they think popular acclaim will sweep Mr Farage, Mr Johnson, Mr Duncan Smith, Mr Gove and Mr Galloway to power on a tide of Euroscepticism?

[ 04. March 2016, 21:29: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
One thing occurs to me:

The Outers say that Britain could negotiate free trade deals with Europe from outside the EU

They are frankly deluded. Whilst it is technically true that the UK could (as well as renegotiate individual deals with other blocs who currently have agreements with the EU), in reality no one has the appetite to tie up legislative and executive resources in hammering out yet another bilateral agreement. The UK would get told to join EFTA (and thus comply with the common rules on production standards, the environment and labor protection for a start) - even the US have made it clear that they'd rather deal with the UK inside the EU when it comes to negotiating trade deals.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The UK might get told to join EFTA but why would the existing members of EFTA want anything to do with a post-industrial giant with delusions of grandeur?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

It's a depressing choice between staying in an unreformed EU and having decisions imposed on us and having to argue our way out of them each time, or going it alone in considerable uncertainty with only half the population behind it, and the cost of everything going up.

I really don't fancy either option now but don't want to waste a vote by not voting at all on something as important as this.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The UK might get told to join EFTA but why would the existing members of EFTA want anything to do with a post-industrial giant with delusions of grandeur?

Oh absolutely; accession to the EFTA would be anything but straight forward. I was mainly addressing the claim (made elsewhere) that all the free trade arrangements the UK enjoys via being in the EU could be rapidly duplicated bilaterally.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
chris stiles: I was mainly addressing the claim (made elsewhere) that all the free trade arrangements the UK enjoys via being in the EU could be rapidly duplicated bilaterally.

And the delusion that the UK wouldn't need to adhere to regulations if they did so.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The UK might get told to join EFTA but why would the existing members of EFTA want anything to do with a post-industrial giant with delusions of grandeur?

Well, they might like to actually export their goods into a market of 80 million people.

[Roll Eyes]

But I'll be voting to stay in. Part of me wants to vote to exit just to spite the Scottish because they really don't like us English.

But on the whole I would prefer us to be inside the EU, if only to use whatever veto and influence we have to stop further integration from happening, and to get as much out of them as possible.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well, they might like to actually export their goods into a market of 80 million people.

Where are the other 16mil going to come from?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well, they might like to actually export their goods into a market of 80 million people.

Where are the other 16mil going to come from?

Us Conservatives spend three or four times more than poor people like you, so that will round it up.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But on the whole I would prefer us to be inside the EU, if only to use whatever veto and influence we have to stop further integration from happening, and to get as much out of them as possible.

There is that, but if Corbyn gets in at the next election you can kiss goodbye to any kind of sensible arguments for opting out of whatever. If we leave the EU he'll still have a good go at wrecking the country, but at least he won't be able to agree to some of the EU's more barking ideas. Which is why I'm sort of leaning towards Out.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ariel: There is that, but if Corbyn gets in at the next election you can kiss goodbye to any kind of sensible arguments for opting out of whatever. If we leave the EU he'll still have a good go at wrecking the country, but at least he won't be able to agree to some of the EU's more barking ideas. Which is why I'm sort of leaning towards Out.

Absolutely nothing in that post makes any logical sense. I get it that you're against Corbyn. By all means go ahead, that's your prerogative. But I'm astonished by the amount of illogical bullshit people have to come up with to justify that.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The UK might get told to join EFTA but why would the existing members of EFTA want anything to do with a post-industrial giant with delusions of grandeur?

We're the fifth-largest economy in the world, I think lots of people would want to do business with us.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The UK might get told to join EFTA but why would the existing members of EFTA want anything to do with a post-industrial giant with delusions of grandeur?
We're the fifth-largest economy in the world, I think lots of people would want to do business with us.

That's where we are now, having been a member of the EC/EU for forty years. A lot of our current economic activity is with member states of the EU.

[ 05. March 2016, 15:22: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The UK might get told to join EFTA but why would the existing members of EFTA want anything to do with a post-industrial giant with delusions of grandeur?
We're the fifth-largest economy in the world, I think lots of people would want to do business with us.
That's where we are now, having been a member of the EC/EU for forty years. A lot of our current economic activity is with member states of the EU.

And a lot of it isn't, and I'm sure a lot of it would continue to be if we left the EU.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: And a lot of it isn't, and I'm sure a lot of it would continue to be if we left the EU.

And they would demand that UK products comply with the same rules and standards that they currently have to.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: And a lot of it isn't, and I'm sure a lot of it would continue to be if we left the EU.
And they would demand that UK products comply with the same rules and standards that they currently have to.

If a British company wants to sell its products to, say, the United States, it has to comply with US standards. Ditto for any other country, presumably?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: If a British company wants to sell its products to, say, the United States, it has to comply with US standards. Ditto for any other country, presumably?

Yes, of course. Now. within the EU, the UK needs to comply with EU standards if it wants to sell something to another EU country. After a possible Brexit, the UK will still need to comply with EU standards if it wants to sell something to an EU country. The difference is that it won't have anything to say about those standards.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: If a British company wants to sell its products to, say, the United States, it has to comply with US standards. Ditto for any other country, presumably?
Yes, of course. Now. within the EU, the UK needs to comply with EU standards if it wants to sell something to another EU country. After a possible Brexit, the UK will still need to comply with EU standards if it wants to sell something to an EU country. The difference is that it won't have anything to say about those standards.

Right, but we have a healthy export market to lots of countries outside of the EU with no say in what those countries' standards are. I struggle, therefore, to find this to be a big deal.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I struggle, therefore, to find this to be a big deal.

But many Brexiters do: they cite ditching the many EU regulations regarding the standards of manufactured goods and supplied services as one of the main reasons for leaving, without apparently realising they'll all still apply. Or that they'll no longer have any say whatsoever in what those regulations require.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: Right, but we have a healthy export market to lots of countries outside of the EU with no say in what those countries' standards are. I struggle, therefore, to find this to be a big deal.

It does render one of the arguments, namely "the UK needs to leave the EU because within it, we need to comply with standards set outside of us", moot.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: Right, but we have a healthy export market to lots of countries outside of the EU with no say in what those countries' standards are. I struggle, therefore, to find this to be a big deal.
It does render one of the arguments, namely "the UK needs to leave the EU because within it, we need to comply with standards set outside of us", moot.

But presumably only insofar as one is exporting a product or service into the EU?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But presumably only insofar as one is exporting a product or service into the EU?

So it's okay that UK citizens have a lower standard of product or service? Interesting argument you put forward: tell me more.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: But presumably only insofar as one is exporting a product or service into the EU?

The UK will continue to export to EU countries, even after a Brexit (assuming that we'll let you).

Currently, just under half of UK exports is to other EU contries. I've seen websites bragging "it's less than half, so we can do without them." It isn't as easy as that. Halting your exports to those countries will have a massive effect on your industry.

Saying "after a Brexit, we'll simply take our exports to other countries" isn't as easy as you think. If those countries wanted more of your stuff, they'd have bought it already.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So it's okay that UK citizens have a lower standard of product or service? Interesting argument you put forward: tell me more.

There's an interesting assumption buried in your statement here [Biased]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So it's okay that UK citizens have a lower standard of product or service? Interesting argument you put forward: tell me more.
There's an interesting assumption buried in your statement here

An assumption that the UK government have worked hard to improve regulations for consumers, over and above those that already exist EU wide, would indeed be interesting, nay, praiseworthy.

But if you think that on leaving the EU, we'll be living in a paradise of untainted food, copper-bottomed contracts, sparkling beaches, the freshest air, and white goods built to the very highest standards, I have several bridges you might be interested in purchasing, all on very reasonable terms.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: But presumably only insofar as one is exporting a product or service into the EU?
The UK will continue to export to EU countries, even after a Brexit (assuming that we'll let you).

Of course trade will continue. In the same way that Britain traded with the European continent before 1972.

quote:
Currently, just under half of UK exports is to other EU contries. I've seen websites bragging "it's less than half, so we can do without them." It isn't as easy as that. Halting your exports to those countries will have a massive effect on your industry.

Who makes this claim? It does seem rather foolish and I can't imagine any serious person would say that. (That said, I understand there is some debate about whether some of our exports to the EU are actually exports out of the EU but routed through Rotterdam. Not sure what the figures are.)

quote:
Saying "after a Brexit, we'll simply take our exports to other countries" isn't as easy as you think. If those countries wanted more of your stuff, they'd have bought it already.

Well of course they can only buy our stuff subject to whatever trade agreements have been made by the EU.

[ 05. March 2016, 17:05: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But presumably only insofar as one is exporting a product or service into the EU?
So it's okay that UK citizens have a lower standard of product or service? Interesting argument you put forward: tell me more.

The good folk of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Japan don't seem to suffer from imploding televisions or leaky fridges as a result of not being members of the European Union.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: Of course trade will continue. In the same way that Britain traded with the European continent before 1972.

The situation after a Brexit isn't necessarily the same as before 1972. People just assume that they'll get the same trade conditions as Norway or Switzerland have. Upthread someone accused the French president of playing on people's fears when he said that the UK won't necessarily have those conditions. The thing is: he wasn't playing on people's irrational fears. He was making a direct threat.

I believe that these threats are very real. Of course, there will still be trade between the UK and the EU after a Brexit. But I very much it will be under the same conditions.

quote:
Anglican't: Well of course they can only buy our stuff subject to whatever trade agreements have been made by the EU.

You don't get it.

Current situation:
The UK exports to some countries within the EU. For these countries, it has to comply with EU standards. As an EU member, it has a say in those standards.
The UK exports to some countries outside the EU. For these countries, it has to comply with their standards.

After a Brexit:
The UK exports to some countries within the EU, but under worse conditions. For these countries, it still has to comply with EU standards. It has no say in those standards.
The UK exports to some countries outside the EU. For these countries, it has to comply with their standards.

However you look at it, it is a worsening.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: Of course trade will continue. In the same way that Britain traded with the European continent before 1972.
The situation after a Brexit isn't necessarily the same as before 1972. People just assume that they'll get the same trade conditions as Norway or Switzerland have.

I think Britain can negotiate its own position with the EU and, as the world's fifth-largest economy, is well-placed to do so. I don't see why we can't negotiate a much better arrangement than Norway or Switzerland: we have the economic clout.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: I think Britain can negotiate its own position with the EU and, as the world's fifth-largest economy, is well-placed to do so. I don't see why we can't negotiate a much better arrangement than Norway or Switzerland: we have the economic clout.

First, a lot of people will be very pissed over a Brexit. And they can afford to negotiate hard: reducing the trade between the EU and the UK will hit you harder than us. And repeating myself again: the UK will have to comply with EU standards for export to the EU.

Another thing, projections are that the UK will be a mid-level player on the world market around 2050, overtaken by a number of Asian countries. Do you really want the world to set the standards for you?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The good folk of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Japan don't seem to suffer from imploding televisions or leaky fridges as a result of not being members of the European Union.

Four of those countries have reasonable records in consumer protection and environmental controls.

But considering the published comments of the more enthusiastic Brexiters, that they would seek to loosen regulations requiring businesses to uphold higher standards is not just a reasonable assumption, but pretty much a given.

It's not that the UK government can't protect UK consumers if we leave the EU, it's that they won't, deliberately and as a matter of policy.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And they can afford to negotiate hard: reducing the trade between the EU and the UK will hit you harder than us.

How so? My understanding is that the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa, which would suggest that the EU needs British markets much more (if you want to look at things in those terms).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

How so? My understanding is that the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa

Is true in total monetary terms - but that's just because it's the sum of multiple smaller flows.

In percentage terms, 45% of the UKs exports are to the EU, conversely 16% of the EU exports are to the UK.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: How so? My understanding is that the EU exports more to the UK than vice versa

UK–EU trade represents almost half of your exports, it represents a significant smaller portion of ours. We can lose a large portion of it, or try to divert it, much easier than you.

Another reason why the EU will be tough negotiators is: if it gives good trade conditions to the UK, other countries will follow its example and leave too. It would be the end of the EU. The reason why Norway and Switzerland got relatively good conditions in the past was exactly because we hoped this would entice them to become EU members. That was the whole idea. The situation would be rather the opposite here.

If I were the EU negotiator, after an Out vote in the British referendum, I would let the UK simmer for a looooong time. Brexit means that they need to pay the same tariffs as everyone else, that's the starting point and we leave it there until at least after you've left. Yes, this would lead to a slight loss to the EU, but we can take it, and we can divest to other countries easier (once again, because the UK represents a smaller portion of our trade).

Sure, a deal would come out of it eventually, but I'd have a couple of rather good trumps in my hand to make it move my way.

You're betting your country's future on negotiations that will happen after the referendum, and on which your country's position is much weaker than you think. Good luck with that.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

If I were the EU negotiator, after an Out vote in the British referendum, I would let the UK simmer for a looooong time.

You're betting your country's future on negotiations that will happen after the referendum, and on which your country's position is much weaker than you think. Good luck with that.

Secondly, you don't even need to assume malign intent. All governments have limited legislative and negotiating time - for the foreseeable future there are going to be a whole raft of trade issues around TTIP that will be the first priority in most European capitals and trade departments.

Getting a bilateral trade agreement going with the UK will be a distant second priority (if not a third - behind better agreements with China, which is a far larger - and growing - market).

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If I were the EU negotiator, after an Out vote in the British referendum, I would let the UK simmer for a looooong time. Brexit means that they need to pay the same tariffs as everyone else, that's the starting point and we leave it there until at least after you've left. Yes, this would lead to a slight loss to the EU, but we can take it, and we can divest to other countries easier (once again, because the UK represents a smaller portion of our trade).

How many hundreds of thousands of European cars are sold in the UK each year? Do you think the bosses of Fiat, Renault, Citroen, VW, BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz are all going to stand idly by while Brussels whacks on the tariffs and places their products at a price disadvantage in a key market?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: How many hundreds of thousands of European cars are sold in the UK each year? Do you think the bosses of Fiat, Renault, Citroen, VW, BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz are all going to stand idly by while Brussels whacks on the tariffs and places their products at a price disadvantage in a key market?

You're grasping at straws. 7.4% of Germany's export goes to the UK. Almost 50% of the UK's export goes to the EU. Who has the most to lose here?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: How many hundreds of thousands of European cars are sold in the UK each year? Do you think the bosses of Fiat, Renault, Citroen, VW, BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz are all going to stand idly by while Brussels whacks on the tariffs and places their products at a price disadvantage in a key market?
You're grasping at straws. 7.4% of Germany's export goes to the UK. Almost 50% of the UK's export goes to the EU. Who has the most to lose here?

Both have something to lose, which is why I think trade will continue. It's in no-one's interests to disrupt it. We even managed a healthy trade with the continent during the Napoleonic Wars!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How many hundreds of thousands of European cars are sold in the UK each year? Do you think the bosses of Fiat, Renault, Citroen, VW, BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz are all going to stand idly by while Brussels whacks on the tariffs and places their products at a price disadvantage in a key market?

No, of course they're not going to do that.

They're going to whack on the tariffs on British-built cars and price them out the EU market.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
7.4% of Germany's export goes to the UK.

I've no idea what the value of Germany's exports are, but 7.4% of it is still, presumably, a heck of a lot of money.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: Both have something to lose, which is why I think trade will continue.

But not in the same proportion. Of course trade will continue. The question is under which conditions.

The fact that the EU is far less dependent on EU–UK trade than the UK gives it a negotiating advantage. They'll be pissed off after a Brexit, and worried that giving good conditions to the UK will give an incentive to other countries to leave. They'll be tied up with TTIP and Asian countries …

Sure, something will come out, but the UK trade with the EU will be under less favourable conditions, and it will still need to obey the same standards.

The fact that you need to claw back to Napolean times (Europe is very different now from what it was then) reveals how much your position is based on wishful thinking and fantasies.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: I've no idea what the value of Germany's exports are, but 7.4% of it is still, presumably, a heck of a lot of money.

50% of UK exports is far more important to the UK than 7.4% of German exports are to Germany. This gives a negotiating advantage.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The fact that you need to claw back to Napolean times (Europe is very different now from what it was then) reveals how much your position is based on wishful thinking and fantasies.

I was merely illustrating the fact that Anglo-European trade has continued under the hardiest of circumstances. I wasn't proposing Napoleonic Europe as a blueprint for today.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: I've no idea what the value of Germany's exports are, but 7.4% of it is still, presumably, a heck of a lot of money.
50% of UK exports is far more important to the UK than 7.4% of German exports are to Germany. This gives a negotiating advantage.

Yes it does, but business people are capitalists, and that means they will not let emotion get in the way of making money.

I thought that was a de facto position of the left; that capitalists will do anything to get the last penny out of a deal. If losing 7.4% of business is going to happen then they will negotiate to improve that situation.

Businesses don't get pissed off or emotional. They look at bottom lines, profit and loss accounts and economic viability. None of which need be affected by an ordelrly transition out of the EU and into EFTA.

The politicians may react emotionally but business leaders will educate them in short order!

Again though, I will be voting to remain in the EU.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
deano: If losing 7.4% of business is going to happen then they will negotiate to improve that situation.

Businesses don't get pissed off or emotional. They look at bottom lines, profit and loss accounts and economic viability.

You don't understand how negotiation works. It isn't about the absolute value of the deal. It's about the difference in the relative importance of the deal to both sides. Any shop keeper in the Middle East can tell you that. Without getting pissed off or emotional.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
deano: If losing 7.4% of business is going to happen then they will negotiate to improve that situation.

Businesses don't get pissed off or emotional. They look at bottom lines, profit and loss accounts and economic viability.
You don't understand how negotiation works. It isn't about the absolute value of the deal. It's about the difference in the relative importance of the deal to both sides. Any shop keeper in the Middle East can tell you that. Without getting pissed off or emotional.

I don't agree.

Perhaps for a shopkeepe in a culture where "losing face" is of importance.

The heads of Shell, BMW, EDF, and others don't do that. The bottom line is what makes the deal.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
deano: The heads of Shell, BMW, EDF, and others don't do that. The bottom line is what makes the deal.

Exactly. All these business make the deal, through the European Union. And in this deal, the UK has much more to lose than them. This gives them the leverage to cut a deal that is much more favourable to the EU than to the UK.

There's nothing emotional about this. This is pure business.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
deano: If losing 7.4% of business is going to happen then they will negotiate to improve that situation.

Businesses don't get pissed off or emotional. They look at bottom lines, profit and loss accounts and economic viability.
You don't understand how negotiation works. It isn't about the absolute value of the deal. It's about the difference in the relative importance of the deal to both sides. Any shop keeper in the Middle East can tell you that. Without getting pissed off or emotional.
I don't agree.

Perhaps for a shopkeepe in a culture where "losing face" is of importance.

The heads of Shell, BMW, EDF, and others don't do that. The bottom line is what makes the deal.

That might be how businesses do deals or how you imagine businesses do deals, but they key to these negotiations is that there would be a (very big) political dimension. For an example, look at the forthcoming referendum: the business lobby in Britain wants the UK to stay in, so if Cameron was to act on the basis of the "bottom line" would he even consider a referendum? Not for a moment. The referendum is a sop to those who voted for him and think "out" is a practical option plus a calculated opportunity to silence the Tory Euro-sceptics for a generation and destroy UKIP.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Once the UK is outside the EU, everything we export to the EU is vulnerable to surcharges and tariffs.

Yes, 7.4% of Germany's exports come to the UK. We can probably expect that to continue. It's the 50% of the UK's exports that are at risk. Knock a significant percentage of those out of the running, and EU countries will make up that difference by trading amongst themselves, easily making up any losses.

There are very few specific things that the UK makes that aren't made elsewhere in the EU. Increase the price of the imports by a few euros a unit, and folk will be looking for a new supplier. If they want to play hardball and protectionist, the UK, while not being toast, won't be doing at all well.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Just to take one example, cars. At present the UK produces a lot of Nissans, Hondas etc, many of which are sold elsewhere within the EU. A Brexit would mean these exports incur a duty, making them more expensive elsewhere in the EU - and, almost certainly reducing exports. The gap in the market will be filled by Renault, VW etc. Conversely, German built cars in the UK would be more expensive, and almost certainly sell less with UK built cars filling the gap in the market.

So, the hit on exports from the UK will be softened by an increase in domestic demand. And, the hit on other EU exporters to the UK market will be offset by increased demand elsewhere in the EU replacing the UK products. Of course, these are going to be small shifts in the market - there will still be UK built cars sold in the EU and vice versa. But, I would be incredibly surprised if the total number of cars sold by UK manufacturers didn't decrease - the losses in EU markets being larger than the gains in the UK market. Conversely, other EU manufacturers will probably see bigger gains in the EU than the losses in the UK.

And, of course, most of the cars built in the UK are from factories established by foreign companies. And, those factories were built in the UK because of access to the European market. It would take a major hit for those companies to close those factories and relocate to other EU countries. But, they wouldn't have any particular loyalty to the UK and they will be looking at the markets to decide whether to put new investment into their existing UK factories or to factories elsewhere in the EU.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I assume the sticking point in negotiations would be regulatory standards.

Germany would presumably prefer to lose 8% of its export market to tariffs than have 100% of its market undercut by cheap British imports that are cheap because Britain bypasses EU manufactoring or labour standards. Conversely, Britain would rather maintain the EU standards that we are already bound by than lose 50% of our export market.

Which isn't a disastrous outcome, but which confirms, as the In campaign has said all along, that leaving the EU would not free us from EU regulation.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

All this about trade doesn't matter very much: the "exit" lobby are concerned about immigration to the exclusion of almost everything else, but membership of the EEA, or a similar, practicable bundle of bilaterals, won't affect that at all.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
All this about trade doesn't matter very much: the "exit" lobby are concerned about immigration to the exclusion of almost everything else, but membership of the EEA, or a similar, practicable bundle of bilaterals, won't affect that at all.

On immigration, my understanding is that the EU has been considering imposing a quota of migrants on each EU country, and several EU countries, mainly in the eastern bloc, have made it clear they object. The EU won't be able to impose a quota of migrants on non-EU countries, which is going to be a definite plus factor for those worried about immigration.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
On immigration, my understanding is that the EU has been considering imposing a quota of migrants on each EU country, and several EU countries, mainly in the eastern bloc, have made it clear they object. The EU won't be able to impose a quota of migrants on non-EU countries, which is going to be a definite plus factor for those worried about immigration.

Because migrants, economic or otherwise, care deeply about national borders and are happy to stay behind artificial lines on the map.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The two separate issues of free movement of people within the EU and that of the refugee crisis from Syria and elsewhere have already merged to create confusion.
The Referendum on June 23rd is a farce in many ways. I mean how can the average British voter possibly have any real knowledge of the rights and wrongs of staying in the EU after 44 yrs? The vote is likely to be swung on manipulation of the masses and gut feelings of voters on the day.

One thing that has surprised me so far is the early stage at which the fear mongers are getting to work. I should have thought our Continental compatriots better practiced at keeping powder dry. Even though the vote likely to be a foregone conclusion, there is the danger of veiled threats and whiffs of desperation serving to heighten suspicion.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The Referendum on June 23rd is a farce in many ways. I mean how can the average British voter possibly have any real knowledge of the rights and wrongs of staying in the EU after 44 yrs? The vote is likely to be swung on manipulation of the masses and gut feelings of voters on the day.

So, the electorate are a stupid, bovine herd with no abilities to understand or comprehend.

44 years is a long time and the "sheeple" have short attention spans only suitable for watching X-Factor.

Perhaps a better view would be that the electorate know perfectly well what they are doing but don't have the time to vote on all legislation, so they have regular elections to vote people into Parliament to represent them in the main, but now and again questions arise that really do need the whole electorate to decide upon them.

What evidence do you have that the electorate don't understand the issues.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

What evidence do you have that the electorate don't understand the issues.

Well I have anecdotal evidence in that the people I've spoken to about it appear to be fixated by rhetoric without being able to point to any facts. For example, many seem to think that the EU costs the British taxpayer unspecified £billions with no return.

Given that the politicians don't even seem to be able to give out accurate numbers on this basic point, then I think it is fair to say that even those who are engaged in the Brexit campaign are getting their information from biased sources - most likely UKIP.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

I'll admit that I'm not fully informed, and not likely to be, Apparently able people argue for both choices.

Anyway, my old passport expired a few months back, and I renewed it. The new one (like the old one) says "European Union", so I suspect that, after a leave vote it will soon be invalid, and anyway that EU countries (at least) will institute delays at borders almost immediately.

Not keen on queuing with tens of millions of people for yet another new passport. Passport issuing is currently very efficient (less than a week for mine, including post both ways), but our rulers are cutting down as usual.

Chaos?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Passport issuing is currently very efficient (less than a week for mine, including post both ways).

Yes, I renewed mine last week. Did the online stuff and posted the photos on Monday, passports delivered on Saturday.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Anecdotally, people don't understand the issues, I am talking about friends and family. But I wonder if the politicians actually understand them, or are able to present them cogently, or without biased rhetoric?

I think having a referendum is bizarre, as it seems to (1) enshrine a leadership contest in the Tory party, and I suppose has (2), helped Cameron buy off his Euroskeptics, and possibly UKIP. OK, fair enough, I suppose the Tories have to air their internal divisions now and again. There's no reason why we shouldn't all join in.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

There will be many unintended consequences to all of this.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think having a referendum is bizarre

I think it's downright madness. The only logical reason seems to have been as a vote-winner in the General Election, but one that comes at the price of huge uncertainty and potentially mind-boggling political ramifications.

What politician in their right mind pledges to such a significant referendum, so likely to be influenced by some random current event, years down the line? Even a week is a long time in politics.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What politician in their right mind pledges to such a significant referendum

One who thinks the people should have the right to decide such an important issue?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm really not convinced the thinking was so high-minded.

I'm also not convinced that referenda are the best way of deciding an issue like this, precisely because it's so complex. The more you put things out to referendum, the more you undermine the whole point of established government and governance.

We are due a referendum of our own in France over an airport that's been in the planning for 50 years, and there is little doubt that this is a way of the political establishment washing its hands of the consequences instead of tackling the issue properly.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Referenda are profoundly undemocratic things - that's why dictators have always been so keen on them. Most people are too busy or to lazy to get to grips with the issues and cast their vote on the basis of the personalities lined up on each side. A classic example is the AV referendum a few years ago - offered the chance to change a dysfuntional and unpopular electoral system, people chose not to as the government had successfully portrayed it as something that nasty Nick Clegg wanted to do. Then a few years later the same people (of my acquaintance) were moaning about the unfair result of the general election.

Reducing complex issues to a binary choice is about as bone-headed a way of resolving them as it is possible to imagine. And yes, the only reason we are having this wretched referendum is because Tory Eurosceptics held a gun to Cameron's head. He doesn't give a stuff what the people think.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Referenda are profoundly undemocratic things - that's why dictators have always been so keen on them. Most people are too busy or to lazy to get to grips with the issues and cast their vote on the basis of the personalities lined up on each side. A classic example is the AV referendum a few years ago - offered the chance to change a dysfuntional and unpopular electoral system, people chose not to as the government had successfully portrayed it as something that nasty Nick Clegg wanted to do. Then a few years later the same people (of my acquaintance) were moaning about the unfair result of the general election.

I don't think that's necessarily irrational. Most people who want voting reform want some form of PR, and AV is not PR. For example, if one thinks it unjust that the several million UKIP and Green voters ended up with one MP apiece, it's surely even more unfair that under AV they could conceivably have ended up with zero.

quote:
Reducing complex issues to a binary choice is about as bone-headed a way of resolving them as it is possible to imagine.

I disagree, I think a referendum is an acknowledgement that some issues are orthogonal to others. That is, one could agree with Messrs Clegg or Miliband on welfare or economics but still think the UK should be out of the EU. Which is surely less reductionist than saying every possible political preference can be expressed in a single choice once every five years.

That said, though I am in favour of the referendum in principle, I agree it is being implemented in a particularly stupid way.

[ 07. March 2016, 13:58: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I think Britain can negotiate its own position with the EU and, as the world's fifth-largest economy, is well-placed to do so. I don't see why we can't negotiate a much better arrangement than Norway or Switzerland: we have the economic clout.

There are people who say that. I suspect Mr Grayling is one of them. I've heard Norman Lamont say much the same. It's a fatuous delusion. If the referendum goes in what I'd call the wrong way, the resentments that a Brexit would generate, would make the EU as determined to kick us in the teeth as they could get away with.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Anyway, my old passport expired a few months back, and I renewed it. The new one (like the old one) says "European Union", so I suspect that, after a leave vote it will soon be invalid, and anyway that EU countries (at least) will institute delays at borders almost immediately.

And if you think that would be inconvenient, imagine what a bugger it would be if you were living in another country and your passport suddenly became invalid.

(Tangent: UK passports may be fairly quick - IIRC about 6 weeks if you order it from overseas - but they are obscenely expensive. Also I suspect the process might be considerably less quick if every British expat in Europe suddenly applied for a new one at the same time.)

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Perhaps a better view would be that the electorate know perfectly well what they are doing but don't have the time to vote on all legislation, so they have regular elections to vote people into Parliament to represent them in the main, but now and again questions arise that really do need the whole electorate to decide upon them.

And how did this question arise? It arose due the electorate's interest in Ukip and general, possibly media generated, eyebrow raising as to whether the EU is taking us for a ride.

44 years of peace and prosperity should speak for itself so no need for a referendum one might think. So obviously there are issues. I still maintain the majority of the public are not fully aware of what these issues are, over and above those popularised twin bogeymen -- immigration and cost of membership.

One of the several things I don't understand is why 13 years of Labour, a pro European administration, didn't result in Britain joining the euro.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Anyway, my old passport expired a few months back, and I renewed it. The new one (like the old one) says "European Union", so I suspect that, after a leave vote it will soon be invalid, and anyway that EU countries (at least) will institute delays at borders almost immediately.

Not keen on queuing with tens of millions of people for yet another new passport. Passport issuing is currently very efficient (less than a week for mine, including post both ways), but our rulers are cutting down as usual.

Chaos?

Why would it be invalid? The document is issued by Her Majesty's Government, not the European Union, and part of it becoming obsolete doesn't necessarily the whole is invalid. This seems a rather spurious ground on which to decide whether to leave or remain.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the referendum goes in what I'd call the wrong way, the resentments that a Brexit would generate, would make the EU as determined to kick us in the teeth as they could get away with.

I don't know about you, but I'm not friends with people because of what they'd do to me if I wasn't friends with them. I don't have relationships with people for fear of what might happen if I terminated the relationship. Of all of the reasons for or against membership this one, which suggests that we should be blackmailed into remaining an EU member, seems to be the worst.

This argument, if true (and I'm not sure it is) strengthens my belief that we should leave, if anything. I don't want to bullied around by people who can't accept a frank difference of opinion.

[ 07. March 2016, 19:20: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the referendum goes in what I'd call the wrong way, the resentments that a Brexit would generate, would make the EU as determined to kick us in the teeth as they could get away with.
I don't know about you, but I'm not friends with people because of what they'd do to me if I wasn't friends with them. I don't have relationships with people for fear of what might happen if I terminated the relationship. Of all of the reasons for or against membership this one, which suggests that we should be blackmailed into remaining an EU member, seems to be the worst.

This argument, if true (and I'm not sure it is) strengthens my belief that we should leave, if anything. I don't want to bullied around by people who can't accept a frank difference of opinion.

Over the decades, if not centuries, it has been clear that governments, like other legal entities like limited companies, are much nastier than all but very few people. They also have a lot more power.

Should we leave I have no doubt that some of our former partners will be very unpleasant towards Britain and through that to the British. Just because they can.

[ 07. March 2016, 19:54: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

If the UK leaves the EU, then it loses the trade privileges it currently has with other EU countries. This isn't "what they'd do to me if I wasn't friends with them", this is what membership means. There are certain advantages that come with membership, and when you choose not to be a member anymore you lose them.

The UK may hope to get some of these privileges back in some form, but it is in no way entitled to them.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Anyway, my old passport expired a few months back, and I renewed it. The new one (like the old one) says "European Union", so I suspect that, after a leave vote it will soon be invalid, and anyway that EU countries (at least) will institute delays at borders almost immediately.

Not keen on queuing with tens of millions of people for yet another new passport. Passport issuing is currently very efficient (less than a week for mine, including post both ways), but our rulers are cutting down as usual.

I doubt very much that you will need a new passport.

Just as we, and millions of others of HM's subjects, must queue at the Heathrow gates, you will be able to queue at the Gare du Nord, and again at the German border, then the Belgian. Queuing at borders will become a part of your life.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

What, you mean that people are actually going to vote to leave? Plonkers.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a Brexit vote as many of those most committed to leave the EU seem to be older and these historically are the most likely to actually get out and vote.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a Brexit vote as many of those most committed to leave the EU seem to be older and these historically are the most likely to actually get out and vote.

Also (and I could be wrong on this) I get the feeling that there are more people who feel very strongly about Leave than people who feel very strongly about Remain.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't know about you, but I'm not friends with people because of what they'd do to me if I wasn't friends with them.

It's not about friends. It's about neighbours. And (if you don't have personal experience on this, count yourself lucky), neighbour disputes suck donkey balls.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I don't think that the EU will necessarily retaliate in the ways described above, but as I said before they won't need to for the effect to be the same.

There are lots of pressing concerns that the EU is currently dealing with - things like the debt crisis within the euro region, migration, relationships with Russia and China and so on.

The trade status of the UK will be very much a background concern - where the feelings of the EU could make a difference is that there probably won't be much goodwill to raise the priority of an issue that the UK will have seen to have brought on itself.

In the case of a Leave vote, Cameron will have to resign and an euroskeptic of some kind will take over - would they then be able to survive politically signing the EEA (which would be the easiest - and possibly only quick - way back into the single market) given that it would reintroduce such shibboleths as the dreaded (to the swivel-eyed brigade) working time directive?

Attempting to negotiate the terms of the EEA or trying to create an EEA-lite specifically for the UK would take a very long time because of the lack of appetite (see previous point).

The likeliest outcome is that a year after a vote to leave, the UK would be still out of the EEA and would have negotiated bilateral agreements with Ireland and Cyprus (who share the characteristics of being; a lot of trade in percentage terms with the UK, and having legislators that are likely to be relatively free of other concerns to concentrate on).

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Anyway, my old passport expired a few months back, and I renewed it. The new one (like the old one) says "European Union", so I suspect that, after a leave vote it will soon be invalid, and anyway that EU countries (at least) will institute delays at borders almost immediately.

Not keen on queuing with tens of millions of people for yet another new passport. Passport issuing is currently very efficient (less than a week for mine, including post both ways), but our rulers are cutting down as usual.
I doubt very much that you will need a new passport.

Just as we, and millions of others of HM's subjects, must queue at the Heathrow gates, you will be able to queue at the Gare du Nord, and again at the German border, then the Belgian. Queuing at borders will become a part of your life.

I thought the major distinction in passport controls was between Schengen and non-Schengen countries. Does the EU passport excuse UK citizens from any queues that (say) a US citizen can't currently avoid?

(The US Dept. of State says "When moving from one Schengen country to another, you do not need to show your passport until you exit the Schengen area.")

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

An EU Passport puts UK subjects into a different queue at Heathrow than US or other non-EU citizens. But, we still queue to enter our own country. But, just like everyone else, once we get past the queue to get into a Schengen country we have no more queues at borders until we try to exit the Schengen zone.

A Brexit would mean we'd need to join the non-EU lines when we get to France. And, we can have a UK subject queue at Heathrow and send the French and Germans to join the other Johnny Foreigner line. Though if the UK line moves any faster than the current EU line is something to be seen (I doubt it, indeed someone will find an excuse to shed a couple of immigration posts so all the lines run slower, if that were possible).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Having experienced passport processing on several occasions in Europe last year, I think there were occasionally extra hurdles as a non-EU person but they were pretty minor.

And yeah, Schengen. I think I may have mentioned earlier in this thread that Iceland to Denmark was an easier transit than any of the moves in and out of the UK.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.... In the case of a Leave vote, Cameron will have to resign and an euroskeptic of some kind will take over - would they then be able to survive politically signing the EEA (which would be the easiest - and possibly only quick - way back into the single market) given that it would reintroduce such shibboleths as the dreaded (to the swivel-eyed brigade) working time directive?. ...

It probably should not be the sole deciding reason for voting one way or the other in the referendum, but the present uninspiring government begins to look quite appealing when one compares it with the thought of what we'd have after a no vote. Cameron would resign. The PM would be either Boris or Gove. They would select their Cabinet from their rump Brexit conservative chums, each other + Duncan-Smith, Ghastly Grayling, some other nonentities and a few wood-worm has-beens from the 1990s to give the illusion of gravitas.

There's no obvious Chancellor or Foreign Secretary, by the way, in that lot.

The other person who would benefit would be Jeremy Corbyn. He and his line-up would look less thin if all they had to be compared with was that ministry-of-none-of-the-talents.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Queuing at borders will become a part of your life.

Only if regular international travel is already a part of your life. Which is unlikely to apply to many of those who are considering voting to leave the EU.

Seriously, people keep holding up freedom of movement throughout Europe as a benefit of EU membership, but for someone who has no intention of leaving the Uk except for the odd holiday it's a complete irrelevance at best. And at worst it's a big negative of EU membership because it means the UK gets flooded with foreigners and can't do a thing about it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There are two aspects of the freedom of movement in the EU.

One is the Schengen zone, without internal borders allowing one to travel freely without passing through passport control etc. In or out, UK subjects still pass through border controls to enter the zone and once there travel around without needing to get their passport out again. This is an irrelevance as in or out won't change anything.

The second is the freedom of EU citizens to live and work anywhere else in the EU without needing a work/residence visa. This is, of course, an intrinsic part of a common market for goods and services, so logically people who want to return to just a common market (or an equivalent free trade zone) will continue to accept this as part of that. Of course, they won't because there's a large dose of xenophobia and downright racism in their thinking. Though few people in the UK directly benefit from the freedom to work elsewhere in the EU, there would be many more who benefit indirectly - friends and relatives who take up the opportunity, colleagues who have worked elsewhere in the EU and bring back skills and contacts that benefit their employer (and, therefore the other employees), maybe even just that they enjoyed Auf Wiedersehen, Pet.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Seriously, people keep holding up freedom of movement throughout Europe as a benefit of EU membership, but for someone who has no intention of leaving the Uk except for the odd holiday it's a complete irrelevance at best. And at worst it's a big negative of EU membership because it means the UK gets flooded with foreigners and can't do a thing about it.

Well, I worry about the myopia. Because you aren't leaving the UK, you get to completely ignore the Polish plumbers, the Latvian waiter, the Spanish nurse, the German dentist, the Romanian care assistant et al. Of course none of these people affect your life in any way at all. How could they possibly?

As to your second comment? Seriously?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Marve, I think you are underestimating just how many British citizens are living in other EU countries at present. A bit of cursory googling tells me it’s about 2 million of us (out of a total of 5.5 million British nationals living in other countries over all).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The strongest argument for staying in the EU is the politicians supporting Brexit.

The likes of Duncan Smith are all nasty people in my view.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The strongest argument for staying in the EU is the politicians supporting Brexit.

The likes of Duncan Smith are all nasty people in my view.

Her Majesty isn't nasty though.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Her Majesty isn't nasty though.

Has she expressed herself on how people should vote in the referendum? I'm not aware that she has.

I suspect any who claim she wants to leave or remain are projecting onto her the assumption that 'she must think as I do'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The strongest argument for staying in the EU is the politicians supporting Brexit.

The likes of Duncan Smith are all nasty people in my view.

So if those politicians were on the "remain" side, you'd want us to leave?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The strongest argument for staying in the EU is the politicians supporting Brexit.

The likes of Duncan Smith are all nasty people in my view.
So if those politicians were on the "remain" side, you'd want us to leave?

This is the danger with referendums/referenda (both are acceptable apparently): the issue plays second fiddle to the personalities involved. I don't like Johnson or Gove, but nor do I much care for Cameron, May or Hunt. I will be doing my best to avoid the specious claptrap spouted by any of them and make up my own mind.

Pretty much made up already, I think it's ridiculous that we've got ourselves into a position where leaving is even possible. We don't have referenda on NATO or the UN or all the plethora of other international organisations we are, quite rightly, part of.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I worry about the myopia. Because you aren't leaving the UK, you get to completely ignore the Polish plumbers, the Latvian waiter, the Spanish nurse, the German dentist, the Romanian care assistant et al. Of course none of these people affect your life in any way at all. How could they possibly?

It's the implication that there's no way British people could do those jobs that I dislike the most. As if without the Poles and Latvians there would be nobody in the country capable of fixing a burst pipe or carrying food to a table.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In a list of reasons to vote one way or another, the personalities of the people expressing one view or another comes pretty close to the top of the stupid list. It's probably less stupid to toss a coin or draw some tarot cards.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I worry about the myopia. Because you aren't leaving the UK, you get to completely ignore the Polish plumbers, the Latvian waiter, the Spanish nurse, the German dentist, the Romanian care assistant et al. Of course none of these people affect your life in any way at all. How could they possibly?
It's the implication that there's no way British people could do those jobs that I dislike the most. As if without the Poles and Latvians there would be nobody in the country capable of fixing a burst pipe or carrying food to a table.

Of course there are plenty of people capable of doing those jobs (or, who would be capable with suitable education and training). It does seem like there is a distinct lack of people willing to do them (or willing to put in the time to learn to do them).

There are some jobs where there aren't enough people due to lack of investment by successive governments (Tory and Labour). The UK is chronically short of capacity to train all the nurses, care assistants, doctors and the like that we need. Which requires investment in our colleges and universities to increase the capacity. But, perhaps we don't need those places when other countries train more people than they need.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
We don't have referenda on NATO or the UN

If either of those organisations was seeking to take over as ruler of the UK then I'd bloody well hope we would have a referendum about it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, if the EU ever seeks to rule over the UK then there should be a referendum at that point. But, since that isn't the case there is no basis for a referendum at this time over that issue.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
We don't have referenda on NATO or the UN
If either of those organisations was seeking to take over as ruler of the UK then I'd bloody well hope we would have a referendum about it.

??? I don't remember reading that anywhere..maybe you see secret intelligence briefings that I'm not cleared for.

Speaking for myself and many people I know, the benefits of EU membership far outweigh any drawbacks. The ability to go and work anywhere in Europe at the drop of a hat has enriched us hugely. And yes, a lot of it was probably work that people in the respective countries could have done, but they didn't win the contract. It's a free market, but free markets are two-way things.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If either of those organisations was seeking to take over as ruler of the UK then I'd bloody well hope we would have a referendum about it.
??? I don't remember reading that anywhere..maybe you see secret intelligence briefings that I'm not cleared for.

Oh, come on. Ask Greece whether they're free and independent or ruled by the EU. And that's what the "in" crowd wants for the UK.

quote:
Speaking for myself and many people I know, the benefits of EU membership far outweigh any drawbacks.

By all means, vote for what suits your own interests. It's what I do every time.

quote:
The ability to go and work anywhere in Europe at the drop of a hat has enriched us hugely.

I simply cannot imagine a situation in which the ability to apply for a job in Vilnius or Lisbon would be of any benefit to me.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Pretty much made up already, I think it's ridiculous that we've got ourselves into a position where leaving is even possible. We don't have referenda on NATO or the UN or all the plethora of other international organisations we are, quite rightly, part of.

Do you think the referendum of 1975 was a mistake?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
This is the danger with referendums/referenda (both are acceptable apparently): the issue plays second fiddle to the personalities involved. I don't like Johnson or Gove, but nor do I much care for Cameron, May or Hunt. I will be doing my best to avoid the specious claptrap spouted by any of them and make up my own mind. ...

I agree, but who is involved on which side isn't completely irrelevant. It is not a matter of personality so much as judgement. If the people advocating one option seem to be consistently people whose judgement, wisdom and intellectual calibre one does not respect, whereas this is only true for some of those advocating the opposite option, that is a useful and legitimate indicator. On personality, I have no idea whether Farage, Galloway, Johnson, Gove or Grayling are good husbands and fathers. However, independently of this debate, they aren't a team for whose judgement, wisdom and intellectual calibre I have much regard.

Yes, many of those in the remain camp are fairly mediocre. Nevertheless, consistently, the remain camp appears to have the more credible people.

Furthermore, if I were to look around and find that the people who think like me are all the twerps and idiots, I hope that would inspire me to re-examine whether I should change my mind.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
The ability to go and work anywhere in Europe at the drop of a hat has enriched us hugely.
I simply cannot imagine a situation in which the ability to apply for a job in Vilnius or Lisbon would be of any benefit to me.

You lose your current job, and can't find something that you will enjoy and are qualified for in the UK but there are posts in Vilnius and Lisbon that are right up your street.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
Yes, many of those in the remain camp are fairly mediocre. Nevertheless, consistently, the remain camp appears to have the more credible people.

It also strikes me that Leave is haunted by right-wing politicians, of varying shades of credibility and sleaziness. Of course, there is a left-wing Leave campaign, step forward, Kate Hoey, Galloway, and Frank Field. Gulp.

I know that this is rather ad hominem, but it does strike me that Leave politics is based on a wish for a more fierce brand of neo-liberalism and nationalism. For me, not very palatable.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You lose your current job, and can't find something that you will enjoy and are qualified for in the UK but there are posts in Vilnius and Lisbon that are right up your street.

Or would be if only you were fluent in Lithuanian or Portuguese.

I really can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd find myself in that situation. America, Canada, Australia or South Africa would be much more likely for many people, but I guess it depends which line of work you're in.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If either of those organisations was seeking to take over as ruler of the UK then I'd bloody well hope we would have a referendum about it.
??? I don't remember reading that anywhere..maybe you see secret intelligence briefings that I'm not cleared for.
Oh, come on. Ask Greece whether they're free and independent or ruled by the EU.

Well, for a start no one (or nation) is truly independent of other people (or nations), so obviously Greece isn't free and independent. No man (or nation) is an island - even those that are islands. That is especially true of anyone in debt.

Currently Greece is restricted by the demands of it's creditors as it struggles to repay the loans it has. Those creditors are banks (€2.4bn), the European Central Bank (€20bn) and the International Monetary Fund (€32bn). None of those are the EU. The biggest creditor is a fund sponsored by several European governments (€323bn), a large portion of which has been loans by banks brought out by their governments (€43bn) as part of bail-outs. Though this fund is from European governments it isn't an EU fund either. A case could be made that the size of the debt has given Germany and France (the largest of the European government creditors) significant influence in Greek financial policy. But, that isn't the same as being ruled by the EU.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You lose your current job, and can't find something that you will enjoy and are qualified for in the UK but there are posts in Vilnius and Lisbon that are right up your street.
Or would be if only you were fluent in Lithuanian or Portuguese.

It depends on the job, and the extent to which you want to communicate with locals. A lot of jobs these days are conducted in English, especially in international offices. Knowing practically no Japanese hasn't stopped me taking up a job in Japan, it hasn't even stopped me finding a church in Japan. A colleague here (who's American) worked in France for seven years without gaining even so much as a working knowledge of conversational French.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I simply cannot imagine a situation in which the ability to apply for a job in Vilnius or Lisbon would be of any benefit to me.
You lose your current job, and can't find something that you will enjoy and are qualified for in the UK but there are posts in Vilnius and Lisbon that are right up your street.

That would just be frustrating, given that my inability to speak Latvian or Portuguese would render me completely unsuitable for said jobs. Or, indeed, for life in either of those cities.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Sure, you can spend your life overseas in an enclave of expats, with help from willing locals who don't mind speaking English to you. But if you can't read or write a country's language, you're basically illiterate and you're at a disadvantage. Local TV and radio news won't be accessible to you, street signs and notices will be a puzzle (not everything is always helpfully labelled or subtitled in English), restaurant menus may not mean much if there are no pictures, and you'll be reliant on someone else to help you with ordinary things in daily life. You lose your independence, in short, and if there's an emergency, you won't easily be able to cope firsthand.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes, that is one of the costs of living overseas.

For me, work is an office with about half the staff Japanese - the rest a mix of Russian and Ukrainian (enemies united in a pursuit of science), a Brit, an American, a Bangladeshi, and a group of French who are around part time. So, 90% of work related conversation is in English.

Church is Japanese with a small number of ex-pats (Americans, Indonesian, Chinese). Eating out needs a restaurant with a picture menu (actually quite common in Japan) or someone who can read Japanese. Grocery shopping, commuting, getting around to see sights etc are quite straight forward even with only a handful of words. It's not really all that difficult, and that's in Japan with one of the most difficult languages in the world (not even all Japanese can read all Japanese words). Lithuania or Portugal would be much easier to learn the language - both use the Latin alphabet for a start.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, I worry about the myopia. Because you aren't leaving the UK, you get to completely ignore the Polish plumbers, the Latvian waiter, the Spanish nurse, the German dentist, the Romanian care assistant et al. Of course none of these people affect your life in any way at all. How could they possibly?
It's the implication that there's no way British people could do those jobs that I dislike the most. As if without the Poles and Latvians there would be nobody in the country capable of fixing a burst pipe or carrying food to a table.

What is it with you and lines on a map? They mean little except to some bureaucrat somewhere, and represent nothing but a ceasefire line ossified by history.

There's no implication, any more than there is there are no Germans capable of building a wall, a la Auf Wiedersehn Pet. Working abroad, learning enough of the language to get by, it's not an existential crisis is it? Enough people do it coming here.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

When I go to the Indian eatery next door here in Milton Keynes, I have to ask them to choose for me because I don't understand the menu.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What is it with you and lines on a map? They mean little except to some bureaucrat somewhere, and represent nothing but a ceasefire line ossified by history.

Ah. Are you arguing from the standpoint that the European superstate is something devoutly to be desired, by any chance?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What is it with you and lines on a map? They mean little except to some bureaucrat somewhere, and represent nothing but a ceasefire line ossified by history.
Ah. Are you arguing from the standpoint that the European superstate is something devoutly to be desired, by any chance?

Doc can speak for himself. But, I would say that a recognition that there is no essential difference between people based on arbitrary lines on maps doesn't automatically lead one to the conclusion that government shouldn't be based on those lines.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What is it with you and lines on a map? They mean little except to some bureaucrat somewhere, and represent nothing but a ceasefire line ossified by history.

Tell it to Ukraine or East Timor. A lot of the people in those places seem to care about the "lines on a map" you're so eager to disparage.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...there is no essential difference between people based on arbitrary lines on maps...

Do language and culture not count as "essential differences" any more?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I know that this is rather ad hominem, but it does strike me that Leave politics is based on a wish for a more fierce brand of neo-liberalism and nationalism.

I'm not sure why it would be ad hominem, when various members of the Leave campaign have advocated either one or the other as a reason for leaving the EU (with Farage advocating both).

Generally the shibboleth of the former is almost uniformly the dreaded 'European Working Time directive' closely followed by any future legislation that the EU may direct towards the financial sector.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What is it with you and lines on a map? They mean little except to some bureaucrat somewhere, and represent nothing but a ceasefire line ossified by history.
Tell it to Ukraine or East Timor. A lot of the people in those places seem to care about the "lines on a map" you're so eager to disparage.

The urge for self-determination is entirely laudable. Drawing boundaries on that urge is always going to be problematic.

Diplomacy and compromise is the solution, not razor wire or walls. Yes, culture and language separate people, but only if you let it.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I simply cannot imagine a situation in which the ability to apply for a job in Vilnius or Lisbon would be of any benefit to me.
You lose your current job, and can't find something that you will enjoy and are qualified for in the UK but there are posts in Vilnius and Lisbon that are right up your street.
That would just be frustrating, given that my inability to speak Latvian or Portuguese would render me completely unsuitable for said jobs. Or, indeed, for life in either of those cities.

I am the other side of this equation.

I do speak the language fluently, but actually it’s being English mother tongue that enables me to command a more attractive salary than I could get in the UK doing the same work.

I know this is all anecdata, but it matters because a country is made up of individuals. There are currently 2 million British citizens living and working in other EU countries. That’s not a negligible number.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...there is no essential difference between people based on arbitrary lines on maps...
Do language and culture not count as "essential differences" any more?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Do the differences in language between different cantons in Switzerland justify dividing the country up? Do the similarities in language in France and parts of Switzerland mean Franco-phone parts of Switzerland should become part of France? Does an insane love of football mean that Spain and Italy are essentially the same?

Put simply, culture and language are not binary conditions. So, divisions on the basis of these will inevitably be arbitrary.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The urge for self-determination is entirely laudable. Drawing boundaries on that urge is always going to be problematic.

How exactly do you think self-determination is even possible without boundaries?

quote:
Diplomacy and compromise is the solution, not razor wire or walls.

The other solution is to say "you do your thing in your place, and we'll do our thing in our place". I certainly favour that option over some "compromise" that means neither of us can do our thing anywhere.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Alan Cresswell: Do the similarities in language in France and parts of Switzerland mean Franco-phone parts of Switzerland should become part of France?

Yes! Give us Flandres!

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Only the pretty bits. We don't fancy Belgium all that much either. [Razz]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That would just be frustrating, given that my inability to speak Latvian or Portuguese would render me completely unsuitable for said jobs. Or, indeed, for life in either of those cities.
I am the other side of this equation.

Yes, and that's why you're in the Remain camp. Come referendum day, let's see how many of our fellow citizens resemble you and how many resemble me.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Do the differences in language between different cantons in Switzerland justify dividing the country up?

They do if that's what the people in those cantons want.

quote:
Do the similarities in language in France and parts of Switzerland mean Franco-phone parts of Switzerland should become part of France?

If that's what they want, sure.

quote:
Does an insane love of football mean that Spain and Italy are essentially the same?

I don't think sporting preference is likely to be significant enough to justify decisions about national sovereignty. Especially when the sport in question is the most popular one in the entire world.

quote:
Put simply, culture and language are not binary conditions. So, divisions on the basis of these will inevitably be arbitrary.

That doesn't mean the very concept of national divisions is redundant.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I know that this is rather ad hominem, but it does strike me that Leave politics is based on a wish for a more fierce brand of neo-liberalism and nationalism.
I'm not sure why it would be ad hominem, when various members of the Leave campaign have advocated either one or the other as a reason for leaving the EU (with Farage advocating both).

Generally the shibboleth of the former is almost uniformly the dreaded 'European Working Time directive' closely followed by any future legislation that the EU may direct towards the financial sector.

There are left-wing critiques of the EU, I read one in the New Statesman recently. After all, you can argue that the EU has embraced neo-liberalism, as much as a whore embraces the bishop, begging your pardon.

But then when I look at the right-wing people clamouring for Leave, I do feel a shudder. I imagine they want low wages, no unions, and widespread social cleansing. Well, I suppose many Labour MPs would agree with that.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, and that's why you're in the Remain camp. Come referendum day, let's see how many of our fellow citizens resemble you and how many resemble me.

Except that losing the right to work abroad will have a severe and direct negative effect on people like la vie en rouge, and no real direct positive effect on people like you. IOW, a net negative even if people like you are more numerous.

(Yes, I acknowledge this is a flaw in the concept of the referendum for which I have been advocating.)

(Also a disclaimer: although I am likely to live and work in the UK for the foreseeable future, I have lived in both France and the Czech Republic and to that extent would identify more with LVER than with you.)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The urge for self-determination is entirely laudable. Drawing boundaries on that urge is always going to be problematic.
How exactly do you think self-determination is even possible without boundaries?

Which is why I qualified boundary-specific self-determination as problematic. You have two impulses - the first, self-determination, the second, drawing boundaries. The two are largely antithetical, since wherever you draw your boundary, you're likely to encompass some who don't share your majority position.

The UK is clearly an example. North and South England is also an example. Urban areas (which largely vote Labour) and suburbs/countryside (which largely vote Conservative) another. Acknowledging that we should tread lightly on each others dreams is a critical first step.

The EU could/should be that first step. The idea that national borders are far less important than they were, that we are Europeans together rather than British and Germans and French etc, that what unites us is far more than what divides us - whatever the practice, the ideal is worthy.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The urge for self-determination is entirely laudable. Drawing boundaries on that urge is always going to be problematic.
How exactly do you think self-determination is even possible without boundaries?

Sometimes it can't be done, or at least done with only great difficulty, frequently accompanied by violence. Think Northern Ireland and Bosnia; just two examples.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Pretty much made up already, I think it's ridiculous that we've got ourselves into a position where leaving is even possible. We don't have referenda on NATO or the UN or all the plethora of other international organisations we are, quite rightly, part of.
Do you think the referendum of 1975 was a mistake?

Interesting question. I wasn't old enough to vote in the 1975 referendum but I do remember finding it a rather bizarre carry-on.

The stated excuse was a completely bogus "renegotiation" of membership terms by a Prime Minister with a slim majority who needed to stitch up deep divisions over Europe in his own party ... does this sound familiar?

Yes I do think it was a mistake. Like the present referendum, it was all about the internal politics of the governing party.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There is an argument that referenda are usually a sign of weakness in the ruling party, or sometimes, a means for an authoritarian party to get a rubber stamp. In both cases, the normal methods of governance are sidestepped. I suppose that is why, for example, we don't have referenda on austerity or SSM or the death penalty or going to war.

[ 09. March 2016, 16:57: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Well, in recent years France and Spain voted on the (aborted) European constitution, Denmark and Sweden voted on the euro, Ireland voted on the Treaty of Nice (twice), Denmark also voted on retaining opt-outs, Greece voted on its bailout deal, and Iceland voted on whether to compensate foreign creditors of Landsbanki. I don't think the UK is being particularly eccentric in regarding Europe as a referendum matter.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why I qualified boundary-specific self-determination as problematic. You have two impulses - the first, self-determination, the second, drawing boundaries. The two are largely antithetical, since wherever you draw your boundary, you're likely to encompass some who don't share your majority position.

That's why smaller boundaries are better - there will be fewer people in each area who don't share the majority position.

quote:
The UK is clearly an example. North and South England is also an example. Urban areas (which largely vote Labour) and suburbs/countryside (which largely vote Conservative) another. Acknowledging that we should tread lightly on each others dreams is a critical first step.

I agree. The difference is in how we approach that issue - to me, if all those areas were their own independent political entity then they could govern themselves as they wish. The areas that want a Labour government could have it, and the areas that want a Conservative government could also have it.

quote:
The EU could/should be that first step. The idea that national borders are far less important than they were, that we are Europeans together rather than British and Germans and French etc, that what unites us is far more than what divides us - whatever the practice, the ideal is worthy.

This is where you lose me. You talk about the problem of different areas having different priorities, but then you say the solution is to impose one set of priorities onto everybody.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Well done on missing the entire point. It's the boundaries that are the problem. We need fewer of them, not more.

Say, for example, Russia and Ukraine were in the same supra-national body. No one would give a shit whether Crimea was 'Russian' or 'Ukrainian' except a few die-hard nationalists. (That they were is an interesting historical dichotomy).

But no-one cares much about the French/German border any more, and these two countries were at war on and off throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. People can move freely, even commute, across it.

That, in and of itself, is an unqualified good. Self-determination within that context is doable. Balkanising Europe leads to the problems of balkanisation.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, in recent years France and Spain voted on the (aborted) European constitution, Denmark and Sweden voted on the euro, Ireland voted on the Treaty of Nice (twice), Denmark also voted on retaining opt-outs, Greece voted on its bailout deal, and Iceland voted on whether to compensate foreign creditors of Landsbanki. I don't think the UK is being particularly eccentric in regarding Europe as a referendum matter.

It would have been more logical to have held the referendum before we signed the treaty and joined the EEC. When we finally got round to voting on it the government was effectively asking "you know this thing we've already done, should we not have done it?"

A brief, completely unscientific survey of referenda indicates that people tend to vote for the status quo, which governments know very well. Therefore if they want to put a veneer of democracy on something they've decided to do, they can present it to the people as a fait accompli and say "vote on that. Do you want to change things again?"

Not that I think we should have referendums at all, I just think they're all a bit crap.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

In a world where Donald Tump could conceivably become President of the USA, arguably the most powerful man in the world, anything is possible.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well done on missing the entire point. It's the boundaries that are the problem. We need fewer of them, not more.

No, it's the boundaries between governments that enable people to govern themselves the way they want to be governed. If there were no boundaries then virtually nobody would get the government they want.

quote:
Say, for example, Russia and Ukraine were in the same supra-national body. No one would give a shit whether Crimea was 'Russian' or 'Ukrainian' except a few die-hard nationalists. (That they were is an interesting historical dichotomy).

Well yeah, and history is against you on that one. As soon as the Communist Party started losing its grip on the Soviet Union the Ukrainian independence movement flourished. Over 90% of the population of Ukraine voted to stop being part of a supra-national body and become an independent country. I'd say that's an awful lot of people who gave a shit about it.

quote:
But no-one cares much about the French/German border any more, and these two countries were at war on and off throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. People can move freely, even commute, across it.

They'd better make sure they switch off any speed camera detection equipment when they cross the border though, given that it's legal in Germany but illegal in France. It's almost as if the two countries have different opinions about said equipment, and have decided to legislate accordingly. How terrible!

If only that border didn't exist, people would be free to detect speed cameras all the time. Or maybe they'd be banned from doing so all the time. Oh dear, I just realised that whichever way the supra-national body decides to legislate one side of the argument is going to be unhappy. If only there was a solution that enabled both sides to get what they want...

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

So despite the tyrannical EU, France and Germany can have differing laws if they want to. Interesting.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's why smaller boundaries are better - there will be fewer people in each area who don't share the majority position.

It's worth pointing out that this principle is already enshrined in EU documents, alongside ever-closer union, under the name of 'subsidiarity' - meaning that decisions are supposed to be taken at the lowest level that is feasible.

You could argue that this principle isn't honoured, but ever-closer union isn't really being honoured at the moment either.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It would have been more logical to have held the referendum before we signed the treaty and joined the EEC. When we finally got round to voting on it the government was effectively asking "you know this thing we've already done, should we not have done it?"

I wasn't around at the time, but judging by Wikipedia it does seem to have been a shambles. As indeed is this referendum - the fact that I support it in principle doesn't mean I think it's been sensibly implemented ...

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
So despite the tyrannical EU, France and Germany can have differing laws if they want to. Interesting.

Only when it comes to minor stuff like speed camera detection. But that minor stuff is still useful to illustrate my wider point.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's why smaller boundaries are better - there will be fewer people in each area who don't share the majority position.
It's worth pointing out that this principle is already enshrined in EU documents, alongside ever-closer union, under the name of 'subsidiarity' - meaning that decisions are supposed to be taken at the lowest level that is feasible.

Oh really? So if the population of one country decided that they would like to nationalise every single company with more than three employees or introduce the death penalty for murder then they'd be able to do so, would they?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
So despite the tyrannical EU, France and Germany can have differing laws if they want to. Interesting.
Only when it comes to minor stuff like speed camera detection.

Yes, that's why the French health service, the presidential system of government, social security, the SNCF, national defence, employment rights, union powers, courts, separation of church and state, integration of minorities, etc, all work exactly the same as their British counterparts.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if the population of one country decided that they would like to nationalise every single company with more than three employees or introduce the death penalty for murder then they'd be able to do so, would they?

If a country wants to nationalise all companies with more than three employees, then what the hell is it doing in a free trade area?

[Confused]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if the population of one country decided that they would like to nationalise every single company with more than three employees or introduce the death penalty for murder then they'd be able to do so, would they?
If a country wants to nationalise all companies with more than three employees, then what the hell is it doing in a free trade area?

The key word was "decided". As in "had a change of mind". Which is important because we can all see for ourselves, right now, how prepared the EU is to let member states leave if they decide they want to do so.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well yeah, and history is against you on that one. As soon as the Communist Party started losing its grip on the Soviet Union the Ukrainian independence movement flourished. Over 90% of the population of Ukraine voted to stop being part of a supra-national body and become an independent country. I'd say that's an awful lot of people who gave a shit about it.

Well, actually... that revolution they just had? The one where they kicked out the pro-Russian guy and got the pro-Europe one in? It's all about accession to the EU.

So, bzzt. Nice try, but very far off the mark.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So if the population of one country decided that they would like to nationalise every single company with more than three employees or introduce the death penalty for murder then they'd be able to do so, would they?
If a country wants to nationalise all companies with more than three employees, then what the hell is it doing in a free trade area?
The key word was "decided". As in "had a change of mind". Which is important because we can all see for ourselves, right now, how prepared the EU is to let member states leave if they decide they want to do so.

In what way is the EU preventing the UK, or anyone else, from leaving?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I looked up the 1975 referendum in Roy Hattersley's excellent (and refreshingly concise) post-war history "Fifty Years On". The parallels between then and now are arresting:

"The formula by which Harold Wilson kept his party in one piece was to hold the referendum about which he had been so contemptuous only months before. A special party conference in April 1975 judged, by a huge majority, that the new terms were not sufficiently different from the old to justify continued membership....although the cabinet had agreed to recommend acceptance of the new terms, the dissentient minority of ministers should be allowed to campaign for a "No" vote...the governing party decided to consult the people not in a sudden excess of democratic zeal, but as part of a stratagem to preserve its unity and protect its reputation."

(Chapter 7, "Joining the Club")

Hattersley claims that these events illustrate the futility and "constitutional impropriety" of referendums. I'm not sure even I would go that far.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's worth pointing out that this principle is already enshrined in EU documents, alongside ever-closer union, under the name of 'subsidiarity' - meaning that decisions are supposed to be taken at the lowest level that is feasible.

You could argue that this principle isn't honoured, but ever-closer union isn't really being honoured at the moment either.

It's a great pity the UK government has no commitment to any principle of subsidiarity with the United Kingdom. It's never even engaged with it. The Scots have devolution not for any reason of principle but because they insisted on being given it. I don't get the impression it gets much further down the tiers than Edinburgh. Us poor English are still emphatically ruled from the centre with no subsidiarity at all.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Subsidiarity is a brilliant idea until you realise that no one wants the extra houses, the nuclear power plant or the wind turbines. Or the travellers' camp. Or the recycling plant. Or the open-cast mine. Or, critically at this point, fracking.

This current government is busy trying to divest itself of its national obligations under the guise of subsidiarity, by at the same time divesting itself of the obligation to fund those things it is devolving. There's a certain irony that the poorer parts of the UK are in receipt of large EU structural funds...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

This current government is busy trying to divest itself of its national obligations under the guise of subsidiarity

To a point, what they want to push down are costs - mainly around social care. They still want to keep the ability to dictate what the national obligations should be - they want to relive Derek Hatton or the GLC.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

If my understanding is correct, this:

quote:
There's often quite a lot of flexibility. UK politicians, particularly the minor ones, have a nasty habit of blaming the EU for compelling them to impose changes they want to impose but they think people will grumble about. Rather than admitting, 'we don't have to do this but we've decided to', they find it easier to say that its all Europe's fault.
... is flat wrong. There is no choice.
Your understanding is misleading. Whilst there are certain instances in which the specific details of regulations are spelled out, in the main there are usually a set of general principles which can be implemented in multiple ways, in which the details and timetable is left up to individual countries.

So either the specifics are made by Brussels or Brussels simply allows Westminster to fill in the details. From a legal perspective this is at best unwieldly as I would imagine that any laws made by Westminster could be challenged on the basis that they did not conform to the principles. It sounds like a litigator's dream. Furthermore, I think it clearly does establish that Brussels legislates for the UK, with latitude only allowed for the implementation of the law. What makes this misleading?

quote:

quote:

is it true that the UK government is prevented by EU regulations from removing VAT on sanitary products?
No. The EU specifies a floor - of 5% - to the level of VAT that may be levied on goods which are not VAT exempt. The UK could simply make sanitary products VAT exempt (as Ireland does).

Thanks. Is this an example of the above - ie, Brussels sets the floor but allows individual member states latitude within that boundary?

FWIW This blog suggests making sanitary products tax exempt would require amending a directive (something not within the UK government's power) although tbh I don't understand the reasons why or why Ireland could do it (perhaps they just did - I understand that some countries simply don't implement Brussels legislation although and basically nothing is done).

(Why sanitary products aren't VAT exempt is beyond me, but the point I'm wanting to explore is EU control over the tax system).

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As a small clarification, the £35k threshold only applies to Tier 2 visas - non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job (or, non-EU citizen dependents of non-EU citizens taking up a skilled job).
Thanks Alan. Anything that dampens my wrath is welcome to me. However, it seems there is a threshhold: GBP 18K. Were my wife from any EU state my understanding is there is no threshold. If so, this is straightforward discrimination in favour of EU nationals.
Well, it's discrimination. Indeed, bigotry might be an appropriate term. It's a xenophobic jerk against all immigrants. It's just that being in the EU protects some immigrants (those from the EU) from the worst excesses of the stupidity of politicians pandering to racists. The way to end that discrimination isn't to leave the EU and extend the idiocy to all immigrants, but to cancel these ridiculous rules and stop trying to keep racists bastards happy.

We will have to differ on this point. There's no votes to be gained from racists by excluding Australians and New Zealanders from the UK workforce. They're mostly whitefellas just like the racists. Yet successive UK governments have scaled back their immigration and work rights while simultaneously having them extended via EU law.

Something very similar has happened with trade: the UK has vanished behind the EU-wide tariff wall and that undoutably has reduced trade between the UK and its former colonies (not to mention other countries). The claim that leaving the EU will be detrimental to British trade seems incomplete without taking this factor into account. To put it bluntly, the EU, in trading terms, is hostile to countries beyond its borders particularly when it comes to agricultural produce, which subsidised EU producers dump on world markets.

TTIP is interesting, because it shows that only a really big hitter like the USA can bring the EU to terms.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Apologies for the triple post, but there was a separate point I wanted to make, which is neither criticism nor advocacy of the EU.

Over the last 30 years, the world has obviously become far more integrated, both in terms of travel and communications (and therefore trade and movement of people) but also in terms of governance and commerce. So we saw the birth of the multinational corporation, ie, one with its HQ in Big Country X and branches in A, B, C and D. Now we have the transnational corporation, with branches everywhere, e.g. production in China, sales in the West, and its HQ in San Serife for tax purposes.

I used to believe that the nature of governance was that states would consolidate into super-states, thus ensuring that transnationals could not shop around for low tax rates and lax labour laws. The EU seemed an obvious development for this. Now I'm not so sure that it is the answer, especially as the UN doesn't seem to be the force it was.

(I note that a good many tax havens are notionally under the control of EU member states).

And I don't think EU integration is the biggest show in town any more. That would be TPP and TTIP along with the various trade treaties that are now requiring countries to standardise laws on, for example, intellectual property, pharma, food, tariffs and subsidies and so on.

I'm rambling because I don't have any clear thoughts on this - but where does that leave democracy and national sovereignty, and how does the EU come into this?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, it's discrimination. Indeed, bigotry might be an appropriate term. It's a xenophobic jerk against all immigrants. It's just that being in the EU protects some immigrants (those from the EU) from the worst excesses of the stupidity of politicians pandering to racists. The way to end that discrimination isn't to leave the EU and extend the idiocy to all immigrants, but to cancel these ridiculous rules and stop trying to keep racists bastards happy.
We will have to differ on this point. There's no votes to be gained from racists by excluding Australians and New Zealanders from the UK workforce. They're mostly whitefellas just like the racists. Yet successive UK governments have scaled back their immigration and work rights while simultaneously having them extended via EU law. [/qb]

Well, as far as I can see the racists and bigots complain about immigrants, and the government panders to them by passing legislation to restrict immigration. But, not even the government can pass laws that discriminate between immigrants by the colour of their skin, so they produce more general legislation. It just happens that that legislation hits people wanting to come to the UK from Australia and NZ as well as from India and Africa. It doesn't affect the underlying motive of the far right anti-immigration thugs is to stop non-white immigrants, but they probably don't care to much if it also stops white but not-quite-British immigrants. I'm not going to accuse them of rationality.

quote:
Something very similar has happened with trade: the UK has vanished behind the EU-wide tariff wall and that undoutably has reduced trade between the UK and its former colonies (not to mention other countries).

Do you have any evidence of that? Pre-EU imports into the UK would have incurred import duty and VAT. And, imports from outwith the EU still do. There may, indeed probably, have been changes to the particular tariff rates (and the associated forms) - but, if the UK hadn't joined the EU those tariff rates would have changed anyway, and governments love to change forms for no particular reason but to be seen to be doing things differently from the previous government. I'm pretty sure that the free market has allowed increased trade within the EU (it was more or less the intent), but there's no reason that would need to be at the expense of trade with other nations.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
And I don't think EU integration is the biggest show in town any more. That would be TPP and TTIP along with the various trade treaties that are now requiring countries to standardise laws on, for example, intellectual property, pharma, food, tariffs and subsidies and so on.

I'm rambling because I don't have any clear thoughts on this - but where does that leave democracy and national sovereignty, and how does the EU come into this?

Well, under TTIP/TPP you can effectively kiss good bye to any democracy and national sovereignty. At least the EU is democratic (if, cumbersomely so) and sovereign.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Vague memories made me Google this. There were preferential trade deals between the Commonwealth countries and the UK before Britain joined the EU. But checking the Commonwealth has trade deals with the EU now:

Source 1 - NI Business information
Yes to Europe site

It's still a whole lot easier to find NZ lamb in English supermarkets and more challenging to find English lamb.

[ 20. March 2016, 12:20: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The EU regulations wouldn't allow favourable trade deals between individual EU nations and other nations, but there's nothing stopping trade deals with the whole EU. It would make sense if existing trade deals continue when joining the EU - and, the UK wasn't unique in having trade deals with the Commonwealth, France had similar trade deals with former colonies that would presumably have also been taken EU wide.

A question would be, if those trade deals with the Commonwealth are linked to UK membership, would Commonwealth nations find increased tariffs for trading with the EU if the UK exits?

Certainly we do seem to have lots of Commonwealth goods on our shelves - NZ lamb and apples, South African apples and wine, Australian wine, Caribbean bananas etc. I even had kangaroo steaks a few months back (which had entered the UK via Germany).

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I am changing my vote to Leave given Sir Richard Dearlove's comments here.

Sir Richard Dearlove is the former head of MI6 and is arguing that we would be safer out of the EU that in it.

The full Prospect article is here

We need much stronger borders than Shengen has imposed on us, and we need the abiility to frame laws that will put the protection of UK citizens ahead of flawed idealistic principles such as free-movement of people.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It's all very well to say "we'll be better off out of the EU" but every argument in favour of leaving is posited on:
a) multi-lateral agreements to retain those things that (we believe) benefit us and
b) multi-lateral agreements to abandon those things that (we believe) harm us.

Sir Richard isn't the first to pursue this Holy Grail, and he won't be the last. He's a lot more sensible and therefore credible than most. They should however realise that the UK (with or without Scotlnd) is better off inside the proverbial tent, trying to reform it, than outside with no say in the matter.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

We need much stronger borders than Shengen has imposed on us,

The UK does not participate in the Schengen agreement.

I suspect that you are complaining about the right of free movement of EU citizens within Europe (which is a fundamental principle of the EU, and not a mere convenience like Schengen).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We need much stronger borders than Shengen has imposed on us, and we need the abiility to frame laws that will put the protection of UK citizens ahead of flawed idealistic principles such as free-movement of people.

quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin disagrees.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
We need much stronger borders than Shengen has imposed on us, and we need the abiility to frame laws that will put the protection of UK citizens ahead of flawed idealistic principles such as free-movement of people.

quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin disagrees.

The free movement of people within the EU is not an "essential" liberty, so Ben Franklin can do one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't think that the free movement of people is to do with idealistic principles, is it? In fact, it's a cornerstone of market ideology, one might almost say, a libertarian viewpoint. That is, that there is free movement of capital, people, services, and goods.

Well, I suppose the concept of the free market is idealistic in a way, but in practice, trade tariffs, for example, can be disastrous, as they can choke trade.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The free movement of people within the EU is not an "essential" liberty, so Ben Franklin can do one.

And, I say it is an essential liberty. Because the alternative is to put restrictions on what people can do, that is to curtail liberty.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I am changing my vote to Leave given Sir Richard Dearlove's comments here.

Sir Richard Dearlove is the former head of MI6 and is arguing that we would be safer out of the EU that in it.eed the abiility to frame laws that will put the protection of UK citizens ahead of flawed idealistic principles such as free-movement of people.

But terorist attacks in the UK have been perpetrated by peoploe born here, not people crossing borders to get here.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I am sure Sir Richard is intelligent enough to know that the ECHR is nothing to do with the European Union. Presumably he considers it reasonable that Britain should join Belarus and Kazakhstan as the only European countries who are not signatories to it.

As for immigration, I thought our terrorists were mostly either home grown or immigrants from outside the EU. I don't know of any EU member state that exports terrorists to us in any numbers unless you count IRA bombers from the Irish Republic.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I am sure Sir Richard is intelligent enough to know that the ECHR is nothing to do with the European Union. Presumably he considers it reasonable that Britain should join Belarus and Kazakhstan as the only European countries who are not signatories to it. ...

Well said. That gets a [Overused]

Perhaps he thinks it got in the way of our accommodating certain of our 'friends' who go in for extraordinary rendition.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I am changing my vote to Leave given Sir Richard Dearlove's comments here.

You're deciding how to vote on the say-so of the guy who gave us the original Dodgy Dossier? [Ultra confused]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I am changing my vote to Leave given Sir Richard Dearlove's comments here.

You're deciding how to vote on the say-so of the guy who gave us the original Dodgy Dossier?

Well, seeing as I didn't give a rat's arse about that and was quote happy to declare war on Iraq, that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

We leave, we start the waterboarding at 9 o'clock Monday morning. No let's make it Friday morning.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I am changing my vote to Leave given Sir Richard Dearlove's comments here.

You're deciding how to vote on the say-so of the guy who gave us the original Dodgy Dossier?
Well, seeing as I didn't give a rat's arse about that and was quote happy to declare war on Iraq, that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

And look at what that war has given us; Kurdish unrest and ISIS for starters. Thanks pal.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Something very similar has happened with trade: the UK has vanished behind the EU-wide tariff wall and that undoutably has reduced trade between the UK and its former colonies (not to mention other countries).
Do you have any evidence of that? Pre-EU imports into the UK would have incurred import duty and VAT. And, imports from outwith the EU still do. There may, indeed probably, have been changes to the particular tariff rates (and the associated forms) - but, if the UK hadn't joined the EU those tariff rates would have changed anyway, and governments love to change forms for no particular reason but to be seen to be doing things differently from the previous government. I'm pretty sure that the free market has allowed increased trade within the EU (it was more or less the intent), but there's no reason that would need to be at the expense of trade with other nations.

With respect, your point would not be taken seriously down here. British entry into the EEC caused a huge shock to this country which, as a result, went from being very prosperous to having a GDP currently on a par with the Czech Republic. I could probably have a whiffle around and quote sources, but to be honest I'm best off merely noting that it is taken as a given round here by historicans, economists and everyone else. Offhand I do not know whether NZ exports to the UK were tariff-free prior to 1973 but it is certainly beyond question that after Britain's entry, tariff imposition (a requirement for membership) devastated NZ exports.

Right now the country's economy is suffering due to milk oversupply caused by subsidised EU farmers. It is very safe to say that the EU is no friend of NZ when it comes to trade. To be honest, the EU is no friend to anyone but itself when it comes to trade.

Here is an article in today's NZ Herald which, I think, gives a pretty good idea of NZ attitudes to the UK's immigration policy. It is interesting to note that

David Cameron does not appear to have provided a answer to a very obvious point made by the NZ PM: that the UK can't control its borders. Immigration to NZ is proportionally at least as great as to the UK, however, racial tension is comparatively tiny. My view is this is because the population know that we can control our borders. The UK cannot legally do this due to EU law and, because of the free movement principle within the EU, can't factually control them either.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, it's discrimination. Indeed, bigotry might be an appropriate term. It's a xenophobic jerk against all immigrants. It's just that being in the EU protects some immigrants (those from the EU) from the worst excesses of the stupidity of politicians pandering to racists. The way to end that discrimination isn't to leave the EU and extend the idiocy to all immigrants, but to cancel these ridiculous rules and stop trying to keep racists bastards happy.
We will have to differ on this point. There's no votes to be gained from racists by excluding Australians and New Zealanders from the UK workforce. They're mostly whitefellas just like the racists. Yet successive UK governments have scaled back their immigration and work rights while simultaneously having them extended via EU law.
Well, as far as I can see the racists and bigots complain about immigrants, and the government panders to them by passing legislation to restrict immigration. But, not even the government can pass laws that discriminate between immigrants by the colour of their skin, so they produce more general legislation. It just happens that that legislation hits people wanting to come to the UK from Australia and NZ as well as from India and Africa. It doesn't affect the underlying motive of the far right anti-immigration thugs is to stop non-white immigrants, but they probably don't care to much if it also stops white but not-quite-British immigrants. I'm not going to accuse them of rationality. [/QB]

Your original point was that UK politicians pander to xenophobia, and this causes immigration restrictions on, for example, Kiwis. My reply was to doubt this as UK xenophobes are unlikely to care about immigration from this part of the world. While it of course true that the UK parliament would have to repeal an awful lot of legislation (and case law) to discriminate by colour (not to mention the moral turpitude of doing so) I entirely fail to see how this would prevent reinstating Kiwis' former immigration rights.

I prefer my explanation that the UK govt are closing the door on all immigration they can control, ie, immigration from outside the EU, and this is due to increased EU immigration.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Just to add to all the referendum fun, on Wednesday the Netherlands are having one about the EU trade agreement with the Ukraine [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
With respect, your point would not be taken seriously down here. British entry into the EEC caused a huge shock to this country which, as a result, went from being very prosperous to having a GDP currently on a par with the Czech Republic. I could probably have a whiffle around and quote sources, but to be honest I'm best off merely noting that it is taken as a given round here by historicans, economists and everyone else. Offhand I do not know whether NZ exports to the UK were tariff-free prior to 1973 but it is certainly beyond question that after Britain's entry, tariff imposition (a requirement for membership) devastated NZ exports.

Well, impressions do not evidence make. I had some look around myself, and found pages like this. So, the changes since the mid 50s have been that the main exports were primary products - some of them like bails of unprocessed wool would have largely collapsed anyway. A modern economy will be more productive processing raw materials into finished products, rather than exporting them for businesses in other nations to make the big money processing them into products.

And, yes the export markets have changed. The UK was the market for two-thirds of all exports. Now, the biggest export market is Australia (which makes a lot of sense based on geography), with the EU the second biggest market. Would that be much different if the UK had not joined the EU in the 1970s? I suspect the wool market would have collapsed anyway, fabric production in the UK would have moved to nations with lower labour costs whether or not we joined the EU. The UK would still buy butter and cheese, but if that was produced at a competitive price in the EU then we'd be importing from there anyway. Probably the biggest factor in the collapse of the UK market for goods from NZ was the 1973 oil crisis and subsequent recession. EU membership pulled the UK economy up - as a new market for our goods (though, if we could make products that would sell that would have helped, instead we had too many sub-standard cars and similar crap), as a place for people to work when there was no work at home, with substantial injections of cash.

It's impossible to re-run history to see what would have happened if something hadn't happened. But, it's academic anyway. The main question for NZers isn't would things be different if the UK hadn't joined the EU in 1973, but would things be different if the UK leaves the EU in 2016? I don't see anything to suggest the old markets would reappear - if shiploads of bales of unprocessed wool started to come into Liverpool docks there probably aren't enough people in the UK who would know what to do with them (there may not even be people in Liverpool docks who know how to unload a ship of anything other than containers). A lot of the imports into the UK end up re-exported to the rest of the EU, so those existing imports (including many from NZ) would largely dry up, with the exporters needing to go through the expense and time of finding new import routes into the EU (and the uncertainty of not knowing if such routes would be opened).

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

There's now a poll open in The Circus for both what you want to happen and what you think will happen.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
There's now a poll open in The Circus for both what you want to happen and what you think will happen.

Okay fine. I've voted. Now, what is your point with all this? What do you think will happen and why?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
There's now a poll open in The Circus for both what you want to happen and what you think will happen.
Okay fine. I've voted. Now, what is your point with all this? What do you think will happen and why?

FWIW I believe the vote will be about 55/45 to remain, but a great deal hinges on the turnout which in turn depends on whether there are any dramatic news stories in the run up to the vote.

If the result is to remain, I expect very few pro-exit MPs to leave their parties; some may become independents rather than join UKIP, while if the vote is to leave then Cameron will probably stepdown, which leaves the way clear for Boris Johnson.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
FWIW I believe the vote will be about 55/45 to remain

I think you're probably right. Much like Scottish Independence last year, it will be close but ultimately the status quo will win. Better the devil you know, and all that...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm not so sure the vote will be to remain: most of my children's friends (early 20s) are (a) determined to vote, and (b) all say it will be for OUT. I'm not sure why, but there you go.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

It'll be interesting to see how it varies by region. For example, I would think that residents of Kent will vote to leave, but that London would be much more on the side of Remain.

Nicola Sturgeon is on record as having said that if the UK voted to leave, but Scotland voted to remain, then that would be sufficient to trigger a second once-in-a-lifetime independence referendum. So while the SNP may be officially supporting the remain campaign, it's in their interests to not do a very good job of it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not so sure the vote will be to remain: most of my children's friends (early 20s) are (a) determined to vote, and (b) all say it will be for OUT. I'm not sure why, but there you go.

I reckon the reason would be best termed "misplaced patriotism". We've seen a lot of it in the last fifteen years or so (ie, since 9/11) but very little of it has been to our benefit. Twenty-somethings have seen little else.

It's a very easy line to peddle in the papers and an attractive one for politicians who are more concerned about getting elected than public service.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... if the vote is to leave then Cameron will probably stepdown, which leaves the way clear for Boris Johnson.

Yet another reason to vote Remain. The Fixed Term Parliament Act means that a majority for leave means four years with Johnson, Gove or Grayling as PM.

As a very meagre consolation, at least Duncan-Smith as a previously failed Conservative leader is presumably out of the running.

I am going to speak bluntly, to say what no one has had the guts to say publicly.

So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.

It's true that most people I know socially keep their opinions close to their chests. So there may be some secret leavers among them. But it annoys me that because the BBC is required by its charter to be even handed, every time there's any discussion of the referendum, they are obliged to wheel out yet another flat-earther to let them have their say.

Gracious, even Corbyn says remain. Need I say more.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Enoch: Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave.

I have (her arguments for leaving were rather daft, but it's someone whose opinions I generally respect).

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... if the vote is to leave then Cameron will probably stepdown, which leaves the way clear for Boris Johnson.
Yet another reason to vote Remain. The Fixed Term Parliament Act means that a majority for leave means four years with Johnson, Gove or Grayling as PM.

As a very meagre consolation, at least Duncan-Smith as a previously failed Conservative leader is presumably out of the running.

I am going to speak bluntly, to say what no one has had the guts to say publicly.

So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.

It's true that most people I know socially keep their opinions close to their chests. So there may be some secret leavers among them. But it annoys me that because the BBC is required by its charter to be even handed, every time there's any discussion of the referendum, they are obliged to wheel out yet another flat-earther to let them have their say.

Gracious, even Corbyn says remain. Need I say more.

The EU is not a democratic institution and my franchise was purchased with the blood of those who fought for it and as yet despite its relative debasement in our first past the post system this is not a legacy I am willing to betray by voting to remain in an institution which is a technocracy with at best democratic advisory overtones. What ever the possible consequences of a leave they will be democratic consequences and the principle of democratic power is not for me one that I am willing to abandon what ever the pragmatic and circumstantial benefits may or may not be.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I am going to speak bluntly, to say what no one has had the guts to say publicly.

So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.

The EU is not a democratic institution. Our democratic franchise was purchased with blood and struggle by those, like my socialist ancestors, who fought for it and as yet despite its relative debasement in our first past the post system this is not a legacy I am willing to betray. I can not in good conscience vote to remain in an institution which is a technocracy with at best democratic advisory overtones. Thus diminishing the overarching principle of governance and law by the consent of the governed. What ever the possible consequences of a leave they will be consequences which enhance our democratic power of self determination. The principle of democratic power is not for me one that I am willing to abandon. What ever the pragmatic and circumstantial economic or political benefits may or may not be, for me, personally, my adherence to the principle of democratic rather than technocratic power overrides such considerations. Where a truly democratic federal Europe on the table I may be persuaded to remain, despite some other concerns, however no such offer is on the table so I will be voting to leave.

If this makes me stupid or idealistic then so be it.

C Hill

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

sorry must have accidentally posted the first one half way through wring it please disregard. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The EU is not a democratic institution?

The council of ministers (where all the important decisions are taken) is made up of elected heads of state from every member country.

The EU parliament (where such decisions are scrutinised) is made up of elected MEPs from every region of every member country.

Sounds pretty democratic to me.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The EU is not a democratic institution?

The council of ministers (where all the important decisions are taken) is made up of elected heads of state from every member country.

The EU parliament (where such decisions are scrutinised) is made up of elected MEPs from every region of every member country.

Sounds pretty democratic to me.

You forgot the European Commission. Appointed and mostly time-expired politicos plus its own civil service propose legislation. No elections for anyone who works there. Unable to get its accounts through its own auditors, let alone external ones. Less democratic, though similar to, the old Politburo.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Doc Tor: The EU parliament (where such decisions are scrutinised) is made up of elected MEPs from every region of every member country.

I often hear people say that the EP has rather little power, and that this makes the EU less democratic than it should be.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Yes, the Commission needs reform. But to assert the EU decision-making processes aren't democratic is demonstrably untrue.

National governments and the Council of Ministers adopt EC proposals. The EC can't enact anything of their own.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It looks like Cameron has given the exit campaign a boost. I'm sure this will tilt some waverers to the exit vote.

If remaining in the EU is so beneficial to business, the City, and the rest, shouldn't they fund any "Stay in" campaign?

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
The EU is not a democratic institution. Our democratic franchise was purchased with blood and struggle by those, like my socialist ancestors, who fought for it and as yet despite its relative debasement in our first past the post system this is not a legacy I am willing to betray.

First past the post makes a mockery of democracy. The current government has the support of less than 1/4 of the electorate and only 1/3 of the votes cast. Yet it gets to govern as a majority. The head of state is hereditary, and though we've been blessed with a benevolent monarch for the whole of my life, this is far from guaranteed. And the second house is appointed along the same lines as the European Commission. I don't see that democracy comes into the decision.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, the Commission needs reform. But to assert the EU decision-making processes aren't democratic is demonstrably untrue.

National governments and the Council of Ministers adopt EC proposals. The EC can't enact anything of their own.

It is demonstrably different to a federal constitutional democracy like for example the USA. A Council of ministers which amounts to bit of horse trading by various, admittedly, elected heads of state, dose not amount to a democracy in action.

For a start power and economic strength are as much a factor in their negotiations as the will of any given electorate. That democratically elected officials ultimately ratify law which they do not on the whole generate is for me less than satisfactory. It is only in a context of an elected legislature that I could in good conscience countenance the primacy of EU law, over national laws produced by elected officials.

If the laws were produced by democratic representatives i.e. the parliament this would begin to help me move towards pan-Europeanism. The issue of a democratically elected legislature seems to me central to the democratic legitimacy of law which governs our lives. I realise that international law and arbitration is also chipping away at this principle.

I do not in principle oppose a free democratic choice of treaty obligation. I see the necessity of this and the good it has done regarding for example human rights. I conversely, have misgivings about where it could lead us with regard to some aspects of international arbitration.

For me personally speaking the EU takes us too far down the road towards autocracy Technocracy. It tilts the balance past my good conscience. Even a benign Technocracy would on principal be something I would oppose. There are it seems to me two great threats to the democratic principal in our time, one is technocracy and the other is financial/corporate special interest. There is in practice something of a revolving door between the two.

As much as possible I wish to see power exercised under the protection of clear cut democratic accountability. It seems to me that the EU is even more lacking in this regard than the already woeful national state of affairs that pertains hear in the UK. To be clear I am referring to our own national and local government systems.

If you are comfortable by all means vote to stay in. For me something akin to a US style federalised constitutional democracy would be preferable. It seems to me, that this is the only way to preserve a meaningful notion of democracy. This is especially the case in such a vast geographical and demographical governance project like Europe. This is not close to being on the table. I shall vote to leave on the grounds that democratic franchise must be maintained to legitimise law and government as a first principal of legitimate governance.

Even where a truly democratic option on the table I would, in truth, have misgivings. Without such an offer I have little doubt regarding the need for me to vote to leave on these grounds.

I recognise that leaving would not win the battle for true democratic power but it may make such a battle winnable.

CHill

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
The EU is not a democratic institution. Our democratic franchise was purchased with blood and struggle by those, like my socialist ancestors, who fought for it and as yet despite its relative debasement in our first past the post system this is not a legacy I am willing to betray.
First past the post makes a mockery of democracy. The current government has the support of less than 1/4 of the electorate and only 1/3 of the votes cast. Yet it gets to govern as a majority. The head of state is hereditary, and though we've been blessed with a benevolent monarch for the whole of my life, this is far from guaranteed. And the second house is appointed along the same lines as the European Commission. I don't see that democracy comes into the decision.

I agree with all of these critiques except to say that parliament and not the monarch wields political power in the UK. The monarch, benevolence notwithstanding, is to all intents and purposes a figure head. The rights and wrongs of a hereditary head of state are a distinct question.

With that small caveat I would agree with all you say and more regarding the flaws of the Westminster system. However I would argue that adding or preserving an even more broken and non-representative layer of government which overarches Westminster to me seem the least effective way to fix these problems.

Even if you contend that they are equally broken, I see little sense in preserving two broken systems rather than one. It seems to me, something of a stretch that they are equally broken. There are it seems to me even more fundamental problems with the EU model, it is to all intents and purposes a technocracy. Non-democratic legislative bodies make me deeply nervous. Our democracy is undoubtedly a broken one. It at least has the principal of law and governance by democratic consent even if it is very badly executed at times. I'm far from sure that such a principal is clearly enshrined in the EU as it stands now.

Purely in terms of logical principles I see no reason to preserve one evil because another exists. Despite all that is broken in our system I am not ready do give up on the principle of democracy enshrined within it. I concede that democracy is undermined greatly in our national political discourse and systems. I observed this myself in the very post to which you replied. The solution for me is not to surrender to the inevitable but to struggle; our democratic rights were only ever won by struggle and will only be retained and advanced by such struggle.

I strongly agree with much of your critique of our political system. The choice before me is not one regarding our electoral system sadly. When such a choice was offered the change to A.V. seemed to me was little better than the present system. I would like to see radical electoral and constitutional reform. Had I lived in Scotland during their referendum, I would have voted to leave the UK. I am English and have unionist sentiments having friends and family north of the boarder. Despite all this I would have voted to leave the UK. For exactly the same reasons I will vote to leave the EU. I would want to extricate myself from Westminster's broken and corrupt system and stand a chance however slim of building something more representative where I lived. In the same way I have the choice to vote to leave the EU. I wish to extricate myself from its corrupt and undemocratic systems. The same democratic principles I wish to preserve and advance domestically are undermined even further by the EU. Therefore I am personally committed to leaving.

Chill

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
The EU is not a democratic institution. Our democratic franchise was purchased with blood and struggle by those, like my socialist ancestors, who fought for it and as yet despite its relative debasement in our first past the post system this is not a legacy I am willing to betray.
First past the post makes a mockery of democracy. The current government has the support of less than 1/4 of the electorate and only 1/3 of the votes cast. Yet it gets to govern as a majority. The head of state is hereditary, and though we've been blessed with a benevolent monarch for the whole of my life, this is far from guaranteed. And the second house is appointed along the same lines as the European Commission. I don't see that democracy comes into the decision.

The decision to stick with that method of electing MPs was made at a referendum. A resounding majority of those who voted chose to have first past the post. Of course, well under 50% did in fact vote - can you assume that the majority of potential electors did not care? Voting here in elections and referendums is compulsory, a point on which we've had interesting discussions over the years with US friends.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
The EU is not a democratic institution. Our democratic franchise was purchased with blood and struggle by those, like my socialist ancestors, who fought for it and as yet despite its relative debasement in our first past the post system this is not a legacy I am willing to betray.
First past the post makes a mockery of democracy. The current government has the support of less than 1/4 of the electorate and only 1/3 of the votes cast. Yet it gets to govern as a majority. The head of state is hereditary, and though we've been blessed with a benevolent monarch for the whole of my life, this is far from guaranteed. And the second house is appointed along the same lines as the European Commission. I don't see that democracy comes into the decision.
The decision to stick with that method of electing MPs was made at a referendum. A resounding majority of those who voted chose to have first past the post. Of course, well under 50% did in fact vote - can you assume that the majority of potential electors did not care? Voting here in elections and referendums is compulsory, a point on which we've had interesting discussions over the years with US friends.

The referendum did no such thing (my italics). It merely rejected he proposal to switch to the "Alternative Vote" system, which retains single-member constituencies but is still not proportional and remains open to gerrymandering. Proportional representation methods exist and one is used for the European Parliamentary elections but it is based on party lists rather than a true Single Transferable Vote method, which is my preference and had that been at stake, the outcome of the referendum might have been different.

btw, I believe Australia has it right insisting that everyone votes, even if it is an abstention, a write-in or "none of the above".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Fair point about the actual question put to the electorate.

Compulsory voting is an essential element of a democracy, along with a secret ballot, and electorates drawn by an independent commission. The latter of course is subject to direction as to the manner in which electorates are to be drawn, as witness the situation in Queensland for many years. The directions to favour country electorates were originally given to boost Labor Party representation, but later continued to give the same result to a governing Country Party.

[ 08. April 2016, 08:55: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

They have compulsory voting in Brazil also, but I'm not sure if I'm a big fan of it. I have the impression that what it does mostly is give rise to a lot of bureaucracy.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Chill, my apologies for taking so long to come back on your response. I have been very busy over the last 48 hours.

I could not disagree with you more. I recognise the (sort-of) rational basis for your statement "I see little sense in preserving two broken systems rather than one", but I evaluate things by results. As a citizen, most of us, and certainly me, have benefitted greatly from the restraints on the freedom of action of the broken, democratically deficient, House of Commons exercised by the undemocratic House of Lords, not very elected EU and outside the electoral system altogether, UK court system, European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.

The fact that some other ideal system might be quite different and more democratic if it could but happen, to me is largely irrelevant. It isn't going to happen. What is more, if it did, it would undoubtedly turn out to have all sorts of unforeseen consequences which would almost certainly be detrimental. They alway are.

quote:
Originally posted by GeeD
Compulsory voting is an essential element of a democracy ...

Quite simply, no it isn't. Most democracies function very adequately without it. It would also be very possible, and I am sure there have been plenty of examples, for an undemocratic state to have compulsory voting.

If North Korea were to have elections, I do not doubt that voting would be compulsory, even if the results would demonstrate that more people had voted for the beloved leader than actually existed.

So don't use the word 'essential' unless you really mean it. It has the result that even if there is general substance in some of what you say, people like me who are picky about words can come back and blow you out of the water.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The fact that some other ideal system might be quite different and more democratic if it could but happen, to me is largely irrelevant. It isn't going to happen. What is more, if it did, it would undoubtedly turn out to have all sorts of unforeseen consequences which would almost certainly be detrimental. They alway are.

Agreed. It would be interesting to know how many of the people who complain about the democratic deficit in Europe also complain about Britain giving up veto powers.

I've said upthread that the advantage of the current system is that it ensures every member state has a voice on the executive. If the European Parliament became a Westminster-style democracy, with the executive being whatever combination of ministers gets the support of a majority of MEPs, then the UK could easily end up with no voice at all - especially as Mr Cameron decided to move his MEPs into a group with no chance of ever holding a majority.

The alternative I suppose would be a kind of consociational system like in Northern Ireland, where the executive would be proposed by the Parliament and would need not only majority support but also representation from each country, which would probably lead to a permanent Belgian-style power vacuum. Or else you could give member states the right to veto legislation regardless of whether they're represented on the executive. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a system whereby any noble could veto legislation he didn't like - this is sometimes claimed to have led to the collapse of the country.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
[qb]
The decision to stick with that method of electing MPs was made at a referendum.

Hi thanks for your response. Sioni Sais has expressed far more eloquently than I could my reservations regarding this matter.

Hi Enoch thanks for your response I found it very interesting and insightful. It made me think about how good outcomes often come from unexpected places. I also apologise for being tied up and busy and thus slow to respond…

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I recognise the (sort-of) rational basis for your statement "I see little sense in preserving two broken systems rather than one", but I evaluate things by results.

We may well be starting from different premises’ and thus arriving at different places. My ethical thinking tends to be deontological. (Although I must confess I am strongly personally influence by Aristotelian and Platonist virtue ethics as well.)

I find personally consequentialism and utilitarianism less compelling. I recognise this is country to the prevailing trend in political thinking.

In a chaotic world outcomes are often unforeseen and hard to predict. I tend to stick to what I consider right principles as my personal ground for political decision making. Of course I don’t think consequence is utterly irrelevant. It is just that where unpredictable consequence finds itself in opposition to what I hold to be right principle I am inclined to trust the principle. The consequence can and often does change. I also fear where consequence based ethics can lead us. John Stewart Mill on Humanitarian intervention makes for a chilling read if place in its historic context of imperialism.

quote:
As a citizen, most of us, and certainly me, have benefitted greatly from the restraints on the freedom of action of the broken, democratically deficient, House of Commons exercised by the undemocratic House of Lords, not very elected EU and outside the electoral system altogether, UK court system, European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.

There a couple of points I would like to draw out here. One I firmly believe that the separation of the elected legislature from the independent Judiciary is central to a good democratic system. We agree on that but I do not see it as a conflict with my earlier observations. My compliant is that the power to enact(as opposed to enforce or rule upon) law can only be legitimately wielded by the people. Thus a democratic legislature is essential for that principle to remain intact. Power wielded with out consent of the governed is tyranny however benign it may be. I did make mention earlier that I was relatively comfortable with treaty based international law obligations as assented to by a democratic sovereign governments. So international law seems to me to be ok in the right circumstances. The one that really snags me up is the lords, you are indeed right that this unelected body has done much to preserve the liberties which I hold dear. It has also done much good in other areas well. The fact that its nature does not sit well with me does nothing to disqualify the truth of your assertion.

quote:
The fact that some other ideal system might be quite different and more democratic if it could but happen, to me is largely irrelevant. It isn't going to happen.

I think the fundematal principal that people can only be governed by concent is something we should never give up on. No matter how unrealistic it may seem. It seemed far more so to our ancestors who won us the liberty's we now enjoy. All hope of progress lies in the hands of unreasonable people who refuse to accept the status quo. We still have immense power. We should not surrender it to apathy and distraction. We live in a time where our liberties are being rolled back. Our democratic power undermined, often through the peddling of fear, while we stand like children distracted by the glittering lights of our consumer culture.

Men like Ghandi in India Showed what William Blake told us to be true that our Manacles are mind forged. That force is bounded by limits of viability and that our complicity is needed to enable our enslavement.

quote:

I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow.
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.

In every cry of every man,
In every infants cry or fear,
In every voice in every pan,
The mind forged manacles I hear

I do not believe that such a principle as the consent of the governed can be sacrificed on the altar of expedience. Which is what I personally would feel I was doing where I to vote to remain.

quote:
What is more, if it did, it would undoubtedly turn out to have all sorts of unforeseen consequences which would almost certainly be detrimental.

I could make an equal case that staying in may be detrimental as well. I hope I have conveyed that this is not my main motivation. I would stay in and seek to preserve it, if I believed it was the moral course of action.

Anyway, here are some of my pragmatic concerns; The precarious state of the Euro Zone economy. There is a major on-going toxic debt crises in both southern and to an ever increasing extent northern Europe. This in both national debt and financial service industry terms, I foresee real potential for an economic collapse of catastrophic proportions. Either way this will be bad but it may well be worse for us if we are still in. Another crash is coming one can only kick the can so far down the road before you run out of road. My next concern is the growth of austerity, which means the impoverishment of the week. We have problems with this here in the UK but to nothing like the extent of what is happening in southern Europe. The suppression of left wing democratic voices, see for example, Greece’s externally imposed national capitulation in the latest bailout. I no longer think the EU is a useful vehicle for the pragmatic left to advance social justice beyond the national conversation. Conversely, the rise of the extreme right, in Europe is another potential source of difficulties, violence and extremism as well as political movements like the front National are on the rise. The ongoing migrant crises, the radicalisation of Islamic extremists and there growth and success in Europe are for me another great concern. The escalating tensions in Turkey and its potential over spill westwards. The ever growing tensions with Russia, see for example the Ukrainian conflict. These are all potential existential threats to the EU. All these could be construed as sensible pragmatic reasons to Leave. A pragmatist might wish to protect our interests in the face of such a volatile situation. I’m an Idealist but I’m far from sure that the pragmatist case is unambiguously pro remain. In short I think in pragmatic terms the EU’s impending collapse or disintegration is probably inevitable irrespective of whether we leave or remain. External pressures internal divisions economic decline and increasing social unrest do not make for a stable political union in my view. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think it will happen next week but I think that it is the direction of travel that we face.

CHill

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Wow, Chill. That's a long reply. I'm not sure where to start.

I think you're probably right about our "starting from different premises and thus arriving at different places". I regret I don't even know what 'deontological ethical thinking means'. I suspect that if we met, you would regard me as just another tawdry pragmatist. Certainly, I'm not an idealist, and am happy not to be accused of being one. What is more, I think that "unreasonable people who refuse to accept the status quo" have been the cause of far more of what is deeply unpleasant in the world than any 'hope of progress' that any of them might theoretically represent.

I am, though, profoundly puzzled by your introduction of a moral dimension in,

quote:
I would stay in and seek to preserve it, if I believed it was the moral course of action.

There could be a moral case for remaining on the grounds that most people would say that international co-operation is morally better than its absence. In what sense, though, can anyone argue that it is more 'moral' to leave than to remain?

Even the leave camp don't seem to be arguing that. They seem largely to be driven by expediency arguments that don't persuade me, nationalist sentiment, and a dislike of Johnny foreigner.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Sorry I've been away. Me and family have been in Rome. Brilliant place. St. Peters is just incredible. I've been educating my impressionable children why up candle is better than down candle and why the Roman Forum wasn't plastic ("because Americans didn't build it dear").

Anyway, I have a question or two...

If we leave the EU, will we have to be PC anymore?

Only I stuck two fingers up at a Roman woman in a Fiat 500 who, from her hand gestures, wanted me to stay on the pavement instead of walking across the zebra crossing like we do in England.

I also told an old eyetie git, in some sort of "uniform", who told me to stand up when I rested my wearly feet in some monstrosity of marble to one of their "kings" that he was responsible for me voting to leave the EU.

Do you think they understood? If not why not when English is the most spoken language on the planet?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

So, you have a story about behaving obnoxiously on holiday. And, you're point is?

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you have a story about behaving obnoxiously on holiday. And, you're point is?

His point is that holidays don't change him! He is all about consistency! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I thought he was satirising the state of mind of the typical leave voter. I really, really hope I wasn't wrong.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I thought he was satirising the state of mind of the typical leave voter. I really, really hope I wasn't wrong.

I thought the "Death of Satire" had been explained by it having become all too real.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I regret I don't even know what 'deontological ethical thinking means'. I suspect that if we met, you would regard me as just another tawdry pragmatist.

Not at all I Just mean that I find principles more compelling ethically than consequences. We all compromise to some extent. I notice your post script which is both funny and true. I am pro-liberty and only accept democracy under sufferance as the only justifiable operation of power over free autonomous beings. I have some sympathy with political/philosophical anarchism but do not believe it is sustainable in the real world. It is the principle of Liberty and democracy which in the most part guides my views on the European Union.

quote:
Certainly, I'm not an idealist, and am happy not to be accused of being one. What is more, I think that "unreasonable people who refuse to accept the status quo" have been the cause of far more of what is deeply unpleasant in the world than any 'hope of progress' that any of them might theoretically represent.

I absolutely agree with you here. Allow me to clarify. I acknowledge that there are many people who are unreasonably bad, which is why it is incumbent upon those of us who are committed to freedom and justice to aspire towards unreasonable good.

quote:
There could be a moral case for remaining on the grounds that most people would say that international co-operation is morally better than its absence.

On the whole I am inclined to agree but for me the loss of democratic self-determination out ways that. I do find it quite compelling however. I heard Yanis Varoufakis the former Greek finance minister, argue that we should stay in to help reform and democratise the EU. It is the pro-case I find most compelling and the closest to swaying me. Project fear, however, is not really wining me over.

quote:

In what sense, though, can anyone argue that it is more 'moral' to leave than to remain?

Because freedom and self-determination is the fundamental ground of all meaningful moral action.
I would wish to argue that democracy is the best practical option to secure that liberty. It has in it implicate consent for government and law. Consent to law is the only moral ground for the exercise of violent constraint which is in its purist form the ultimate threat of law. To vote to stay in even benign bondage is for me morally unacceptable.

quote:
Even the leave camp don't seem to be arguing that. They seem largely to be driven by expediency arguments that don't persuade me, nationalist sentiment, and a dislike of Johnny foreigner.

Many of them hold this stance, yes. I agree that many of them are also arguing from expediency. There is however an eclectic mix of opinion on both sides of this debate spanning left and right wing divides. I guess what I am trying to say is this. The debate has on the whole been conducted about what is good for business and our economy. This is something which is terrifically difficult to assess ether way. This is evidenced by the fact that many of those calling for remain on commercial grounds were strong advocates of the Euro. We now know with hind sight this would have been economically disastrous.

The truth is however clear that there is a democratic deficit in the structures of the EU. Whilst I do recognise the problems we have domestically with our democratic system I am not yet ready to abandon the principle. I am concerned about what is good for our liberty, freedom and franchise such as it is. I do not believe that the EU is good for that. To quote a better man than I...

quote:
:John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

Chill

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Satire or not, I am now persuaded to vote Remain.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Because freedom and self-determination is the fundamental ground of all meaningful moral action.
I would wish to argue that democracy is the best practical option to secure that liberty. It has in it implicate consent for government and law. Consent to law is the only moral ground for the exercise of violent constraint which is in its purist form the ultimate threat of law. To vote to stay in even benign bondage is for me morally unacceptable.

Chill

I appreciate your idealism but don't you see that the efforts of all governments, even (especially?) in democratically elected Western model ones are hamstrung by business and economic interests. Our liberties are constantly under attack by these unelected interests. I suppose my point is "Whose law is it anyway?"

The really serious problems are way beyond trading blocs but I'd rather be associated with the mixed bag of countries in Europe, some of whom do put human interests rather more to the fore than Cameron, than rampant corporatism in America or the "kith and kin" dreams of many UKIPpers and old colonials.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Most of the advocates of Brexit hitherto have been right wing Poujardists. In the last 3-4 days, though, I've heard two left wing Brexiters being interviewed. I was intrigued, but not all that surprised, to find that they were as dense and unpersuasive as the more familiar reactionary Brexiters.

The limits of the arguments of one of them seemed to be, 'that way we can pull up the draw-bridge and go back to the dreary world view of a trade unionist in the 1950s'. The other was saying that only the EU came between Britain today and the prospect of achieving socialism in one country, his version of juche, a sort of British version of Enver Hoxha's Albania. He seemed to be oblivious to the thought that this would also be dependent on a degree of democratic illegitimacy against which his objections to the EU's undemocratic constitution would be as nothing.

So, for me, this confirms what I said on this thread on the 6th of April.

quote:
So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Enoch said

quote:
So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating

I feel the same, but I tend to feel this way about all sorts of things. Those where I don't, I suppose I change my mind, sooner or later.

I think the argument about sovereignty is the strongest one in favour of leaving, but I think it's illusory. We always have to pool, negotiate and share our self-determination, freedom and sovereignty. It's never just there as an absolute. Our voting system and corrupt politics are a far greater wound to our moral agency and sovereignty than membership of the EU is.

I think there's a real chance, if we leave, that the weakened EU will collapse with disastrous consequences.

Deano's post is uncannily like the opinions I hear, dressed up to make them fit to go out and about, from many Brexitters.

Do I have any positive reasons for voting to remain? I think politics needs massive reform. Neither leave nor remain offers this, but remaining and working to change the EU and, with its help, ourselves, seems the only possible way forwards.

In the end it's about learning to live together. Hard, but not a reason to look for a private cave.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I had the misfortune to listen to Gove's 3 minute hate this morning.

I'm left wondering why a man who's objecting that the Remain campaign is treating people like children then goes on to treat them like gullible fools, by spouting one falsehood after another in a kind of Gish-gallop that would be amusing, save for the seriousness of the subject.

I know, lying politician lies, but this was pretty bare-faced, even by the usual standards.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
hatless: I think there's a real chance, if we leave, that the weakened EU will collapse with disastrous consequences.

Exactly. I'm not a big fan of the EU myself, and on many counts I'm neutral when it comes to a Brexit (even if it means that I would lose my current job).

But I do think that a Brexit would strengthen forces in other countries, including my own, that are rather nasty.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I know, lying politician lies, but this was pretty bare-faced, even by the usual standards.

And Gove is 'respectable' by Brexit standards, from there on it gets worse and worse.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

What Gove's arguments highlight for me is the complete lack, over and above purely economic issues, of any sense of belonging to a European Community.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I had the misfortune to listen to Gove's 3 minute hate this morning.

I'm left wondering why a man who's objecting that the Remain campaign is treating people like children then goes on to treat them like gullible fools…

My other half said 'Do you want to listen to this?" and to my emphatic "no" she switched it off.

I find it ironic that the Leave campaign should wave the 'Project Fear' label over the Remain campaign and then run their own 'Project Fear' over scares about immigration, loss of sovereignty, and being "hostages locked in the back of the car and driven headlong towards deeper EU integration".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.

Have you heard Tony Benn speak on the matter yet?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What Gove's arguments highlight for me is the complete lack, over and above purely economic issues, of any sense of belonging to a European Community.

He is far from alone in that. In fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a large majority of Brits who, barring economic issues, would have no sense of belonging to a European Community. Even the Remain Campaign is presenting all its arguments in economic terms.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

Today began so badly it can only improve. Not only was I stuck in gridlocked traffic for over an hour, but the hate machine was doing its stuff on Radio 4. I don't like any politicians, but the Brexit lot seem marginally less savoury. On balance, I would vote to stay in the EU, more out of gut instinct than conviction from (spurious) economic arguments.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even the Remain Campaign is presenting all its arguments in economic terms.

And as I have said before, I think this difference in mindset is the biggest gulf between the UK and other European nations.

Realistically or not, here people seem to attach as much importance to some mystical notion of union as to economic issues, and talk in terms of the "European project" as a great collaborative undertaking, not about how much households will gain or lose by leaving/remaining.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]
I think this difference in mindset is the biggest gulf between the UK and other European nations.

I think there is a certain something here - in that on a personal level doubtless more people in continental Europe are willing to see being in the EU as part of their identity, whereas in the UK this doesn't feature highly - if at all.

OTOH, I think in the aggregate sense there is less of a difference, see the popular German reaction to the debt crisis in southern Europe, or conversely the staunch defence of national interests whenever there is an economic effect of any Europe-wide bill.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What Gove's arguments highlight for me is the complete lack, over and above purely economic issues, of any sense of belonging to a European Community.
He is far from alone in that. In fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a large majority of Brits who, barring economic issues, would have no sense of belonging to a European Community. Even the Remain Campaign is presenting all its arguments in economic terms.

And the solution that is being presented is to tear apart any sense of European identity - AND - and this is important - not just in Britain, where no doubt the sense of European identity is rather weak - BUT ALSO FOR THE REST OF EUROPE. Michael Gove has just acknowledged this in his speech - he has said that yes, there will be "contagion", but that this is a good thing.

Crikey.

He thinks that the collapse of the EU will bring a new democratic dawn to Europe.

I really don't think so.

I think the collapse of the EU will bring chaos and war to Europe.

I will give it 20 years.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think there is a certain something here - in that on a personal level doubtless more people in continental Europe are willing to see being in the EU as part of their identity, whereas in the UK this doesn't feature highly - if at all.

I realised this for the first time perhaps 25 years ago when I put it to a Brit that to the British, "Europeans" comprised everybody in the EU - apart from themselves.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Have you heard Tony Benn speak on the matter yet?

He cuts a fine figure, but I'm highly sceptical as to whether domestic UK politics is any freer of the influence of finance and industry, and indeed of technocrats, than the EU.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Have you heard Tony Benn speak on the matter yet?

I know I belong to a generation who is supposed to think that Tony Benn was wonderful, but he did not do it for me.I suppose it's very like how I've never been able to see why so many people my age still think Bob Dylan is special.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I realised this for the first time perhaps 25 years ago when I put it to a Brit that to the British, "Europeans" comprised everybody in the EU - apart from themselves.

Sure, and in the interim it hasn't changed - so I accept that part of your argument, as it is pretty obviously true.

OTOH, as I said, it doesn't actually affect aggregate behaviour much, so realistically the critique that the current Brexit debate hinges largely on economic consequences, has to acknowledge that national economic interests is pretty much the stock in trade of the EU as it current exists.

There are vanishingly few instances in which EU solidarity has managed to overcome national interests.

[ 19. April 2016, 11:58: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think there is a certain something here - in that on a personal level doubtless more people in continental Europe are willing to see being in the EU as part of their identity, whereas in the UK this doesn't feature highly - if at all.
I realised this for the first time perhaps 25 years ago when I put it to a Brit that to the British, "Europeans" comprised everybody in the EU - apart from themselves.

And, I know I'm an oddity. Because, I've never really identified as British (these days I'm more inclined to identify as Scottish, despite being born in England), but have for 30 odd years identified as European. Basically, because the points at which I identify with others in the UK are also the points that I share with others in Europe - Scandinavia in particular. And, I identify with other people as individuals, rather than with abstract concepts such as nations. Which is also probably why I identify more as Scottish than British, because I identify with a larger number of people in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
He thinks that the collapse of the EU will bring a new democratic dawn to Europe.

If he really believes that, then why isn't he campaigning for the other side? Oh wait - because he only approves of people being told what to do when he's in charge.

Michael Gove, champion of freedom and democracy? [Killing me]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
Today began so badly it can only improve. Not only was I stuck in gridlocked traffic for over an hour, but the hate machine was doing its stuff on Radio 4. I don't like any politicians, but the Brexit lot seem marginally less savoury. On balance, I would vote to stay in the EU, more out of gut instinct than conviction from (spurious) economic arguments.

Any idea that's shared by the likes of Micheal Gove, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and George Galloway must be bad.

I found Gove's comments this morning unbelievable. He never misses an opportunity to talk down to anyone. Pots and kettles. I turned the radio off. For it's own safety. [Mad]

Tubbs

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even the Remain Campaign is presenting all its arguments in economic terms.
And as I have said before, I think this difference in mindset is the biggest gulf between the UK and other European nations.

Realistically or not, here people seem to attach as much importance to some mystical notion of union as to economic issues, and talk in terms of the "European project" as a great collaborative undertaking, not about how much households will gain or lose by leaving/remaining.

That was my experience when I lived in France. I suppose the issues I have with the 'mystical union' approach are:

1. It leads to people treating the EU like devout Christians who will put up with any amount of crap from the Church because they believe it is the Ark of Salvation.

2. I am not convinced that the 'mystical union' view is shared by the more recent member states, especially the former Eastern Bloc. In the East ISTM the EU is more about getting away from the Russians.

3. Purely from an 'apologetics' POV, it leads to an annoying self-righteousness among supporters. I was told a number of times that the English are 'mauvais européens' (bad Europeans), and it is quite irritating.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I appreciate your idealism but don't you see that the efforts of all governments, even (especially?) in democratically elected Western model ones are hamstrung by business and economic interests.

I absolutely agree with this but I would go further. I think on the whole they no longer serve us and rather than hamstrung I would go so far as to say complicit. The problem is I would say systemic; there is a revolving door between, political administrative, corporate and financial elites. This is very much the case on both the national and European level. I distrust the state and capital in equal measure. The Neo-Liberal economic philosophy holds sway with both our policy makers domestically and in Brussels. However, belonging to an economic trading block which is fundamentally committed to a broken economic system seems to me dangerous. This is especially the case when membership precludes trying to fix some of those basics problems. In practical terms re-nationalisation of industries which are clearly in the national interest is impossible under the terms of our membership. Similarly protectionism favouring local, sustainable production over imports would breach fair competition rules yet is clearly the environmentally sound course of action. This means that the possibility of meaningful change is denied. Not just these but almost any radical systemic solutions which depart from the free-trade capitalists neo-liberal agenda are precluded. Furthermore a lack of effective franchise regarding the legislative arm robs us of the ability to exert a significant form of political pressure in order achieve change in these areas.

From its very inception as the European Coal and Steel Community which rose out of Breton Woods and the Marshal plan, for understandable geopolitical reasons, the EU has been firmly rooted in that U.S. capitalists economic policy and strategic interests. Staying in to hold back the super capitalist corporate tied is like drinking lots of water to stave of drowning.

The narrative of a Union conceived end European wars is a somewhat idealised reading of history to say the least. It was an economic bulwark against the eastern communist threat just like the rise of Japan and the Asian tigers in the Far East. It was about maintaining the USA’s hegemonic sphere of influence. European cooperation was as much as anything a reaction to a mutually shared threat on their boarders. NATO did the strategic work and the EU did the economic work of ensuring capitalisms economic triumph in Europe.

quote:
Our liberties are constantly under attack by these unelected interests. I suppose my point is "Whose law is it anyway?"

In my view it is, increasingly, theirs not ours. The Interesting emergence of the panama papers discussed at length on another thread is I would argue symptomatic of the whole sale co-option of the machinery of power and government. See also the vast corporate influence in US politics through lobbying. The law is increasingly stacked in favour of the Elites and against the people. To divest ourselves through apathy of democratic and legal structures which remain to us would be to surrender the very tool that may help us win the law back. Of course there are other non-violent tools we can employ to seek Change. We are however more powerful than we believe if mass opinion can be awakened. Autocracies are no more immune to corruption but they are much less susceptible to their own peoples influence.

quote:
The really serious problems are way beyond trading blocs

That is true at least in part because we are reaching the point where vast capitalist entities are tacking on quasi-national characteristics. I agree that a nation is now hard pressed to defend its people’s interests in the face of global capital. I, however, think that we cannot even begin to address this challenging task until we have wrested back power form the complicit representative who govern us. It is my firm hope we begin that process with Brussels’s then move on to Westminster.

quote:
…but I'd rather be associated with the mixed bag of countries in Europe, some of whom do put human interests rather more to the fore than Cameron, than rampant corporatism in America or the "kith and kin" dreams of many UKIPpers and old colonials.

Camron is pro which should tell you a great deal in and of its self about where much neo-liberal economic sympathy lies. Corbin’s far less vociferous endorsement in favour may be revealing of the need for party unity rather than personal enthusiasm? Certainly his past record would suggest this interpretation of the facts. Either way there is a very wide spectrum of opinion on both sides of this debate. See Martins post regarding tony Benn

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.

With all due respect Enoch, your subjective view of the intellectual calibre of those we hold differing opinions to you does not amount to an argument ether way. It is the equivalent of saying I prefer green to blue. I find myself in the opposite position. There are thinkers I deeply respect on both sides of the debate. This fact however, does very little to advance the argument one way or the other.

I would rather engage the issue than the man. So here are my reasons. As a Left leaning democratic libertarian the loss of self-determination is for me troubling. In the example of Greece we see Left wing democratic electoral will subverted by autocratic financial power. I believe that there are systemic problems with our society and economy that need addressing. I don’t think that will be possible from within so I want out.

Even if I didn’t believe in the need for change, I believe in the need for democracy so I would still want out. Democracy, as flawed as it is, was not given it was won and it can just as easily be lost. I do not believe this is a stupid principle to hold. If it is stupid by all means demonstrate the flaw in my logic. First and Foremost, I would assert that democratic franchise is the only sensible workable grounds for establishing political liberty. This is of course short of a political system Anarchy which I do not believe is practicable. Technocratic and autocratic government and legislatures diminish the power of our political franchise by virtue of there unaccountability. Thus, it stands to reason, that such systems of government should be avoided by those who seek to protect and increase Liberty.

An extract form Tony Benn’s comments in parliament regarding economic convergence criteria for the Euro, in 1998. which can be verified here... http://tinyurl.com/gsoejae

quote:
Tony Benn said...
…In the 1930s, I remember vividly Hitler coming to power when there were 5 million or 6 million unemployed in Germany. I bought "Mein Kampf' when I was 11. I have it on my shelf at home. Unemployment leads to despair, and despair destroys democracy, just as political impotence destroys democracy. If, when we vote, we cannot change anything, that destroys democracy. There are now 15 million unemployed in the European Union. I am not saying that what happened in the 1930s will return, but we are dealing with big questions.

We are dealing with the question whether it is legitimate in countries that boast of democracy for the electors to elect a Government and a Parliament that can influence the form of their own lives. It applies throughout the EU. This is not a British objection—I would feel just as strongly if I were a Frenchman, a Spaniard, a Greek or from any other country.

Such concerns seem to me, if anything, more pressing today than they where then.

Chill

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Most of the advocates of Brexit hitherto have been right wing Poujardists. In the last 3-4 days, though, I've heard two left wing Brexiters being interviewed. I was intrigued, but not all that surprised, to find that they were as dense and unpersuasive as the more familiar reactionary Brexiters.

The limits of the arguments of one of them seemed to be, 'that way we can pull up the draw-bridge and go back to the dreary world view of a trade unionist in the 1950s'. The other was saying that only the EU came between Britain today and the prospect of achieving socialism in one country, his version of juche, a sort of British version of Enver Hoxha's Albania. He seemed to be oblivious to the thought that this would also be dependent on a degree of democratic illegitimacy against which his objections to the EU's undemocratic constitution would be as nothing.

So, for me, this confirms what I said on this thread on the 6th of April.

quote:
So far, I have not heard any sensible argument from anyone that would persuade any rational person, yet alone me, to vote leave. Nor, as yet, have I heard anyone I know whose opinions I respect, say that they intend to vote leave. The only people I have heard advocating a leave vote are people who already had no intellectual credibility, a nil brain rating.

That's an interesting point about left-wing criticisms of the EU. I think the old one was that it was a capitalist club, which you don't hear today. I suppose you could argue that the EU produces low-paid non-unionized jobs, promotes privatization, and helps big business.

However, looking at the Leave campaign, they seem to offer the same, or worse.

I was looking at one of the BBC websites, and under an article on the EU were the usual comments, and I must admit to feelings of fear when reading the Leave comments. They were a mixture of half-witted, racist, and utopian comments, which sound to me completely unhinged. I expect there are saner Leave supporters, but at the moment, they come off as a mixture of UKIP and right-wing Tories fulminating about too many brown people, not speaking English as they should. And we kept out Napoleon, why can't we keep Merkel out?

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

Crikey.

He thinks that the collapse of the EU will bring a new democratic dawn to Europe.

I really don't think so.

I think the collapse of the EU will bring chaos and war to Europe.

I will give it 20 years.

There is war in Europe now, not in the EU. Geopolitically speaking the EU and NATO's inexorable march east from Germany has been a major factor in the savage on-going conflict in Ukraine. Also previously Georgia and the break up of Yugoslavia where not unconnected to east-west tensions in Europe. Thus far the dead are not our people but this notion the EU has forestalled war seems some what overstated. Global stale mate forestalled war in our little corner of the world for a while. Only or corner mind you, many died elsewhere. This was not the triumph of the 'European project', but US military power holding in check the USSR. War goes on unabated as it ever did just not here, though it is coming increasingly close. Ukraine, Syria and turkey which is again prosecuting a bloody civil war against the Kurds. It may return to the west as an import not just an export who can say. I'm far from convinced that our staying in will stop such an eventuality however.

Chilll

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I realised this for the first time perhaps 25 years ago when I put it to a Brit that to the British, "Europeans" comprised everybody in the EU - apart from themselves.

In many contexts, "European" would refer to the continent rather than the political entity. IME, it would be normal to refer to Switzerland or Norway as being "European" even though they're not in the EU, and it wouldn't normally include the Irish even though they're in the EU and the Euro.

But I agree - "European" is used most often in contrast to "British" rather than as a superset of it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

"Europe" and "European" have several meanings.

Geographically, they refer to a continent, part of the (somewhat arbitarily divided) Eurasian land mass. And, the UK and Ireland are part of that geographical entity, sitting firmly on the European continental shelf. It is only in the very recent past that a narrow stretch of sea has separated the UK and Ireland from the rest of the continent.

"European" could also describe the people who live in Europe, often more specifically those directly descended from the modern humans who settled Europe in pre-history. Which is quite tricky to disentangle, with what appear to be multiple waves of people moving across the continent (though some of those movements may have been of ideas rather than actual people). How far back do you go? If we just stick for the moment (because of the relevance to the referendum in the UK) to the "English", then we are very strongly related to the various Germanic tribes that moved across Europe at the end of the Roman Empire - the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Franks etc. That makes the people of England closer to Germany and France than to Scotland and Wales.

Or, we could think of cultural definitions of European. Again, a very complex mix. But, there are some core elements - a cultural heritage derived from Greco-Roman antiquity, with a strong Christian heritage, a commonality in being the cradle of Modernity, of considering colonisation important, an individualism with respect for individual liberty and human rights. Those broad themes are common to both sides of the Channel.

All of which make "British" a very clear subset of "European".

But, finally, political identity. Which is probably the trickiest, and of course the subject of the referendum - a vote to leave the EU will not in any way alter the identity of Britain and the British people as geographically, ethnically and culturally European. But, it can change the political identification. Which is because political identification, the concept of and identity of nation states, is an extremely arbitary thing which rarely (if ever) corresponds to any real differences (though can, and often does, emphasise and reinforce secondary points of difference in order to perpetuate the arbitrary political lines). The tragedy of human history has been when these arbitrary lines have been important enough to fight over.

The tragedy of many people in Britain is that they still emphasise an arbitrary and recent political divide over and above the real and ancient geographical, ethnic and cultural ties.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Map of Europe according to Great Britain.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The tragedy of human history has been when these arbitrary lines have been important enough to fight over.

The tragedy of many people in Britain is that they still emphasise an arbitrary and recent political divide over and above the real and ancient geographical, ethnic and cultural ties.

I'm inclined to think there is some merit in this. However I like to ask how European in the context of people is not just a sub-set if human?

My point is this, from within it may look very open and internationalist but from without it is a large economic block of powerful mainly white western nations which are on the whole geopolitically and economically aligned to the hegemonic world power. NATO of course being separate confuses the prima facia strategic picture but lets be honest about the realties.

Nor have its constituent nations been free from war. Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mali all being very recent examples. Rather than abolishing lines it is just another line. It's expansion in the face of the collapse of communism is just a redrawing of the line. Don't get me wrong I recognise there has been some positive as well as negative results from the EU. I just don't understand how European is any less or more arbitrary than British. I don't think the idealised view of the European project holds water either historically or ideologically.

Chill

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:

Camron is pro which should tell you a great deal in and of its self about where much neo-liberal economic sympathy lies.

Be careful with this line of argument - whilst I realise that it isn't the entirety of your reasoning - aligned in the leave camp we have a bunch of headbangers who seem to want to drive this country over the cliff for a set of narrow ideological reasons and personal ambition.

I suspect that when it dawns on the permanently pissed off that leaving hasn't solved all the countries problems and made us all sit up and behave (damn it), they'll then need to find a different scapegoat.

Take Gove's statement yesterday that we'll be able to replace the our current access to the single market with a set of trade deals (explicitly outside the EFTA). This is true - it will however take time, probably 5-10 years, because apart from a number of small countries, most nations will have more urgent problems to take up their legislative time. So Gove will just blame 'bitter europeans' and move on - after all, he'll have done fairly well for himself, so screw everyone else.

On your question of democratic deficit, I think you'll find that the people who do the best out of an exit don't really have problems with a deficit per-se, as long as it is on their terms - insofar as european powers are concerned, their biggest bugbear seems to be an overly independent judiciary.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, that point about head-bangers resonates with me. The Leave campaign is looking fairly bonkers, what with Gove and Johnson making bizarre statements, and the grass-roots sounding like UKIP to the nth power. The comments sections on various web-sites are truly scary, as if hell had released all the malcontents, racists, and dimwits onto a single campaign.

I was trying to imagine if Leave won, and these people would presumably start to negotiate, and might replace the Cameron government. God help us.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Be careful with this line of argument - whilst I realise that it isn't the entirety of your reasoning -

Yes I know I was making the point that there are deeply untrustworthy folk on both sides, of this debate. As indeed there are people I much respect on both sides too.

Economically there is a strong ideologically neo-liberal free trade agenda. This is specifically for the, perceived, advantage of the financial service industry. An industry which makes up the vast majority of our economic activity. The logic goes financial services are international in nature and scope. So there is a concerted move to free the city form EU regulation. Instead the aim is to place it directly into an international law and arbitration framework. Much of the frame work is already in place in trade agreements such as TTIP. I am aware that there is no current offer from the US to include us in TTIP. Equally the EU is intuitionally committed to that economic out look itself. I disapprove of this either way but at least I have a some meaningful democratic tools at my disposal in the domestic context. I acknowledge that there is need for improvement here as well. But as Tony Benn Put it I would rather have a bad parliament than a good king.

quote:
their biggest bugbear seems to be an overly independent judiciary.

Personally I am fine with an independent judiciary. My problem is that the legislature are also independent of the electorate. This, to me, seems unnervingly like a technocracy.

quote:
On your question of democratic deficit, I think you'll find that the people who do the best out of an exit don't really have problems with a deficit per-se, as long as it is on their terms -

Maybe so but I do. For me regaining economic and democratic self-determination is the pre-requisite for positive meaningful change. No such change can happen under the terms of our membership. It was not allowed when Greece sought to institute a left wing anti-austerity program.

I have no illusions regarding the problems we face domestically in wresting back control from our own self-interested elite. Surrender, of our democratic liberties, in the hope that another powerful and even more unaccountable elite will protect us seems to me ill advised.

Even if they are right about the economy-which lets face it would be a first-democratic self-determination is a principle I am willing to pay for. Many paid in blood for the vote, I will not abandon that principle even if I am better off doing so. Liberty is an expensive and hard won right. Such liberty is only achievable with the power of real self-determination.

Chilll

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire.
If people are feeling uneasy over a sense, real or imagined, that the World is becoming unstable then anything can happen.

Trump in charge of the States and Europe falling apart?
I still don't know which way to vote but have to say that such an outcome ranks fairly high on my scale of nightmare scenarios.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:

I disapprove of this either way but at least I have a some meaningful democratic tools at my disposal in the domestic context. I acknowledge that there is need for improvement here as well.

Alternatively, you could take the view that that attempts to change this on a national level don't have a particularly happy history and that at this given time we stand the best chance of achieving change via some kind of internationalist movement - this speaks to your point about Greece also incidentally. Plus as quetzalcoatl points out above, if the majority is for Leave - the people most likely to come into power for the remainder of a fixed term in government are one who are generally socially regressive and on the outer extremes of neo-liberalism. Furthermore, they will be riding high on the back of their triumph, and they will take that vote as a mandate.

quote:

Even if they are right about the economy-which lets face it would be a first-democratic self-determination is a principle I am willing to pay for.

I do not think that individual arguments made by the Remain folk are necessarily correct. I believe the overall idea that we will be worse off for some time if we left the EU is very probably correct - because it is advanced by thoughtful folk who have been right in the past. Economic hardship whether I fear it or not, has greater consequences for those who are less fortunate than me, and the past few years have been a mere taste of the kind of thing politicians can get away when scapegoating 'undesirable' groups when the country as a whole is feeling the pinch.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire.
If people are feeling uneasy over a sense, real or imagined, that the World is becoming unstable then anything can happen.

Trump in charge of the States and Europe falling apart?
I still don't know which way to vote but have to say that such an outcome ranks fairly high on my scale of nightmare scenarios.

Here's a real nightmare for you - Trump in charge left of the pond and Boris on the right. Can you still sign up for that one way Mars expedition?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I am in the queue

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can you still sign up for that one way Mars expedition?

The Referendum ought to be vote Leave or Stay ....... the Planet that is.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Even if they are right about the economy-which lets face it would be a first-democratic self-determination is a principle I am willing to pay for. Many paid in blood for the vote, I will not abandon that principle even if I am better off doing so. Liberty is an expensive and hard won right. Such liberty is only achievable with the power of real self-determination.

Chilll

And sometimes all that is left is the liberty to decide which road you sit beside to starve to death.

Liberty has many flavours. Don't treat the concept as a god.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... Take Gove's statement yesterday that we'll be able to replace the our current access to the single market with a set of trade deals (explicitly outside the EFTA). This is true - it will however take time, probably 5-10 years, because apart from a number of small countries, most nations will have more urgent problems to take up their legislative time. ...

Is that true? I don't think it is.

The Gove argument seems to be 'well we may have p*ss*d off the rest of Europe, but they won't mind. We're so wonderful, and we have such bargaining power that they'll be queuing up to give us favourable terms'.

I don't believe that. I think that if 'leave' wins, our p*ss*d off former friends will be determined to get their own back by driving as hard a deal as they can.

The whole Gove etc argument is based on an IF that doesn't stack up.

quote:
On your question of democratic deficit, I think you'll find that the people who do the best out of an exit don't really have problems with a deficit per-se, as long as it is on their terms - insofar as european powers are concerned, their biggest bugbear seems to be an overly independent judiciary.

That is conformed by the fact that most of them are Conservatives, who have been consistently hostile to any sort of electoral reform at Westminster. Have a look and see what they were saying individually at the time of the referendum on that in 2011.

However imperfect the alternative vote might have been, anyone who advocated the present system even to that option clearly isn't bothered by any democratic deficit if it does them the favour of working to their advantage.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Is that true? I don't think it is.

The Gove argument seems to be 'well we may have p*ss*d off the rest of Europe, but they won't mind. We're so wonderful, and we have such bargaining power that they'll be queuing up to give us favourable terms'.

Yes, and posed that way, it is clearly rubbish, however Gove tends to be someone whose arguments morph to fit the criticism, so I think it's important to deal with the wider point he could conceivably make.

So, in general the UK should be able to get free trade agreements with most of its major trading partners, however it will take a long time to do so. It will be slightly quicker to join an existing platform like EFTA, but even that won't be instant.

As I said above, I don't think Gove cares, he's just interested in shutting down the argument - and can always attribute later failures to 'jealous Germans trying to sabotage British foreign trade' or whatever.

Gove himself is an interesting example of a kind of collective Dunning-Kruger effect, in that he sounds intelligent to the sort of people who write newspaper columns:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/cartoon/2012/mar/16/1

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Moreover on the trade deal we can cut: the Leave group are under the impression that we can secure terms with the EU that are equal, if not better, than the terms the EU give their own member states, and outside the EU, equal, if not better terms, than the EU can negotiate with other trading blocs.

I beseech them, in the bowels of Christ, to think it possible that they are mistaken.

[ 20. April 2016, 20:39: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... Gove himself is an interesting example of a kind of collective Dunning-Kruger effect, in that he sounds intelligent to the sort of people who write newspaper columns: ...

I'm put in mind of this by Pont . My apologies for the watermark.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Or this one from the same source .

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
And sometimes all that is left is the liberty to decide which road you sit beside to starve to death.

Liberty has many flavours. Don't treat the concept as a god.

God is God, liberty is the ground of moral action. If my choice is freedom or death I may think if my choice is freedom or cheaper I-pods if you will forgive me I may be inclined to infringe on your liberty to get cheaper I pods. It all about perspective.

Chill

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[QUOTE]this speaks to your point about Greece

I hardly see how given subversion of the democratic will of the Greek people can be any hope or evidence of reform in the EU. It is systemically pro-big cooperate power and capital. It has shown it is willing to subvert democratic change.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

Plus as quetzalcoatl points out above, if the majority is for Leave - the people most likely to come into power for the remainder of a fixed term in government are one who are generally socially regressive and on the outer extremes of neo-liberalism. Furthermore, they will be riding high on the back of their triumph, and they will take that vote as a mandate.

Lets be honest here Panama Dave and Bumbling Boris hardly constitute an iron curtain of ideological difference.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Economic hardship whether I fear it or not, has greater consequences for those who are less fortunate than me, and the past few years have been a mere taste

Please do not misunderstand me I grew up in poverty. That is in part why I am committed to leaving. I believe there is a better way more balanced way of organising our society than the prevailing neo-liberal capitalist economic narrative. The EU is fundamentally committed to that narrative and undemocratic as well. Real hope of real change requires the courage to leave.

I distrust both capital and government. It seems to me that we need strong democracy to ensure the checks and balances to control those forces. They must both be made to work for our good not us for there good. If left unbridled they will soon become our masters rather than useful tools we need them to be. Without democracy there is little or no hope of meaningful change. Capital and Democracy are at best strange bedfellows and now they are on collision course. Greece should tell us all where the EU's allegiances lie. Democracy and Liberty were won with struggle and will only be preserved by struggle and vigilance. I am not ready to surrender that principle.

Chill

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
Greece should tell us all where the EU's allegiances lie.

Greece (in relation to economic concerns - the refugee issue in Greece is different again) is a difficult one to argue. Because, if Greece had been in the same situation (owing substantial amounts of money to European, and other, banks and with an economic downturn that meant it could not pay those debts) but outside the Eurozone, or even outside the EU, things wouldn't have made much difference. Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference), Greece still wouldn't have been able to pay that and their creditors would still have dictated a programme of austerity on Greece, against the democratic will of the Greek people. The only way that Greece could have avoided that was by not taking out loans from foreign banks in the first place, or at least not such substantial loans that they were unable to repay them when the economy collapsed.

So, I suppose the question is should the EU (and/or nations in the EU) have stepped in 10-20 years ago and prevented banks from making large loans to Greece? Or, should they have stepped in over the last few years and demanded that banks should cancel some of the debt? We can look back all we want and say the banking sector should have had more oversight and regulation to stop banks making so many risky investments. But, we can't lay the blame there at the feet of the EU since the problems in the financial sector were endemic in most countries in the world.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire.

What makes you think "America" is paying any attention to this referendum at all?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

"America" as in the media and the majority of the people are probably concentrating on domestic politics far more than the Brexit referendum. The same isn't necessarily true of leading politicians and business people.

Indeed the President is expected to comment further when he visits the UK shortly.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The whole Gove etc argument is based on an IF that doesn't stack up.

Not just that - it's based on an IF Mr Gove becomes Prime Minister.

When Mr Salmond promised that an independent Scotland would keep EU membership and the pound, one might have doubted whether such promises were achievable or desirable, but at least post-independence Mr Salmond would have been in a position to ask for them.

Mr Gove can't even ask for trade deals outside of EFTA unless Mr Cameron resigns, the Conservative Party anoint him as leader, and Labour refrains from ganging up with disgruntled backbenchers to force a general election.

[ 21. April 2016, 05:46: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chill:
... I believe there is a better way more balanced way of organising our society than the prevailing neo-liberal capitalist economic narrative. The EU is fundamentally committed to that narrative and undemocratic as well. Real hope of real change requires the courage to leave. ...

That's a really odd statement when most of the prominent Leavers accuse the EU of getting in the way of a more 'neo-liberal capitalist economic narrative'. They want no interference from nasty Brussels telling people they've got to have paid holiday, TUPE protection etc.

quote:
I distrust both capital and government. It seems to me that we need strong democracy to ensure the checks and balances to control those forces. ...

So do lots of us, but what possible basis is there in the real world rather than some other dream one for saying that a UK Parliament unfettered by Brussels interference would give you something better rather than something a lot lot worse.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)

Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)
Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.

It certainly would have had an effect. Hyperinflation, and making imports impossible to buy. They could probably feed themselves, but they don't have any oil to power their tractors, so they'd need to buy that in.

I don't think you'd want to go down that route.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I've recently come across the Electoral Integrity Project run out of Harvard and Sydney universities. This shows a really rather dismal score for the UK (in part reflecting the FPTP system). Interesting to note that they identify "Electoral integrity was ... strengthened by international linkage (e.g. membership of regional organizations)". If they are right then leaving the EU, rescinding our membership of a regional organisation, will weaken electoral integrity and therefore further weaken our democracy.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)
Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.
It certainly would have had an effect. Hyperinflation, and making imports impossible to buy. They could probably feed themselves, but they don't have any oil to power their tractors, so they'd need to buy that in.

I don't think you'd want to go down that route.

Monetary policy is always going to have to account for, and therefore to an extent be dictated by, the economy and policies of trading partners. Devaluing currencies, changing interest rates etc all have the effect of making imports more expensive (which if needed inflates the economy) or cheaper (suppressing demand for domestic production), and the same for exports. Cut interest rates and people take their money and invest it in banks elsewhere with higher interest rates, raise them and you get investors but your businesses and home owners pay more to repay their loans. The only way to avoid that is to be entirely self sufficient and completely seal your borders (including the electronic ones).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
I distrust both capital and government. It seems to me that we need strong democracy to ensure the checks and balances to control those forces. ...
So do lots of us, but what possible basis is there in the real world rather than some other dream one for saying that a UK Parliament unfettered by Brussels interference would give you something better rather than something a lot lot worse.

I think Chill's point is rather that a UK Parliament unfettered by Brussels interference could give us something better if we voted for it. Which is pretty much the whole basis of democracy.

A lot of people seem to be assuming that left to its own devices Britain would inevitably become permanently locked into some kind of Tory Neoliberal Capitalist dystopia, and thus we need the EU to prevent that. There are some problems with this argument:

It assumes that the British people will never vote for a Socialist government.
It assumes that the EU will never become a Tory Neoliberal Capitalist dystopia.
It assumes that Tory Neoliberal Capitalist dystopia is so bad that it should never be allowed to happen, even if that's what the people vote for. Once you accept that assumption it's only a small jump to the idea that letting the people choose their government is a dangerous risk that shouldn't be allowed.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Organisations like the IMF and the banks would have still demanded the money they were owed in Euro's, US$ or similar (ie: fiddling around with the value of the drachma wouldn't have made any difference)
Devaluing the drachma may not have an effect on the debt itself, but by stimulating investment and economic growth it would have an effect on Greece's ability to repay it.
It certainly would have had an effect. Hyperinflation, and making imports impossible to buy. They could probably feed themselves, but they don't have any oil to power their tractors, so they'd need to buy that in.

I don't think you'd want to go down that route.

So what's your solution? Endless bailouts? Crippling austerity?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So what's your solution? Endless bailouts? Crippling austerity?

Not borrow so much in the first place? Have a plan to pay back your loans? Structure your economy in such a way that it doesn't rely on cheap money flooding in from abroad?

That's my solution. If only they'd listened when it was still relevant. As it is, debt cancellation from outside, and a total restructuring of government spending from the inside, is their only hope.

As it is, all that the bailouts are doing are bailing out the banks that lent recklessly in the first place. The billions of euros are bypassing ordinary Greeks entirely. That has to stop.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"America" as in the media and the majority of the people are probably concentrating on domestic politics far more than the Brexit referendum. The same isn't necessarily true of leading politicians and business people.

I suspect the number of leading American politicians and business people who aren't concentrating on the US election far more than the Brexit referendum is extremely small.

quote:

Indeed the President is expected to comment further when he visits the UK shortly.

It would be awkward if he said nothing when asked at a press conference; "commenting further" is hardly evidence that the two issues are of anything near comparable salience.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's "commenting further" because President Obama has already made several statements on the subject of the UK and Europe - without being in the UK and the press asking the obvious question.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

For example?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Now you made me go and look, and I find that what I've been reading for the last couple of weeks is along the lines of "Obama is expected to repeat his support for the UK remaining in the EU when he visits", without any links to Obama having expressed those views.

The closest that Google gets is in this from Reuters where Ben Rhodes (deputy national security adviser) says "As the president has said, we support a strong United Kingdom in the European Union" without any indication of when, and under what circumstances, Obama had said that.

I also found this report of former Treasury advisors expressing their opinions.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The closest that Google gets is in this from Reuters where Ben Rhodes (deputy national security adviser) says "As the president has said, we support a strong United Kingdom in the European Union" without any indication of when, and under what circumstances, Obama had said that.

Use google's news search and specify a set of dates that ends in the past:

Two stories as a starter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20961651
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-administration-warns-britain-to-stay-in-the-european-union-8444789.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22506407

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

I don't believe that. I think that if 'leave' wins, our p*ss*d off former friends will be determined to get their own back by driving as hard a deal as they can.

Is that not the (pre going a bit stabby) Helen Archer defence?

We need to stay because if we leave they'll beat us up. Great basis for a relationship that.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Is that not the (pre going a bit stabby) Helen Archer defence?

We need to stay because if we leave they'll beat us up. Great basis for a relationship that.

Conversely one could take the view that even if they were perfectly neutral, such arrangements would take a long period of time as it simply won't be a priority for most larger countries and trade deals take a long time to hammer out (which is part of the reason that trade platforms have such traction)

That is the more reasoned corrective to Gove's idiotic claims that we would magically get a better deal overnight than every other country that has a trade deal with the EU.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Is that not the (pre going a bit stabby) Helen Archer defence?

We need to stay because if we leave they'll beat us up. Great basis for a relationship that.
Conversely one could take the view that even if they were perfectly neutral, such arrangements would take a long period of time as it simply won't be a priority for most larger countries and trade deals take a long time to hammer out (which is part of the reason that trade platforms have such traction)

That is the more reasoned corrective to Gove's idiotic claims that we would magically get a better deal overnight than every other country that has a trade deal with the EU.

sure, but I was more taking issue with them wanting to "get their own back" which is rather different (in both form and motivation) to it just not being a priority. OTOH Germany's export surplus to the UK alone ought to be focusing minds that no matter how much they might be annoyed, deliberately holding things up or seeking some sort of vengeance is not going to help them sell BMWs. Or champagne, in the case of the French (the UK is their largest market)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Be that as it may, the EU aren't going to offer us the same or better terms than what we have while we're actually in the EU.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
OTOH Germany's export surplus to the UK alone ought to be focusing minds that no matter how much they might be annoyed, deliberately holding things up or seeking some sort of vengeance is not going to help them sell BMWs. Or champagne, in the case of the French (the UK is their largest market)

And a agreement that covers a few items like that - including a few items that Britain currently imports to France and Germany will be fairly quick to draw up. A general agreement covering all trade in goods and services will take years.

And what Doc Tor says above is trivially true anyway.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The closest that Google gets is in this from Reuters where Ben Rhodes (deputy national security adviser) says "As the president has said, we support a strong United Kingdom in the European Union" without any indication of when, and under what circumstances, Obama had said that.
Use google's news search and specify a set of dates that ends in the past:

Two stories as a starter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20961651
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/obama-administration-warns-britain-to-stay-in-the-european-union-8444789.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22506407

All three of your links are stories from 2013 about responses to questions from reporters. The first two are about remarks from the US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip H Gordon, whom the Independent refers to as "a respected senior member of the Obama administration" - a characterization which would probably make his mother proud, but would only puzzle the 99.99% of Americans who have never heard of him.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

As I said, it's surprisingly easy to read the same "Obama is expected to repeat his support for the UK remaining in Europe" for several weeks, and therefore to gain the impression that this was a view Obama had a) expressed relatively recently, b) expressed reasonably often and c) not always in direct response to a question from the press about the UK referendum. It's interesting how that happens, especially when it's quite possible none of those three points is accurate!

However, Obama stepping off the plane and has immediately written a piece for the Telegraph which includes support for the UK remaining in the EU.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The biggest con being trotted out by the REMAIN campaign is that the UK will have a chance to "reform" the EU from within if we vote to stay.

Fact is, we've been trying to "reform" the EU for the last 30 years: result absolutely no reform whatsoever, so why should things be any different after the referendum?

If you read the foreign press you'll find several countries saying the fact of our holding a referendum at all means the UK can never be a wholehearted member of the EU and any attempts by us to "reform" it after the referendum - should the vote go to stay in - should be opposed. There is definitely an atmosphere that the UK should be made to suffer for the referendum.

You still want to stay?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

All three of your links are stories from 2013 about responses to questions from reporters.

I don't have a dog in this particular fight - it was Alan's point, I was just demonstrating how to dig up links from the past - and on the front page those were the first two stories that dated from prior to 2015.

I don't see the particular relevance of whether or not a particular statement is a response to a question though. It is perfectly possible to give a non-committal answer should one wish.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest con being trotted out by the REMAIN campaign is that the UK will have a chance to "reform" the EU from within if we vote to stay.

While the biggest con trotted out by the Exit campaign is that something, anything might get better! If we do get out and things don't get better the exit campaigners and those who voted to leave are going to have something worse than egg on their faces.

Actually, I have thought of a reason to vote to leave: If we do so then the Tory party will split, with IDS, Gove, Johnson plus various euro-sceptics and opportunists going one way while Cameron or Osborne leads a minority rump. I wonder how long that will last?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest con being trotted out by the REMAIN campaign is that the UK will have a chance to "reform" the EU from within if we vote to stay.

While the biggest con trotted out by the Exit campaign is that something, anything might get better! If we do get out and things don't get better the exit campaigners and those who voted to leave are going to have something worse than egg on their faces.

Actually, I have thought of a reason to vote to leave: If we do so then the Tory party will split, with IDS, Gove, Johnson plus various euro-sceptics and opportunists going one way while Cameron or Osborne leads a minority rump. I wonder how long that will last?

Probably about 5 years until they realise they can't get elected when divided - at which point the AP and PP (or whatever) will come together in an alliance exactly as they did in Spain.

Unfortunately/fortunately depending on you point of view, unlike the centre left, splits on the centre right don't tend to be permanent. UKIP is a splintering off the right wing of the centre right of the paleo-right (and increasingly the paleo-left these days). Notably, whilst taking a lot of the more mind-boggling activists with them, they still haven't managed to take credible people that actually want to continue to be elected. Except Carswell. Who has a large personal following, not a UKIP one.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As I said, it's surprisingly easy to read the same "Obama is expected to repeat his support for the UK remaining in Europe" for several weeks, and therefore to gain the impression that this was a view Obama had a) expressed relatively recently, b) expressed reasonably often and c) not always in direct response to a question from the press about the UK referendum. It's interesting how that happens, especially when it's quite possible none of those three points is accurate!

I imagine the UK press is providing thorough coverage of every possible facet of the referendum issue. Just think, you have two more months of sober, reasoned analysis to look forward to.

quote:
However, Obama stepping off the plane and has immediately written a piece for the Telegraph which includes support for the UK remaining in the EU.

I'd agree that certainly counts as "urging the Britons to vote to stay in the EU" (rolyn), though still not particularly strong evidence that US political and business leaders aren't "concentrating on domestic politics far more than the Brexit referendum" (Alan).

I'm not saying the US government has no preference; I'm saying the issue isn't particularly salient in the US overall, which is why I objected to rolyn's original statement that "America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire" (and why 3 year old responses to reporters' questions are weaker than recent unprompted statements.)

(And I'm not sure what rolyn meant by "lip-service", but I suspect Trump supporters, if they knew or cared about the issue at all, would be more likely to think the UK should leave than stay.)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Fact is, we've been trying to "reform" the EU for the last 30 years: result absolutely no reform whatsoever, so why should things be any different after the referendum?

'Fact' is the UK hasn't. The UK has whinged a lot, and fulmination about the need for reform is popular.

However, in terms of actual pushing for reform over the long term, the UK hasn't done much. Service in the EU bodies including the parliament runs a distant second to service in the national government, the people UK sends to the EU tends to be a bunch of non-entities many with bizarre or extreme views.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Not to forget that a) there are as many 'fixes' for the EU as there are people with opinions, and therefore b) there is no consensus in the UK about how to fix it. That's assuming it's broken enough to need fixing.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not to forget that a) there are as many 'fixes' for the EU as there are people with opinions, and therefore b) there is no consensus in the UK about how to fix it. That's assuming it's broken enough to need fixing.

Historically Britain normally steps on to the Continent to help fix their wars, discounting maybe the 100 yr war with France when we were out to help ourselves.

It's difficult to say if the EU is broken. It appears to have miscalculated over the the Euro, immigration, vulnerability to terrorism and internal growth of Right Wing extremism. But does Britain jumping ship do anything to prevent these things getting worse. Furthermore does it do anything to protect us from these problems?

Europe's problems have always ended up becoming Britain's problems regardless of the Channel not quite joining us at the hip.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... Notably, whilst taking a lot of the more mind-boggling activists with them, they still haven't managed to take credible people that actually want to continue to be elected. Except Carswell. Who has a large personal following, not a UKIP one.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen Carswell linked with the word 'credible'. It says a lot about the rest, that anyone could claim that compared with them, anyone could think of using the word 'credible' to describe him.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... Notably, whilst taking a lot of the more mind-boggling activists with them, they still haven't managed to take credible people that actually want to continue to be elected. Except Carswell. Who has a large personal following, not a UKIP one.
I think that's the first time I've ever seen Carswell linked with the word 'credible'. It says a lot about the rest, that anyone could claim that compared with them, anyone could think of using the word 'credible' to describe him.

I meant purely in the sense that he's the only one credible enough to get elected - none of the others have been. Like it or not people will actually vote for Carswell in numbers that they won't vote for Farage, Reckless (nominative determinism at its finest), Hamilton, etc.

Unlike the left, which seems to split endlessly, the Conservative Party is a bit like the CofE - there are a lot of fellow travellers in it that merely see it as the best boat to fish from, regardless of what they think of the party or its leaders. I can't see that changing regardless of which way the referendum goes.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think Carswell is credible. From what little I know of him he appears to be an intelligent, high-minded libertarian. His politics are not mine and indeed I think they are harmful but as I understand them they represent a worked-out, coherent and in some sense morally serious position.

[ 22. April 2016, 16:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Fact is, we've been trying to "reform" the EU for the last 30 years: result absolutely no reform whatsoever, so why should things be any different after the referendum?
'Fact' is the UK hasn't. The UK has whinged a lot, and fulmination about the need for reform is popular.

However, in terms of actual pushing for reform over the long term, the UK hasn't done much. Service in the EU bodies including the parliament runs a distant second to service in the national government, the people UK sends to the EU tends to be a bunch of non-entities many with bizarre or extreme views.

Exactly. The only thing on which the UK has pushed for major reform is the CAP - and CAP has been reformed, several times, even if not as much as people want (and I'm not suggesting this is solely or even mainly down to the UK). I don't believe we've ever pushed for greater financial transparency or democracy.

Most of the time, if the UK doesn't like something, we just try to opt out.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Dave wrote:

quote:
I'm saying the issue isn't particularly salient in the US overall, which is why I objected to rolyn's original statement that "America seems to be urging Britons to vote stay in the EU while themselves paying lip service to a xenophobic nut-job billionaire" (and why 3 year old responses to reporters' questions are weaker than recent unprompted statements.)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Americans who are paying lip service to that particular xenophobic nut-job bnillionaire are also among those least likely to know anything about the EU, much less have an opinion on it.

Even the ones who get their opinions on the EU from Jack Van Impe are probably more inclined to be supporting the more religious Cruz, rather than the New York property tycoon.

[ 22. April 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

So, Obama spoke on the topic of trade agreements:

"And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.".

Which is essentially what many - including me - have described above, and simply a reflection that every country has a limited amount of legislative time.

This of course works against the position of the 'Leave' camp who have been insistent that we would be able to negotiate EU and US trade agreements quickly.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The irony is that many on the leave side opposed Scottish independence, and rubbished the claims that an independent Scotland could just inherit the existing UK EU/NATO membership and trade deals. Their claim then was that Scotland would either need to renegotiate their membership (which would take time), or accept whatever the first deal given to them was (which would be heavily in favour of the other party).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Chris Stiles

quote:
'Fact' is the UK hasn't. The UK has whinged a lot, and fulmination about the need for reform is popular.

However, in terms of actual pushing for reform over the long term, the UK hasn't done much. Service in the EU bodies including the parliament runs a distant second to service in the national government, the people UK sends to the EU tends to be a bunch of non-entities many with bizarre or extreme views.

Actually there has been a team of Management/ Organisational experts in Brussels for more than 12 years trying to get some semblance of order and purpose into the creaking EU bureaucracy; the team was proposed by the UK but is comprised of senior management gurus from various EU countries. At every turn they have encountered resistance with Eurocrats bringing in political members of the commission to help stymie any requests for information, etc.

Similarly the UK is only one of a number of governments - Germany and the Netherlands are 2 more - who have been trying to get the EU to up its game so it can produce accounts that can be audited: something that has been ongoing for a long time, only in this instance for nearly 30 years. And again their efforts have proved fruitless with not only Eurocrats but also some national governments doing their utmost to stop any reform happening.

And all of that before we look at the situation with regard to (for example) the CAP or the subsidies for olive oil, etc, etc, etc.

As for political non-entities - what about Daniel Hannan? In any case, Brussels isn't interested in political heavyweights unless they are rabidly pro-EU.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I take it you have something to support those claims.

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Similarly the UK is only one of a number of governments - Germany and the Netherlands are 2 more - who have been trying to get the EU to up its game so it can produce accounts that can be audited: something that has been ongoing for a long time, only in this instance for nearly 30 years. And again their efforts have proved fruitless with not only Eurocrats but also some national governments doing their utmost to stop any reform happening.

That is not correct, at least according to the web site below, which links in turn to a .pdf file from the auditors.

web page

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Actually there has been a team of Management/ Organisational experts in Brussels for more than 12 years trying to get some semblance of order and purpose into the creaking EU bureaucracy; the team was proposed by the UK but is comprised of senior management gurus from various EU countries.

Reform implies more than simply setting up a body, which has over the years become a place to park time servers. It involves sustained effort over a long period of time which is something signally lacking.

quote:

As for political non-entities - what about Daniel Hannan?

If he were in national politics, he'd occupy a space somewhere between John Redwood and William Rees-Mogg.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The EU's Court of Auditors 'signs off' the accounts of the EU every year - that is, they agree the accounts - but that doesn't mean that they pass proper audit standards because they don't.

For example, in 2014 the Court of Auditors reported that €109bn out of a total of €117bn was, in their own words, affected by material error.

Sure, the EU produce accounts, but that doesn't mean there isn't waste and outright fraud on a massive scale.

As for Daniel Hannan: he hasn't been wheeled out much because he is far too sensible, very far from being a swivel-eyed loon.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

'Waste' is a very subjective term, and usually just means disagreement with spending decisions. I happen to think that our government is planning to waste millions on renewing the Trident system, but others would disagree. Does that expenditure get called waste, or not?

The European Parliament has two seats in Brussels and Strasbourg. Is it a waste of money to keep moving back and forth? Or, is it spending money in response to a political need? The Strasbourg seat exists as a symbol of union, the EP sitting in one of the most fought over parts of Europe - is that symbol worth something? Having the EP solely in Brussels would cut the European budget by a small amount, but would that be reducing waste?

Fraud is, of course, an entirely different matter. And, there may be some within the EU structures - but, we have our own examples of MPs claiming expenses fraudulently so the UK can hardly be held up as an exemplar of good practice. Almost certainly some of the money spent by the EU through regional development, CAP, research funding etc has been spent fraudulently because the best checks in the world aren't going to prevent that. But, from experience of EU research funding, the level of accounting for every euro that is involved in running a European funded project is far greater than demanded by UK government or research council funding, and as for industrial funding they just fix a price for the value of the results provided and basically don't care how the money they give is spent.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for Daniel Hannan: he hasn't been wheeled out much because he is far too sensible, very far from being a swivel-eyed loon.

Um, No.

Even David Cameron described him as having "some rather eccentric points of view"

I well remember his ludicrous interventions in the US Affordable Healthcare Act debate.

My problem with Hannan is that I remain very attached to the notion that whilst everyone is fully entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. (With thanks to Senator Moynihan).

It really worries me that you would consider him sensible.

AFZ

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The EU's Court of Auditors 'signs off' the accounts of the EU every year - that is, they agree the accounts - but that doesn't mean that they pass proper audit standards because they don't.

For example, in 2014 the Court of Auditors reported that €109bn out of a total of €117bn was, in their own words, affected by material error.

Sure, the EU produce accounts, but that doesn't mean there isn't waste and outright fraud on a massive scale.

Full Fact disagrees. This is a site that claims to try to present the full unvarnished facts, and this is what they say:

"The EU budget contained €142.5 billion of spending in 2014. In every area of the budget (apart from administration), and overall, enough spending fell outside of the proper procedures to pass the 2% 'materiality threshold'—the point at which the auditors view these 'errors' as significant.

Overall, 4.4% of the EU's spending didn't follow the rules and accordingly shouldn't have been paid out.

This can cover quite a wide range of situations and isn't synonymous with waste or fraud, according to the ECA.

For instance, one way to run afoul of the rules is to award an EU-funded contract directly without holding a proper bidding process. While generally this is a bad idea, it's not always the case that another firm would have been able to put in a lower bid.”

"The ECA said that 22 of 1,200 transactions it inspected during the audit might have been fraudulent, and referred them for further investigation.”

"While it's correct that spending in that €133.6 billion was "materially affected by error", it's not the case that the entire block of spending was "irregular or possibly illegal"; it just means that some of the spending within that total didn't follow the rules.”

---

I make that that 1.8% might have been fraudulent. Hardly “fraud on a massive scale”; it may not be fraud at all.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
That is not correct, at least according to the web site below, which links in turn to a .pdf file from the auditors.

web page

From the Statement of Assurance in the linked pdf:

quote:
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) gives a clean opinion on the reliability of the 2013 accounts of the European Union.

Revenue for 2013, taken as a whole, is legal and regular.

Commitments for 2013, taken as a whole, are legal and regular.

Payments for 2013 are materially affected by error. The ECA therefore gives an adverse opinion on their legality and regularity.

That said, the issue AIUI is that the Court of Auditors produces one Statement of Assurance for the entire conglomerate of EU accounts, meaning that an issue in one budget leads to the whole lot being qualified.

Conversely the NAO in Britain audits different accounts separately and produces a verdict on each individually. Thus every year a few departments will get a qualified report, but this doesn't lead to UK government finance getting a qualified audit overall because AFAIK no such overall statement is ever produced.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The EU's Court of Auditors 'signs off' the accounts of the EU every year - that is, they agree the accounts - but that doesn't mean that they pass proper audit standards because they don't.

What is your evidence that the Court of Auditors don't follow 'proper' auditing standards? According to its own website:

quote:
The ECA conducts its audits in accordance with ISSAIs, the international standards on auditing issued by INTOSAI, the international organisation of supreme audit institutions worldwide.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The evidence is that any accounts which have to be 'qualified' more than a certain amount or for a certain time are a sign that there is something not right and that a full investigation should be undertaken to discover what is going on.

According to the EU's own figures, the accounts for 2013 alone showed tha 90% of monies paid out by the EU were affected by 'material errors'. In fact the UK treasury was so concerned that they called for a special task force to be set up to look into it.

Now of course that same Treasury would have us believe that all is well with the EU accounting function [Killing me]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

While we're on the subject of audit, HMRC doesn't do very well, having had its accounts qualified every year since Tax Credits were introduced. Things really aren't rosy at home.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
According to the EU's own figures, the accounts for 2013 alone showed tha 90% of monies paid out by the EU were affected by 'material errors'.

Again, statements without support mean nothing.

Especially when a very quick search gives the EU's own figures for 2013 showing 4.7% (pdf) overall, and "a large proportion of the transactions affected by error in the shared management areas, authorities in the Member States had sufficient information available to have detected and corrected the errors before claiming reimbursement from the Commission" - ie: even though there was an error there is didn't actually cost anyone anything because they were corrected rapidly.

Now, it seems that if you want to support a claim that the majority of EU expenditure is affected by "material errors" you'll have to look somewhere other than the EUs own documents - because they'll only allow 5%, with much of it corrected rapidly.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The evidence is that any accounts which have to be 'qualified' more than a certain amount or for a certain time are a sign that there is something not right and that a full investigation should be undertaken to discover what is going on.

That may be true but says nothing about audit standards. If the doctor consistently says I'm overweight and I do nothing about it, does that prove the NHS fails to meet proper diagnostic standards?

quote:
According to the EU's own figures, the accounts for 2013 alone showed tha 90% of monies paid out by the EU were affected by 'material errors'. In fact the UK treasury was so concerned that they called for a special task force to be set up to look into it.

That's a bit like saying that if I work at a bookshop and steal a book, and books make up 90% of the bookshop's income, then 90% of the bookshop's revenue stream is subject to staff fraud. It's true but misleading.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
... That's a bit like saying that if I work at a bookshop and steal a book, and books make up 90% of the bookshop's income, then 90% of the bookshop's revenue stream is subject to staff fraud. It's true but misleading.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

This is the first time I heard someone saying that the EU doesn't have enough red tape [Smile]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

I probably quote Paul Krugman too much, but this is really good.

He (in simple terms) explains the economic cost and frames the politics very nicely:

quote:
Paul Krugman writes:
So Britain, don’t do this. You would pay a fairly large economic price, and in return you would get governance so bad that it would make the EU look good.

AFZ

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I must say I was impressed at Mr Farage's insight that Mr Obama had been told what to say by Downing Street. Because everyone knows that the chief fault in the Special Relationship is America's willingness to do whatever the UK tells it to.

That man really puts his finger on the nub of the matter ...

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

From where I'm sitting Obama's intervention doesn't help the Remain campaign, though. Nobody likes feeling they're being told what to do by a foreign power.

[ 25. April 2016, 06:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Doesn't stop us advising the American public freely and extensively on their choice of Presidential candidate.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

There's a difference between speculation by the pundits and a premier making speeches and giving interviews.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think the comments by Obama have probably been fairly neutral overall.

The remain camp will have been heartened by evidence from Obama (repeated by Clinton) that there wouldn't be a rapid trade agreement with the US - and if we can't manage a rapid trade agreement with the US then we're very unlikely to manage that with the rest of the EU, India, China, Australia or anywhere else.

The leave camp can have their "bloody yanks telling us what to do" moment, and resultant swing their way out of sheer contrariness.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From where I'm sitting Obama's intervention doesn't help the Remain campaign, though. Nobody likes feeling they're being told what to do by a foreign power.

I think it does for a couple of reasons.

1) He was very balanced and came across better than the Remain campaign - I know a lot of people who say they want to be better informed about the issues and make up their minds accordingly.

2) The Brexit backlash showed them to be petulant and (IMHO) angry at the facts for not agreeing with their ideology.

Anti-Europeans across the country will not be impressed by Obama but I don't think he will have increased their numbers. Especially as he came across very respectful of the British people's right to decide. Undecideds will have seen a balanced, sensible position and then a childish response.

I think Obama has done Dave a big favour. One he needed as thus far the Remain campaign has been awful.

AFZ

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
1) He was very balanced and came across better than the Remain campaign - I know a lot of people who say they want to be better informed about the issues and make up their minds accordingly.

What concerns me is the extent to which the kind of people Shipmates know are representative of the electorate as a whole in terms of wanting to reach an informed decision.

Again, I'm at a distance from all this, but it seems to me that neither Remain nor Leave are giving much room to dispassionate argument in their campaigns, which suggests that they think most people will be swayed by more irrational approaches.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What concerns me is the extent to which the kind of people Shipmates know are representative of the electorate as a whole in terms of wanting to reach an informed decision.

Again, I'm at a distance from all this, but it seems to me that neither Remain nor Leave are giving much room to dispassionate argument in their campaigns, which suggests that they think most people will be swayed by more irrational approaches.

Eutychus, part of that impression derives from the fact that the BBC is obliged to be non-partisan. It has to allocate time equally between the two sides. It has to give the impression that both sets of arguments are equally valid. If it interviews someone who wants to remain, it has to let a Leaver have the same airtime in reply. This gives the public the impression that both positions are indeed equally legitimate. The same happens to a lesser extent on climate change.

However, because there are no rational or dispassionate arguments in favour of the leave side, its campaigners have no alternative but to claim their time and rant loudly. They make so much noise doing so, that nobody can hear anything else.

In a quite different context, I was surprised and more than a bit shocked a year or two ago, when somebody said that what he wanted to see were people who were passionate about something. To him, that mattered. That was what he found persuasive. He wasn't really very bothered whether what they were passionate about was objectively right, or made sense. It would be their conviction that swayed him.

I found that quite disturbing. It's deeply alien to how I've lived over the past 60+ years. I'm quite fearful that throughout what's now quite a long lifetime, it might be me, and people like me, who all along have been the odd ones out.

The other factor is that there are relatively few passionate Euro-enthusiasts. Most of us who will vote remain aren't all that excited by the EU. It isn't the sort of cause that stirs the soul. However, it has served us well in the last 40+ years. On balance, it's overall a good thing. We know it makes sense and the alternative doesn't.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What concerns me is the extent to which the kind of people Shipmates know are representative of the electorate as a whole in terms of wanting to reach an informed decision.

Again, I'm at a distance from all this, but it seems to me that neither Remain nor Leave are giving much room to dispassionate argument in their campaigns, which suggests that they think most people will be swayed by more irrational approaches.

I do know a few people who want to leave the EU. Some who are just emotionally anti-Europe. And I understand that - I am too, really. And some who just want a better understanding of the issues because they feel one side claims this and the other, that. What frustrates me a bit, is that such people don't go and educate themselves, but there you go. Such is the state of our democracy.

This article by Will Hutton is very good. For example:

quote:
The BBC, a public broadcaster born of the best Enlightenment tradition of reason, should rejoin their [Universities 'recommitted to the a quest for understanding, backed by evidence'] ranks. Its new understanding of objectivity – to treat everything as equal claim and counterclaim – is to surrender.

Maybe it's time to change my signature again...

AFZ

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[x-post with AFZ]

Enoch:

I don't watch the BBC but I do read the website. When I see the summary of Obama's speech being that it "provoked backlash", I don't think that's unbiased.

There have been endless debates about partisan bias at the BBC; that's not what I'm talking about: I think it and practically all mainstream media are biased towards controversy.

I think the media are being increasingly spurred to fuel controversy and extreme opinions to drive traffic to their sites. It is in the BBC's interest to focus on adverse reactions to Obama's interventions rather than their content, just as they focus on the most alarming declarations by either side. My fear is that this tendency also shapes the basis on which most people will make up their minds.

In this respect, I don't think a layer of technocray in the EU is an entirely bad thing, and certainly not an argument for leaving. The issues call for reflected consideration, not decision on the basis of tabloid-readers' gut feelings and politicians' focus groups.

[ 25. April 2016, 08:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The bias towards contraversy is a big factor in news reporting, and the BBC is certainly not imune to it. And, of course, it doesn't just relate to politics. With the 30th Anniversary, Chernobyl has been making the news again, and you get this sort of thing, "it is still not clear how badly the local wildlife has been affected by the radiation". It would be significantly clearer if the very small, poorly constrained experiments by people who seem to be able to consistently generate sensational results were not given a veneer of legitimacy by being reported by the mainstream media, with barely a word given to large scale investigations by large consortia of experts that consistently find that the effects of radiation are very small, if present at all, in all but a small number of extreme cases. I could, of course, have written a functionally identical sentance about climate change, and several other topics.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

There have been endless debates about partisan bias at the BBC; that's not what I'm talking about: I think it and practically all mainstream media are biased towards controversy.

I think, and fear, that you have a good point there. There is a comment in the Wiki article on John Reith which points to something which I think is being lost in BBC broadcasting.

quote:
Reith succeeded in building a high wall against an American-style free-for-all in radio in which the goal was to attract the largest audiences and thereby secure the greatest advertising revenue.

The Reith principles included:

a) an equal consideration of all viewpoints,
b) probity,
c) universality and
d) a commitment to public service.

Freedom from bias is probably an impossibly ideal standard, but is worth aiming for. It requires, amongst other things, being measured in the way information is conveyed. 24/7 news broadcasting is generally moving away from measuring (that's one of the things that dumbing down is about). And the politics of licence fees isn't helping either.

The wheels haven't come off altogether, not just yet. But the wheel nuts are loosening under the pressures to obtain and retain audience ratings.

[ 25. April 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Freedom from bias is probably an impossibly ideal standard, but is worth aiming for. It requires, amongst other things, being measured in the way information is conveyed. 24/7 news broadcasting is generally moving away from measuring (that's one of the things that dumbing down is about). And the politics of licence fees isn't helping either.

The wheels haven't come off altogether, not just yet. But the wheel nuts are loosening under the pressures to obtain and retain audience ratings.

I think you're spot-on here. The BBC remains vitally set-apart from the awfulness of our print media but the gap is shrinking rapidly.

AFZ

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

As an aside, while Frank Peretti is remembered (if at all) mostly for his lurid demon-infested novels (This Present Darkness etc.), his overlooked novel Prophet, while a little dated now, offers an easy-to-read insight into how news editorial decisions are made.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post with AFZ]

Enoch:

I don't watch the BBC but I do read the website. When I see the summary of Obama's speech being that it "provoked backlash", I don't think that's unbiased.

The problem with that statement though is the followon question that isn't being answered, 'among who?'.

Yes of course, there are people across the country who support a Brexit - the voices represented in the media tend to be very media/London centric though - and amongst the most extreme.

So we don't know to what extent 'provokes backlash' is a reflection of the popular mood.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From where I'm sitting Obama's intervention doesn't help the Remain campaign, though. Nobody likes feeling they're being told what to do by a foreign power.

Well, ISTM that Brexiteers vary in the degree to which they value independence.

So there will be some who see independence as an end in itself. For them the economic question is almost irrelevant, regardless of whether it's propounded by a British economist or a foreign politician. (They would be the equivalent of Mr Salmond - I think the reason he struggled with questions like 'What about the currency?' was because he saw Scottish independence as a good in itself, and if there was an economic price to pay then that was the price of freedom.)

But others I think want independence, but not at any price. If the economic price is too high, they may decide it's not worth it. These people are more likely to be swayed by economic arguments, and because they value independence slightly less, they are less likely to be bothered that the argument comes from a foreign politician. (Their equivalent would be a fair number of Welsh people of my acquaintance, who would quite like an independent Wales but don't think it would be viable.)

[ 25. April 2016, 14:15: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

As I pointed out to Chill, above: sometimes the only freedom we gain is the freedom to choose which road we sit beside while we starve.

I was listening to a pollster on R4 over the weekend, who baldly stated that the majority of those toying with Brexit can be swayed into the Remain camp by telling them it'll cost them not thousands, not hundreds of pounds. But £25.

That's it. The price of freedom, apparently.

Not that it matters, since Obama has helpfully holed the Leave boat below the waterline, and Boris and Nigel can re-arrange the deckchairs as much as they like (probably into 'whites only' and 'coloureds' areas): their ship is still sinking.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The problem will be if they manage to patch things enough to stay afloat long enough to get to polling day and get a Brexit. Then they'll drag us all down with them. Rule Britannia! Britannia rules beneath the waves!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not that it matters, since Obama has helpfully holed the Leave boat below the waterline, and Boris and Nigel can re-arrange the deckchairs as much as they like (probably into 'whites only' and 'coloureds' areas): their ship is still sinking.

We'll see: The Times has just tweeted the results of a Yougov/Times poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday this week. Excluding don't knows / won't votes: Remain: 49% (-2 on 12th-14th April); Leave: 51% (+2 on 12th-14th April). All to play for at the moment.

[ 27. April 2016, 21:32: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Not that it matters, since Obama has helpfully holed the Leave boat below the waterline, and Boris and Nigel can re-arrange the deckchairs as much as they like (probably into 'whites only' and 'coloureds' areas): their ship is still sinking.
We'll see: The Times has just tweeted the results of a Yougov/Times poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday this week. Excluding don't knows / won't votes: Remain: 49% (-2 on 12th-14th April); Leave: 51% (+2 on 12th-14th April). All to play for at the moment.

It'll be down to "stories of the day" and turnout, as usual. Watch out for some spectacular and inaccurate scare stories in the last few days before the vote.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Sorry to back up to a discussion on the 20th March about NZ and other Commonwealth countries in relation to UK/EU. Cod had been arguing that the UK entry into the EU had been bad for exports from NZ and other Commonwealth countries. This is just a part of the ensuing discussion:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Something very similar has happened with trade: the UK has vanished behind the EU-wide tariff wall and that undoutably has reduced trade between the UK and its former colonies (not to mention other countries). The claim that leaving the EU will be detrimental to British trade seems incomplete without taking this factor into account. To put it bluntly, the EU, in trading terms, is hostile to countries beyond its borders particularly when it comes to agricultural produce, which subsidised EU producers dump on world markets.

I'm coming back to this because Malcolm Turnball has been expressing his opinions, very diplomatically that the UK has the right to decide, but

quote:
The EU is an enormous economic and political entity and from our point of view - you might say from our selfish point of view - having a country to whom we have close ties and such strong relationships... is definitely an advantage.

So if the British people, in their wisdom, decide to stay in the European Union, then we would welcome that

John Key has also made similar statements recently (although that BBC article doesn't link to them).

Of course, in a democracy the residents of NZ and Australia are free to disagree with their respective PMs.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I wonder how the Republican nearly-nominee's decision to back Brexit will affect voters?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Breaking news. If you are a Brexit supporter, you have just won a really big name to your side, though one without a vote in the referendum. Donald Trump agrees with you.

Apparently, on hearing this, Stephen Mangan has tweeted "now backed by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Nigel Farage, George Galloway, Marine Le Pen and Katie Hopkins".

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Defintely a case of "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Definitely a case of argumentum ad hominem.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Definitely a case of argumentum ad hominem.

... and undoubtedly the kindest spin that can possibly be put on it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

It's not just ad hominem.

Trump embodies a mindset of withdrawal, of raising national drawbridges in the illusory hope of somehow preserving all the good aspects of progress whilst turning back the clock to some unspecified time when there was "a real [insert name of homeland here]" and life was simpler and better - but with no actual numbers or consistent policies to support this chimera.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I wonder how the Republican nearly-nominee's decision to back Brexit will affect voters?

Trump supporters will think "Of course he backs Brexit, it is important to start the day with a good meal".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Not that it matters, since Obama has helpfully holed the Leave boat below the waterline, and Boris and Nigel can re-arrange the deckchairs as much as they like (probably into 'whites only' and 'coloureds' areas): their ship is still sinking.

Never underestimate the power of ignorance or xenophobia.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Today I decided to take a peep at this thread! I had avoided it before, because I feel very strongly that we should remain in the EU and I might have put my blood pressure up by reading the views of those who want to leave!
However, I have read this last page and the previous one and it looks as if I've been missing a very interesting topic.

My local MP, although an excellent chap mostly, is, for leaving! *pause to give a loud 'tut'*. Next week there is a head-to-head meeting between Vince Cable and him. Two of my neighbours and I are going to be there, and I for one will be heckling whenever necessary!

If I hear anyone saying, as I heard a member of the audience say on one of the question Time programmes recently, in a very emotionally charged voice, 'I just want my country back,' ... well, I might just have to jump up on my chair!! [Smile]

(

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

SusanDoris, this must be the first time you and I have ever been in agreement on these boards. [Yipee]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
SusanDoris, this must be the first time you and I have ever been in agreement on these boards.

I particularly liked your long post on page 16!

Do you agree that so many of those who want to leave focus on one particular, usually - in my opinion! - minor, peeve about the EU and appear not to look at the whole picture? In some ways I think that old people over 80 - and that includes me of course!! - should stay away from voting as we'll be dead in the not too distant future and the young have lived their whole ives within the EU so their opinion is more important. Mind you, I suppose this has already been mentioned earlier in the topic. Hmm, perhaps I might try and go through from the beginning...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Breaking news. If you are a Brexit supporter, you have just won a really big name to your side, though one without a vote in the referendum. Donald Trump agrees with you.

Apparently, on hearing this, Stephen Mangan has tweeted "now backed by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Nigel Farage, George Galloway, Marine Le Pen and Katie Hopkins".

I'm really wondering what it's like to be a mainstream left-wing Leave supporter these days, when you see the long list of authoritarian and xenophobic crackpots who are lining up to support that position.

I say "mainstream left-wing", because I know there are people in the nuttier corners of the Left who are convinced that the EU is just an American plot to control Europe(Thatcher apparently didn't get the memo on that) and harass St. Putin, and consider Trump at worst a harmless eccentric who's being demonized for no other reason than that he opposes certain trade-deals.

Basically, the most lumpen elements of the anti-globalization movement, vulnerable to the appeals of petty nationalism put forth by guys like Putin and(though he doesn't occupy the same heroic status), Trump. Some of these guys have recently come around to the opinion(propogated by Putin and others) that the refugee crisis is just another American conspiracy, aimed at bankrupting the European welfare state. (Which is different from arguing that the American-led Iraq War was the root cause of the refugee crisis).

Are these the kind of left-wingers I hear about as being Brexit supportes in the UK? Bascially, Nigel Farage with a deeper hatred of the US?

Or are they actually more mainstream left-wingers, maybe of the Kinnock variety(not saying he's pro-Brexit, just an example of mainstream leftism), with non-feverish reasons for thinking the EU has been bad for Britain, and no desire to venerate Putin or excuse Trump?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Coincidentally, I just found this, exemplifying the tendencies described in my last post.

The website is ostensibly left-wing, but will pretty much publish anyone, anywhere on the political specturm, who says that the US is bad. The writer, Paul Craig Roberts, is an old Reagan crony who now tirades against noe-con foreign policies, while still defending his old boss' record in Central America(!).

The article raises some interesting history, though his source is the Telegraph, and I think he makes a considerable leap from saying that the US supported greater European integration to saying that the EU is "a creature of the CIA".

Roberts also thinks that the Sandy Hook massacre was a false-flag to justify taking away the right to bear arms, and that the county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to perform same-sex marriages was a victim of the Amerikan police state.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
his source is the Telegraph
[/QB]

Perhaps he can work that esteemed organ 's reporting of how Victoria Beckham's mic was turned down during Soice Girls performances into his conspiracy theories.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stetson: Or are they actually more mainstream left-wingers

You're poisoning the well against the left quite a lot in your post.

It is very much possible to be mainstream left-wing and to be very critical about the EU. Anti-globalism may be a part of that, or a general feeling that the EU is too much about big businesses and banks. And no, not all people who are critical about the EU are staunch nationalists, even if the media or politicians want to frame it that way.

Those people do find themselves in a bit of a bind right now: they're critical of the EU, but they also feel that the current reasons for leaving are the wrong ones: selfishness and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Therefore, sometimes they suddenly are in a position where they find themselves defending the EU.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
SusanDoris, this must be the first time you and I have ever been in agreement on these boards.
I particularly liked your long post on page 16!

Do you agree that so many of those who want to leave focus on one particular, usually - in my opinion! - minor, peeve about the EU and appear not to look at the whole picture? In some ways I think that old people over 80 - and that includes me of course!! - should stay away from voting as we'll be dead in the not too distant future and the young have lived their whole ives within the EU so their opinion is more important. Mind you, I suppose this has already been mentioned earlier in the topic. Hmm, perhaps I might try and go through from the beginning...

Thank you for the compliment.

Mind, I'm not that young, and I'm not going to abstain. I intend to vote to remain.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Mind, I'm not that young, and I'm not going to abstain. I intend to vote to remain.

Oh, yes, most definitely - so do I!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It is very much possible to be mainstream left-wing and to be very critical about the EU.

Regardless of being left or right wing, it's possible to be very critical about the EU and still consider that it's better for the UK to be in rather than out. There's a big difference between being critical and being opposed.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sorry if it's been said, but you could tell that the EU was continuing to evolve in the right direction when the Murdoch empire raged 'UP YOURS DELORS' because of the incipient Social Chapter.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Alan Cresswell: Regardless of being left or right wing, it's possible to be very critical about the EU and still consider that it's better for the UK to be in rather than out. There's a big difference between being critical and being opposed.

Um yes of course, I was trying to be careful about my wording.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Stetson: Or are they actually more mainstream left-wingers
You're poisoning the well against the left quite a lot in your post.

Sorry, wasn't my intention. I'm left-wing myself, so no, I wasn't trying to tarnish them all as being some version of Crazy.

Personally, while I was aware that at one time there had been some opposition to greater integration from the left, my impression since about the early 90s has been that, in the UK anyway, the Tories were more or less hostile to Europe, and Labour more or less amicable, with the correlation breaking down a bit on the far left of Labour, and points leftward from that.

And, to the extent that people like Cameron have moved away from an anti-Europe stance, it's a case of them having abandoned the traditional conservative policy(like Labour PMs who support staying in NATO, though I realize that was originally a Labour policy.)

The rest of your post seems to indicate that that there are indeed people on the left who oppose the EU for the usual left-wing reasons, so thank you for that analysis.

I will observe that, to the extent that something can be judged by who opposes it the most, the EU comes out looking pretty good, from a left-wing point of view. I do have to wonder if it's just a coincidence that the most prominent figures coming forward in favour of Brexit are the ones worked up about immigration and "politically correct eurocrats".

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
his source is the Telegraph

Perhaps he can work that esteemed organ 's reporting of how Victoria Beckham's mic was turned down during Soice Girls performances into his conspiracy theories. [/QB]

"It's intolerable for the American Empire to have a musical group so brazenly displaying the ethos and symbolism of an independent United Kingdom. Given the US government's history of harassing outspoken foreign artists(eg. the deportation orders against John Lennon), it's reasonable to conclude that the decision to denigrate Victoria Beckham's musical talent by turning off her microphone during performances, and later blackmail her into admitting it publically, originated in Washington."

[ 07. May 2016, 09:44: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stetson: Personally, while I was aware that at one time there had been some opposition to greater integration from the left, my impression since about the early 90s has been that, in the UK anyway, the Tories were more or less hostile to Europe, and Labour more or less amicable, with the correlation breaking down a bit on the far left of Labour, and points leftward from that.

My impression is mostly based on continental Europe, but I think it parallels the UK closely:

Far right: knee-jerk anti-EU.
Centre-right: divided. Secretly pro-EU because they know it's good for business but they also don't want to lose voters to the far right.
Centre-left: moderately to strongly pro-EU. They feel that some problems (labour, environment) are best resolved supra-nationally, and/or that the EU can be reformed from the inside.
Far left: anti-EU, mostly for anti-globalist reasons.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Stetson: Personally, while I was aware that at one time there had been some opposition to greater integration from the left, my impression since about the early 90s has been that, in the UK anyway, the Tories were more or less hostile to Europe, and Labour more or less amicable, with the correlation breaking down a bit on the far left of Labour, and points leftward from that.
My impression is mostly based on continental Europe, but I think it parallels the UK closely:
Far right: knee-jerk anti-EU.
Centre-right: divided. Secretly pro-EU because they know it's good for business but they also don't want to lose voters to the far right.
Centre-left: moderately to strongly pro-EU. They feel that some problems (labour, environment) are best resolved supra-nationally, and/or that the EU can be reformed from the inside.
Far left: anti-EU, mostly for anti-globalist reasons.

Yep, that's exactly my interpretation as well.

Like I say, I think the centre-right view is roughly analagous to the centre-left's support for NATO(especially post- Cold War): "Well, okay, it's not the kind of thing we'd normally be crazy about, and maybe thirty years ago we could have gotten rid of it, but right now it's the only game in town, so no point chucking it out just on some abstract principle".

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Michael Gove states that George Osborne is wrong to allege that Germany will put up trade barriers such as tariffs if the UK opts to leave the EU. I think Gove misses the point: It wouldn't be up to Germany, or any other member state. The single market is the single market, and if you are in you are in, and if you are out you are out. Osborne isn't a deep thinker (FWIW I think Gove is smarter) but he is right here and Gove is, like most of the "Leave" advocates, just wishing and hoping (as Dusty used to sing).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Gove is, like most of the "Leave" advocates, just wishing and hoping (as Dusty used to sing).

As a Remainer, I have now joined the wishing and hoping brigade.

I was at a discussion group this evening where an excellent vicar of my acquaintance observed thuswise.

"Cameron must be wetting himself. He expected to be in a coalition government which would block the Tory referendum commitment. So he's on a playing field he didn't bargain for.

Twice running now, he's committed life-changing constitutional decisions to crude referendum choices. He got lucky the first time. I'm not so sure about this one. I reckon this one will be very close."

Maybe the Scots will save us? Or the prospect of Boris? Boris in No 10 plus the Donald in the White House? The Perfect (Bad Hair) Storm?

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Michael Gove states that George Osborne is wrong to allege that Germany will put up trade barriers such as tariffs if the UK opts to leave the EU. I think Gove misses the point: It wouldn't be up to Germany, or any other member state. The single market is the single market, and if you are in you are in, and if you are out you are out. Osborne isn't a deep thinker (FWIW I think Gove is smarter) but he is right here and Gove is, like most of the "Leave" advocates, just wishing and hoping (as Dusty used to sing).

Very true. No-one needs to actively "put up" barriers, some will just happen automatically as a result of no longer fitting within the same category.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sorry to back up to a discussion on the 20th March about NZ and other Commonwealth countries in relation to UK/EU. Cod had been arguing that the UK entry into the EU had been bad for exports from NZ and other Commonwealth countries. This is just a part of the ensuing discussion:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Something very similar has happened with trade: the UK has vanished behind the EU-wide tariff wall and that undoutably has reduced trade between the UK and its former colonies (not to mention other countries). The claim that leaving the EU will be detrimental to British trade seems incomplete without taking this factor into account. To put it bluntly, the EU, in trading terms, is hostile to countries beyond its borders particularly when it comes to agricultural produce, which subsidised EU producers dump on world markets.
I'm coming back to this because Malcolm Turnball has been expressing his opinions, very diplomatically that the UK has the right to decide, but
quote:
The EU is an enormous economic and political entity and from our point of view - you might say from our selfish point of view - having a country to whom we have close ties and such strong relationships... is definitely an advantage.

So if the British people, in their wisdom, decide to stay in the European Union, then we would welcome that
John Key has also made similar statements recently (although that BBC article doesn't link to them).

Of course, in a democracy the residents of NZ and Australia are free to disagree with their respective PMs.

Hi Alan,

I can't comment on Malcolm Turnbull. It may be that Bremain would assist Australian trade with the EU (although I'm not sure what Australia exports to it).

As for John Key, the cynic in me comments that his public utterances on foreign affairs tend to be deliberately bland: he tries not to upset anyone on such matters because that might be bad for trade. I expect that if the UK did leave the EU (and I note here that I have a vote, and I currently intend to vote for leave) Key would say that he welcomed the UK's decision and looked forward to a "new" (ie, fairer) trade deal.

It doesn't follow that British entry into the EEC wasn't bad for this country. In fact it was very bad: it went through a prolonged period of economic uncertainty in the 80s and 90s. Now, although things are far more stable than they were, it is far less wealthy than most developed countries and hardship is becoming more apparent. NZ's exports, which are mostly agricultural, just don't earn enough money and EU subsidies and tariffs do not help.

The comments on this article, although not well-informed, probably reflect the local view better.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

When listening to Christine Lagarde (World Bank) and others opining about Brexit and predicting that it will result in financial meltdown for the UK, I'm deeply puzzled.

Are these the same luminaries who decreed that the UK had to join the ERM to give it financial stability through being allied to other European currencies? If so, what about Black Wednesday?

The same people who predicted that the UK not joining the Euro would mean the UK becoming second-rate economically to the countries in the Eurozone, with greater financial instability and more likelihood of boom-and-bust? That forecast was so precient it left the UK stranded while the rest of the Eurozone sailed into financial heaven - NOT.

And of course, the drones at the World Bank, Fed, etc, etc, etc, all saw the 2007-8 banking meltdown coming so were able to warn about it and so prevent meltdown in smaller, more fragile economies such as Ireland, Iceland, Greece, etc.

As for the esteemed economists who predict doom and gloom, I'm reminded of the 364 academic economists who rubbished Geoffrey Howe's budget in 1981 and were proved so wrong it was almost funny. As Lord Howe said, you could sum up an economist as being a man who knows 364 ways of making love, but doesn’t know any women.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

As with ANYTHING discussed on SOF, it's got NOTHING to do with facts.

It's about disposition.

Lord Howe said that?! Kudos!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
When listening to Christine Lagarde (World Bank) and others opining about Brexit and predicting that it will result in financial meltdown for the UK, I'm deeply puzzled.

I'm not puzzled one bit. Lagarde and others don't know what Brexit would bring and that uncertainty is enough. I am confident that every indicator regarding the UK economy (and many others besides) will go down should the UK vote to leave. I'm sure hedge fund mangers have this in mind.

quote:

And of course, the drones at the World Bank, Fed, etc, etc, etc, all saw the 2007-8 banking meltdown coming so were able to warn about it and so prevent meltdown in smaller, more fragile economies such as Ireland, Iceland, Greece, etc.

I don't think the "drones" gave a toss about smaller economies or the possibility of a recession that turned into a depression.

quote:

As for the esteemed economists who predict doom and gloom, I'm reminded of the 364 academic economists who rubbished Geoffrey Howe's budget in 1981 and were proved so wrong it was almost funny. As Lord Howe said, you could sum up an economist as being a man who knows 364 ways of making love, but doesn’t know any women.

See top paragraph. It's the uncertainty that will be damaging. Whichever way the vote goes the government won't be the same after the vote, and an exit vote will result in at least two years of tortured negotiations.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Still just struggling this whole Referendum.

We,re hear a whole range of negatives from ... The economy will crash to the outbreak of war to -- oh well, it's going to take years to undo our membership so why bother.

Why bother indeed, why bother to allow the public to vote on something we're constantly being told is an open an shut case?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It doesn't follow that British entry into the EEC wasn't bad for this country. In fact it was very bad: it went through a prolonged period of economic uncertainty in the 80s and 90s. Now, although things are far more stable than they were, it is far less wealthy than most developed countries and hardship is becoming more apparent.

Sorry, how many developed countries do you think there are?

There is a lot wrong with the UK economy. We have a major issue with productivity. The level of inequality in our country is nothing short of shameful. It is outrageous how much hardship exists and I do not think we are necessarily an economic success story. However, if you want to argue that the UK is worse off because of the EEC/EC/EU, then you need to start with some facts.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It doesn't follow that British entry into the EEC wasn't bad for this country. In fact it was very bad: it went through a prolonged period of economic uncertainty in the 80s and 90s. Now, although things are far more stable than they were, it is far less wealthy than most developed countries and hardship is becoming more apparent.
Sorry, how many developed countries do you think there are?

On that list, NZ is ranked 56, with only a few generally recognised developed nations like Luxembourg and Iceland below it - which certainly fits "is far less wealthy than most developed countries". Though that list is a little bit misleading since it is total GDP, so will always bias towards large nations. Rank per capita and NZ comes in at around 30, not too dissimilar to countries like Japan and the UK, and significantly above the poorer countries in the EU.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Latest Polls:

YouGov – Remain 42%, Leave 40%

ICM – Remain 44%, Leave 46%

I think we can assume that the leave vote is more committed, and the polls may well be understating the leave vote. (The leave vote tends to correlate with the Tory vote, which is notoriously understated.)

Unless the remain campaign are keeping the powder dry and have something truly game-changing planned, we're heading for the exit.

All Cameron's fault. Did he really think he could win this, given the instinctive xenophobia of the British public, and our wretched newspapers?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Unless the remain campaign are keeping the powder dry and have something truly game-changing planned, we're heading for the exit.

All Cameron's fault. Did he really think he could win this, given the instinctive xenophobia of the British public, and our wretched newspapers?

Didn't realise the polls have it neck and neck.

My guess is the remain camp will, in the last days before June 23rd, make every effort to get the contented 'stay-at-homers' to a polling station. People who have cosy lives will be convinced those lifestyles will be in dire peril if the UK leaves the EU.

If the unthinkable happens and the Electorate votes leave, Mr C will look back and deliberate as to whether calling a Referendum in order to stifle UKIP at the last election was such a good idea. At the time he couldn't have foreseen the refugee crisis. "Events dear boy, events" as one of his predecessors once said.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Didn't realise the polls have it neck and neck.

They may be, or they may not be - depends on which polls are being reported (and obviously the media could be being selective here). In general I find it more useful to look at the bookies, as they actually have skin in the game:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result

Which indicates that Leave still has it.

quote:

If the unthinkable happens and the Electorate votes leave, Mr C will look back and deliberate as to whether calling a Referendum in order to stifle UKIP at the last election was such a good idea.

Well, he - and the Tory party as a whole - were willing to use the issue of EU membership as a proxy for the far more important issue of who leads the Tory party.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
In general I find it more useful to look at the bookies, as they actually have skin in the game:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result

Which indicates that Leave still has it.

Are we looking at the same page? I see the bookies offering 1/3 for remain and more than 2/1 for leave. Which means (ish) the bookies think Brexit has a probability of roughly 1/3. (ie. Remain has it by a nose.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, he - and the Tory party as a whole - were willing to use the issue of EU membership as a proxy for the far more important issue of who leads the Tory party.

Don't you have that the wrong way round? EU membership is something that the country has worked on and invested in for 40 years and more, it is something that affects the whole nation for decades ahead. Compared to that the internal disputes within the Tory party are small beer.

But, Cameron decided to gamble the future of the nation for a few years peace and quiet within the Tory Party. Which, whatever way the vote goes, will only be a temporary cease fire over the issue. Someone who puts the interests of their political party above those of the nation does not deserve political office, much less be Prime Minister.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... But, Cameron decided to gamble the future of the nation for a few years peace and quiet within the Tory Party. Which, whatever way the vote goes, will only be a temporary cease fire over the issue. Someone who puts the interests of their political party above those of the nation does not deserve political office, much less be Prime Minister.

Very fair comment, but of how many political leaders has that not been true over the years. Ramsay MacDonald was the last one to put his country before his party, and look where his mythological status has been in his party ever since.

The other really depressing thing is that there isn't any potentially more impressive looking potential prime minister anywhere else, not in his party and not in any of the others. Osborne, not very exciting, May, unlikely on health grounds, Johnson, Gove, Grayling, the stomach heaves at the thought of any of them. Corbyn certainly isn't PM material, but nor were any of the others he beat in their leadership election. Farron, untested and hardly known with a tiny party, and Robertson - who? you may well ask.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Alan,

I think NZ's apparently high ranking has probably more to do with the artificially high exchange rate the NZ dollar currently has (this in turn is due in part to the high OCR). If you have lived in both countries (as I have) medical funding, funding for schools, social security spending and various other things are far, far more generous in the UK than in NZ.

Alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
There is a lot wrong with the UK economy. We have a major issue with productivity. The level of inequality in our country is nothing short of shameful. It is outrageous how much hardship exists and I do not think we are necessarily an economic success story. However, if you want to argue that the UK is worse off because of the EEC/EC/EU, then you need to start with some facts.

AFZ

Epic fail there by you.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Cod, please read what you wrote, then what I wrote and try again.

The UK is very wealthy. I think there's a lot that could be better. But you paint the UK as virtually 3rd world and then say the EU is holding us back. The first part is wrong the second is an unsupported assertion.

Wanna try again?

AFZ

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The big UK economic problems in the 1980s and 1990s were the failure of big industries - coal mining, steel making, ship building, that's what depressed and destroyed the northern communities (and Cornwall and Wales). How much of that was Thatcher's decisions to destroy the unions and how much was external pressures is moot. Another article discussing Thatcher's influence and the lack of leading Northern MPs. This is a 2014 article (Guardian) comparing England's north-east to Detroit.

I did teaching practices in Hetton and Sunderland in the 1990s, as the EDRF funding was rebuilding Sunderland, but not Hetton (mentioned in one of the articles). As I mentioned in Hell, it was EU funding, the ERDF, which rebuilt much of Sunderland and the Eden Project in Cornwall.

I haven't been back to Sunderland recently, but I've been to Middlesbrough in the last year and it's depressed. The atmosphere in those north-eastern towns is very different to that of the south-east, even the bigger ones, and struggling worse than when I lived in the regoin in the 1990s.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There is still quite a bit of Regional Development Fund money, and other EU sourced funds, being invested in the UK - in northern England (both sides of the Pennines), Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and NI. Of course it's a lot less than in the 80s and 90s when these areas were significantly depressed, with economies well below the European average. These funds get used for infrastructure support, help for small and medium enterprises, heritage and culture, environmental projects.

The UK in the past has benefited considerably from European programmes - in addition to direct funding, a lot of unemployed UK people found employment in the rest of Europe when there were no jobs in large parts of the country. The UK economy has recovered from the worst of the 80s and 90s, although there are still regions where the recovery has not been as strong, and generally our need for support from the EU is less.

But, it seems distinctly un-British to accept all that help from the EU in the past, and then to bail out of the EU because we're no longer a net recipient of EU support. It isn't right that so many UK people found work in the EU in the 80s and 90s when there were no jobs here, but then object to other people in the EU finding work here now that the situation is reversed.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Didn't realise the polls have it neck and neck.
They may be, or they may not be - depends on which polls are being reported (and obviously the media could be being selective here). In general I find it more useful to look at the bookies, as they actually have skin in the game:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result

Which indicates that Leave still has it.

The polls quoted were lifted from ukpollingreport.co.uk, which is run by Anthony Wells of YouGov in his spare time and is probably the closest thing we have to an impartial political blog. He posts and analyses polling data from his own organisation and others. Comments are (usually) restricted to non-partisan discussion of these polls.

As for the bookies...their odds only reflect what people are betting on, and they don't always bet how they're going to vote. Speaking for myself, I won a tidy sum last year by betting on a Tory majority, though this certainly wasn't the result I wanted. It was a nice consolation though! Anecdotal evidence suggests that this sort of "hedging" is becoming a thing.

Scepticism about polling is understandable, given recent experience, but it does not give the remain campaign any grounds for complacency. I think the "leave" vote may be significantly under-represented.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
In general I find it more useful to look at the bookies, as they actually have skin in the game:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/eu-referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result

Which indicates that Leave still has it.
Are we looking at the same page? I see the bookies offering 1/3 for remain and more than 2/1 for leave. Which means (ish) the bookies think Brexit has a probability of roughly 1/3. (ie. Remain has it by a nose.)

While bookies do have a dog in the fight the odds have to reflect where the bets are placed, which will be show something like the odds quoted if more money has been placed to leave than to remain (a *lot* more in a two-horse race!). Perhaps Brexit supporters are more inclined to bet?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis doesn't destroy the remaining credibility of the Leave campaign then I don't understand the country anymore.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think Brexit support is the UK equivalent of Trump support, Alan. Political opportunists sloganising and playing on fears. Bad hair seems to help as well.

BTW, do you know the Schumann Declaration, which paved the way for the founding of the E.U.? Boris clearly does not. But the one thing we learn from history is that people do not learn from history. And are therefore condemned to repeat it.

quote:
We are called to bethink ourselves of the Christian basics of Europe by forming a democratic model of governance which through reconciliation develops into a community of peoples in freedom, equality, solidarity and peace and which is deeply rooted in Christian basic values. (Schuman Declaration)

[ 15. May 2016, 13:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Scepticism about polling is understandable, given recent experience, but it does not give the remain campaign any grounds for complacency. I think the "leave" vote may be significantly under-represented. [/QB]

Not sure if Johson's been too wise in bringing you-no-who's name into the debate. Cameron will throw it back at him for sure.

Come June 23, what could upset the apple cart is if fired-up 'leavers' turn up at polling booths who don't normally get out to vote, while cosy 'remainers' stay in the chair.

Also if the remain campaign insists on continuing to plough it's negative rut then there's a real possibility that remainers will switch and say You know what? I'm gonna do the opposite
Call it the Boatie McBoatie factor. Underestimate a combination of mischief and anti-establishment feeling at your peril.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are we looking at the same page? I see the bookies offering 1/3 for remain and more than 2/1 for leave. Which means (ish) the bookies think Brexit has a probability of roughly 1/3. (ie. Remain has it by a nose.)

You are absolutely correct, Remain has it by a reasonable margin. Furthermore, contra Rocinate above - the majority of the best are placed are on 'Leave' - which would actually have the effect of making the margin *less* than it should be.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Don't you have that the wrong way round? EU membership is something that the country has worked on and invested in for 40 years and more, it is something that affects the whole nation for decades ahead. Compared to that the internal disputes within the Tory party are small beer.

Sorry Alan - I was being somewhat tongue in cheek, my comment was meant to be a reflection on the way this is actually being fought out by the Tory party.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Scepticism about polling is understandable, given recent experience, but it does not give the remain campaign any grounds for complacency. I think the "leave" vote may be significantly under-represented.
Not sure if Johson's been too wise in bringing you-no-who's name into the debate. Cameron will throw it back at him for sure.

Come June 23, what could upset the apple cart is if fired-up 'leavers' turn up at polling booths who don't normally get out to vote, while cosy 'remainers' stay in the chair.

Also if the remain campaign insists on continuing to plough it's negative rut then there's a real possibility that remainers will switch and say You know what? I'm gonna do the opposite
Call it the Boatie McBoatie factor. Underestimate a combination of mischief and anti-establishment feeling at your peril. [/QB]

Yes, my first reaction was, fuck you, Cameron, I'm going to vote Leave. However, the appalling gallery of Leave leaders has changed that. But I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't quite a large rebellious vote for Leave. Quite ironic that Cameron and Corbyn are on the same side, this may not help either.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Quite ironic that Cameron and Corbyn are on the same side, this may not help either.

I think it might help. Corbyn has credibility with the young who may not otherwise vote. His reasons for remaining are a lot more nuanced than Hameron, too.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Quite ironic that Cameron and Corbyn are on the same side, this may not help either.
I think it might help. Corbyn has credibility with the young who may not otherwise vote. His reasons for remaining are a lot more nuanced than Hameron, too.

Yes, that could swing it. Ironic, that Cameron may be depending on Labour voters to push Remain over the line. I would guess that they are also in a bolshy mood, though.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis doesn't destroy the remaining credibility of the Leave campaign then I don't understand the country anymore.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think Brexit support is the UK equivalent of Trump support, Alan. Political opportunists sloganising and playing on fears. Bad hair seems to help as well.

Both those get a
[Overused]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis doesn't destroy the remaining credibility of the Leave campaign then I don't understand the country anymore.

I don't think it will, as this campaign is going beyond normality into surreal and Trump-like dimensions. There seem to be so many irrational ideas floating around, about the EU, about brown people, and French and German people, and so on. Seeing Farage and Gove and Galloway on the same side is weird enough, but now, people are not really saying normal or rational things. I bet Cameron is wishing he'd never started this. The nutters have been let out of the asylum.

[ 15. May 2016, 16:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I bet Cameron is wishing he'd never started this. The nutters have been let out of the asylum.

One does wonder if this was a good time to throw such a bone to the pack.
If voters fall back on party loyalty then Remain has nothing to worry about. Thing is this isn't 1975. The Internet is now the Oracle in Chief and the moderating influence of UK liberalism was destroyed at the last Election.

Boaty McBoatface is what a meant to say above. An Internet vote which propelled a joke name way ahead of the household name, one which it was supposed would win the dedication of a polar exploration vessel. Possibly not greatest example of the whims of the Electorate. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis doesn't destroy the remaining credibility of the Leave campaign then I don't understand the country anymore.

They haven't much credibility to lose, but it doesn't matter. People I know who are going to vote leave are not following the debate, they don't care which talking head says what. They just don't like the EU because it costs us money, foreigners tell us what to do, and it lets those foreigners come here and cost us more money. Their minds are made up.

Cameron needs Labour to save his ass by appealing to all the younger voters who have so much to lose here to actually, you know, go and vote...

However, given what happened to Labour in Scotland after they campaigned with the Tories in the independence referendum, Corbyn could be forgiven for being a little circumspect. I agree with Doc Tor that Jezza's pitch of "I have reservations about the EU myself but on balance I think we should stay", whilst not being brilliant rhetoric may ultimately cut more ice than Cameron's position of "I'm Prime Minister and I say we're all doomed if we leave". That stuff just bounces off the brexiters, and young people have Cameron set on "ignore".

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis doesn't destroy the remaining credibility of the Leave campaign then I don't understand the country anymore.
They haven't much credibility to lose, but it doesn't matter. People I know who are going to vote leave are not following the debate, they don't care which talking head says what. They just don't like the EU because it costs us money, foreigners tell us what to do, and it lets those foreigners come here and cost us more money. Their minds are made up.

Yes, and assuming we leave it will be somewhat interesting to see what they do when they realise that reconstituting the UK as Norway/Switzerland,/Canada/Singapore/Albania, still costs us money, that foreigners still tell us what to do, that the chuckleheads in charge are happy to run an open immigration policy, and that the country isn't magically better purely because everyone has been told to sit up and behave.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

So if we decide to leave, how long will it be before we start trying to find a way to get back in, without, (of course) admitting that that's what we're doing?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eirenist: So if we decide to leave, how long will it be before we start trying to find a way to get back in, without, (of course) admitting that that's what we're doing?

It's already started.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Eirenist: So if we decide to leave, how long will it be before we start trying to find a way to get back in, without, (of course) admitting that that's what we're doing?
It's already started.

.. amongst those that don't envisage Britain as some kind of feudal tax haven for billionaires (people really need to understand how Singapore is set up before assuming it matches their aspiration).

[ 16. May 2016, 13:24: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I have been wondering what happens if turnout is rather low. Then whatever the vote is, it won't really settle anything. Say we had 51% Leave or 51% Remain on a 60% turnout. In either case the losing side could (and would) claim that their opponents had no clear majority.

I almost feel this should be a compulsory vote.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis doesn't destroy the remaining credibility of the Leave campaign then I don't understand the country anymore.

Both the French and the Germans have "previous" in terms of trying to unite the continent under their rule. Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it. And in both cases it was the British who bloody well stopped them.

Now we're in a situation where the French and Germans have decided to combine forces in order to unite the continent under their rule, and because they know military means won't work as long as Britain remains free they're using bureaucracy and economics as their weapons this time. But ultimately the ends are the same - a European Empire controlled from Paris and Berlin. And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule, or do we bloody well stop them again?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule

By voting to leave the EU and surrendering any influence we have.

quote:
or do we bloody well stop them again?

By, staying in the EU and using our influence to promote policies and practices that we consider to be the best for everyone in Europe.

The arguments work both ways. Even if you accept the rather absurd notion that the EU is actually a front for a Franco-German Empire.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule, or do we bloody well stop them again?

So what do you propose to do after that? Invade the continent as a pre-emptive measure?

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And in both cases it was the British who bloody well stopped them.

Er, no. In both cases it was an alliance of many countries united together for a common goal.

Oh, if only we had something like that now, that would make warfare on the European continent unlikely. Sounds like a thing we might support, yes? Perhaps even join?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I have been wondering what happens if turnout is rather low. Then whatever the vote is, it won't really settle anything. Say we had 51% Leave or 51% Remain on a 60% turnout. In either case the losing side could (and would) claim that their opponents had no clear majority.

I almost feel this should be a compulsory vote.

It doesn't matter how low the turnout is - the british system regards it as 'the democratic will of the people' - as it did when about 16% voted a mayoral election here.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even if you accept the rather absurd notion that the EU is actually a front for a Franco-German Empire.

Absurd? When the Greek crisis was going on, which European leader was the one calling the shots and deciding which economic policies the Greek government would be allowed to follow? It wasn't Tsiparas, the Prime Minister of Greece. It wasn't Juncker, the President of the EU. It was Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule, or do we bloody well stop them again?
So what do you propose to do after that? Invade the continent as a pre-emptive measure?

Leave 'em to it. If all those other countries are happy to be ruled by Germany and France then that's their look out, but personally I'd prefer to see Britain ruled by the democratic will of the British people.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Er, no. In both cases it was an alliance of many countries united together for a common goal.

Oh, if only we had something like that now, that would make warfare on the European continent unlikely. Sounds like a thing we might support, yes? Perhaps even join?

The only goal the EU has is the enrichment of France and Germany at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule, or do we bloody well stop them again?
So what do you propose to do after that? Invade the continent as a pre-emptive measure?
Leave 'em to it. If all those other countries are happy to be ruled by Germany and France then that's their look out, but personally I'd prefer to see Britain ruled by the democratic will of the British people.

Some hope! For forty years this country has been run entirely for the interest of big business. Ordinary people plus SMEs have been screwed time after time while international corporations, investment traders and banks dictate economic and social policy.

Believe me, without the EU we'd be one hell of a lot worse off.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Some hope! For forty years this country has been run entirely for the interest of big business. Ordinary people plus SMEs have been screwed time after time while international corporations, investment traders and banks dictate economic and social policy.

What on earth makes you think the EU isn't dominated by banks and multinationals? The difference is, in Britain it's possible to vote for change.

I just don't understand this idea that the EU is some kind of bastion of social democracy and upholder of the common people. Especially when the most socialist and common-people-focused government that's been elected in Europe for a generation (Greece again) was told in no uncertain terms that the EU wouldn't allow it to enact any of the policies it had campaigned on.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

'Britain ruled by the democratic will of the British people' . . . .
. . . .who are told how to vote by the underlings of an Australian who prefers to live in the U.S.A, and his peers.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Some hope! For forty years this country has been run entirely for the interest of big business. Ordinary people plus SMEs have been screwed time after time while international corporations, investment traders and banks dictate economic and social policy.
What on earth makes you think the EU isn't dominated by banks and multinationals? The difference is, in Britain it's possible to vote for change.

Does this mean you'll vote for Corbyn, rather then the Posh Boys' party!

More seriously, Marvin. Of course you are right that multinationals lobby and grease the EU wheels, often very successfully. Multinational influence-peddling is a challenge for every national democracy. The real issue is whether you can better look after national interests by sole negotations, or as part of a larger group. Basically, the smaller you are, the fewer chips you have to play with and the more you are likely to have to kow-tow.

It's a myth that we'd do better in such negotations by leaving the club.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

More seriously, Marvin. Of course you are right that multinationals lobby and grease the EU wheels, often very successfully. Multinational influence-peddling is a challenge for every national democracy.

It's a myth that we'd do better in such negotations
by leaving the club.

Yes, there is also the question of whether or not multinationals/big finance are going to find it easier or harder to influence national policy under the sorts of people likely to emerge the in case of Leave vote, or under the sort of regime they envisage.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If Johnson comparing the EU to the Nazis doesn't destroy the remaining credibility of the Leave campaign then I don't understand the country anymore.
Both the French and the Germans have "previous" in terms of trying to unite the continent under their rule. Napoleon tried it, Hitler tried it. And in both cases it was the British who bloody well stopped them.

Now we're in a situation where the French and Germans have decided to combine forces in order to unite the continent under their rule, and because they know military means won't work as long as Britain remains free they're using bureaucracy and economics as their weapons this time. But ultimately the ends are the same - a European Empire controlled from Paris and Berlin. And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule, or do we bloody well stop them again?

This is the kind of meta-stupid argument that is not only demonstrably wrong but also manages to obscure some genuine reasons for scepticism towards the EU.

1. Germany and France between them hold 2 out of 30 seats on the Council, 2 out of 28 seats on the Commission, and 170 out of 751 seats in the Parliament, which makes both countries underrepresented relative to their population size.

2. François Hollande was in favour of rapprochement with Tsipras.

3. Merkel's view of Greece prevailed because most of the electorate in the rest of the Eurozone agreed with it. Politicians in Ireland, Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland etc all grandstanded about how unfair it would be if Greece was allowed debt relief when they had all had to implement austerity measures.

4. The Greek government can implement whatever laws it likes, it's just that it might not get debt relief if it implements laws its creditors don't like. That tends to be how creditor-debtor relationships work. I think Greece's creditors have been remarkably stupid but I think that reflects the nature of sovereign debt rather than European democracy.

5. Because obviously freedom-loving Britain has no 'previous' in Empire-building.

Point (3) is where your argument hides a genuine reason for scepticism. Earlier someone quoted Enoch Powell's observation that the problem with European democracy is that there is no European demos, and the level of national grandstanding around the Greek crisis rather serves to confirm this.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Some hope! For forty years this country has been run entirely for the interest of big business. Ordinary people plus SMEs have been screwed time after time while international corporations, investment traders and banks dictate economic and social policy.
What on earth makes you think the EU isn't dominated by banks and multinationals? The difference is, in Britain it's possible to vote for change.

We can vote for change, but there's little chance we wll get any change because UK governments even inside the EU are so craven to business interests that they won't stand up to them. Not even to the extent that the German and French governments do.

quote:

I just don't understand this idea that the EU is some kind of bastion of social democracy and upholder of the common people. Especially when the most socialist and common-people-focused government that's been elected in Europe for a generation (Greece again) was told in no uncertain terms that the EU wouldn't allow it to enact any of the policies it had campaigned on.

That Greek government wasn't simply socialist and people-focused. It was in very weak position to bargain with anyone. The governments of Sweden and Denmark which have any number of socialist markers (high taxation and government spending for a start) don't have the problems Greece has because they aren't economically weak.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Er, no. In both cases it was an alliance of many countries united together for a common goal.

Oh, if only we had something like that now, that would make warfare on the European continent unlikely. Sounds like a thing we might support, yes? Perhaps even join?
The only goal the EU has is the enrichment of France and Germany at the expense of everyone else.

I knew I should have bought shares in tin foil hat manufacturers while I had the chance.

Thank God you only get one vote.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't understand this idea that the EU is some kind of bastion of social democracy and upholder of the common people. Especially when the most socialist and common-people-focused government that's been elected in Europe for a generation (Greece again) was told in no uncertain terms that the EU wouldn't allow it to enact any of the policies it had campaigned on.

Simple, really. The last 30 years of British governments have been so right wing they make the EU look socialist. Tattered and threadbare it may be, but the EU is the last line of defence against the depredations of the tories and their fellow travellers. Give Corbyn a solid majority in 2020 and we'll the opposite situation.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't understand this idea that the EU is some kind of bastion of social democracy and upholder of the common people. Especially when the most socialist and common-people-focused government that's been elected in Europe for a generation (Greece again) was told in no uncertain terms that the EU wouldn't allow it to enact any of the policies it had campaigned on.
Simple, really. The last 30 years of British governments have been so right wing they make the EU look socialist. Tattered and threadbare it may be, but the EU is the last line of defence against the depredations of the tories and their fellow travellers. Give Corbyn a solid majority in 2020 and we'll the opposite situation.

Well, you have said something explicitly, that I hear people murmuring sotto voce - that the EU offers protection against UK governments! This seems incredible and bizarre, but it seems to be one strand in the pro-EU position.

In fact, it may not be true in various areas, I mean the EU could be more reactionary than the UK government, but some people seem to see it the other way round.

Possibly, part of the Labour pro-EU position is this, I'm not sure.

But then the Leave clowncar seems to rub it in - the EU might be an umbrella of protection against such a weird bunch.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I knew I should have bought shares in tin foil hat manufacturers while I had the chance.

Thank God you only get one vote.

Tin foil hats commodities have proven to hold their worth better than nearly any other. Never a shortage of adherents to that trend, unfortunately.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

This is interesting.

I really do despair of democracy. Why don't people see through the crap or you know, think at all?

Brexit is a bad idea.

AFZ

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
This is interesting.

I really do despair of democracy. Why don't people see through the crap or you know, think at all?

Brexit is a bad idea.

AFZ

I think it's partly because politics has become very boring and alienating. People are used to this, so they either ignore it, or well, ignore it. People like Boris can play to this, as they offer a kind of clowncar, or a cartoon version, which people find amusing or diverting, or possibly, revolting. I don't think immigration is really about politics, it's something more atavistic, isn't it? The darkies are coming!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
This is interesting.

I really do despair of democracy. Why don't people see through the crap or you know, think at all?

Brexit is a bad idea.

AFZ

Sure. But stupid is fashionable. So is bad hair. The New Dark Ages cannot be too far away.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's partly because politics has become very boring and alienating. People are used to this, so they either ignore it, or well, ignore it. People like Boris can play to this, as they offer a kind of clowncar, or a cartoon version, which people find amusing or diverting, or possibly, revolting. I don't think immigration is really about politics, it's something more atavistic, isn't it? The darkies are coming!

Yes, and this phenomenon is exactly which is pushing someone like Trump close to ruling the most powerful country in the world. The more we make fun of these individuals, and the more they are prepared to make off-the-wall statements then, consequently, the more mileage the clowncar seems capable of.

I think having a collectively bleak view of the future doesn't help, governments have bigged up climate change and terrorism yet neither of these has impacted hugely so far. It's created a fear of shadows thus opening a window through which marvericks and fantasies are now appearing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The world becomes more complicated, but understanding fails to grow apace. Life is not getting better for a significant portion of the population. Understanding why is difficult, therefore it is easy to point and say, "It is because of them", whoever they may be.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The world becomes more complicated, but understanding fails to grow apace.

Something similar has been cited as having been the underlying ,and real cause of WW1.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Boris is getting increasingly out of touch. He's beginning to make Nigel Farage seem like the voice of reason in the Leave campaign.

I think it's wonderful that he's touring the country in a German-built bus, that would cost 13% more if we weren't in the EU (I wonder what the bus company think about that option when they come to the point of needing to replace the bus?). Turning up at a brewery which received a £50,000 EU grant for a new bottling line, and being surprised that they didn't endorse leaving the EU. Brandishing a pastie, protected by EU legislation from imitation by cheaper and inferior products.

Is he incapable of a little bit of research? I'm sure he could find businesses that have not benefited directly from EU membership, who will endorse his message. I'm sure he could find something emblematic of the region he's visiting that isn't a product protected by EU legislation. Even a bus that wouldn't cost the company that owns it an extra £50,000 to replace if we left. Surely if he's so sure that the EU is bad for the UK then he can find something to illustrate that? Surely it can't be that difficult?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule, or do we bloody well stop them again?
So what do you propose to do after that? Invade the continent as a pre-emptive measure?
Leave 'em to it. If all those other countries are happy to be ruled by Germany and France then that's their look out, but personally I'd prefer to see Britain ruled by the democratic will of the British people.

Wait, what? Just a few posts before this it was "And in just over a month the British will have a decision to make - do we meekly roll over and submit to their rule, or do we bloody well stop them again?" which sounded very determined indeed. Whatever happened to stopping the Germans and French from dominating the continent?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Farage said this morning that if he loses the referendum by a small margin, it will show the country is divided and he'll insist it is run again. If he were to win by a small margin, would he insist it is run again because he wanted to make sure people agree with him?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If Leave win, can I insist that it's re-run if he doesn't?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Just as with him, you can insist but nobody will give you what you want.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Then, I'll scream and scream until I'm sick.

Just like he will if he loses.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

In fact, it may not be true in various areas, I mean the EU could be more reactionary than the UK government, but some people seem to see it the other way round.

Sure, and there is daily evidence that the current Tory party is fairly reactionary:

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/05/15/duncan-smith-reveals-hope-to-bin-workers-rights-in-on-air-rant/

This on the back of making employer tribunals much more expensive - even in cases of sexual harrasment.

I think a lot of the Labour position is based around some form of internationalism though.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I sense that, as in tug-o-war, Brexit are being offered a bit of slack.
Nothing like farage counting up unhatched eggs to get mr and Mrs cosy out of the chair and into the Remain camp.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

So, looks like Nige and Boris have pretty much lost it...anyone heard from Gove recently? Or has he cut his losses and started a new career selling flat globes door-to-door?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The trouble is that there is a vast constituency of the lost in the US and UK.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

The pollsters seem to be calculating that older voters will vote 'Leave'. I am 78, I remember the 1960s, and I don't want to go back there.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Farage said this morning that if he loses the referendum by a small margin, it will show the country is divided and he'll insist it is run again. If he were to win by a small margin, would he insist it is run again because he wanted to make sure people agree with him?

Hilarious when Farage and his mates made ham fisted interventions over the Irish Referenda, putting on Paddy Leprechaun hats and such nonsense. He can go and shove off with himself if Remain wins. Given the shrillness of Leave now, that seems more likely.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though if we vote to Remain (hopefully, when) there will be a further referendum at some point. It's required under the European Union Act 2011 whenever there is an amendment to one of the treaties that are the basis of the EU.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Chancellor Gideon just gave the best argument for Brexit I've heard so far:

Brexit would hit house prices, says Osborne

I think this might persuade some people I know who are "soft" remainers to vote leave.

Does he really think the idea that membership of the EU will make houses even more unaffordable (which I question), will persuade many people to his cause? Starting to wonder if he's a Brexit mole.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It just reflects who he is talking to. If someone has paid an insanely large amount of money for a house, then the thought of it losing value is unwelcome. He's talking to those who have bought a house when prices were high (anytime in the last few decades), not to those who are trying to buy now.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I always considered myself Liberal remainer but confess to beginning to wobble a bit of late.
28 Countries in the EU with more to join? One central large member which seems to have it's bath-towel draped over the tiller with a reputation for control freakery ?
I mean, if this thing is so fragile that they are telling us it'll fold if Britain leaves then one really has to wonder. But my goodness, we won't half be punished in the interim for party pooping if Brexit wins.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.

Roy Searle of the Northumbria Community has been making similar points about the moral basis and its Judaeo-Christian roots, peace as the primary aim of solidarity, and the importance of subsidiarity in the foundations. I've heard very little of any of that in the media coverage, which seems to have focused on economics, fear, polarisations and polemics.

I think there is some value in arguing whether the EU, in its evolution, may sometimes have lost sight of its foundations principles. But that strikes me as an argument in favour of reform.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Does he really think the idea that membership of the EU will make houses even more unaffordable (which I question), will persuade many people to his cause? Starting to wonder if he's a Brexit mole.

To add to what Alan said above; it's an inside baseball thing. The Conservatives have a majority among the over 40s (among under 40s Labour has a majority - but in general elections they are less likely to vote) who largely own their own homes. It's just an attempt to prop up the Conservative 'base' behind remain.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I suppose Osborne just can't suppress his natural inclination to look for wedge issues, even when campaigning for a cause which is about a sense of unity and community at least as much as it is about self-interest.

I'm sure a lot of young, euro-friendly people will read his remarks and say "is he freakin serious ?"

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I always considered myself Liberal remainer but confess to beginning to wobble a bit of late.
28 Countries in the EU with more to join? One central large member which seems to have it's bath-towel draped over the tiller with a reputation for control freakery ?
I mean, if this thing is so fragile that they are telling us it'll fold if Britain leaves then one really has to wonder. But my goodness, we won't half be punished in the interim for party pooping if Brexit wins.

UK/Irish citizen living five miles from the Northern Ireland border - here for family caring, and I study part time in Ulster University Coleraine. I've seen the old days of customs on the ROI side, let alone the security issues around the Troubles - even a slight roll back from the fully open border would be a bloody pain, and all because some bigots want to pull up the drawbridge in Kent. Don't kid me that there is a liberal case for Leave - there isn't one. Ian Duncan Smith's late conversion to populism should prove that.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Don't kid me that there is a liberal case for Leave - there isn't one. Ian Duncan Smith's late conversion to populism should prove that.

Er, I didn't say there was a liberal case for Leave. Liberals have always been fully committed to Britain's membership of EU. Thing is the Tories climbed out of the mire on the shoulders of the Liberals to win last year's Election, so they are now virtually a non-entity.

Maybe now Labour and Tory have apparently converged in the centre there isn't a need for a Liberal moderating influence. All shall be revealed on June 24th as to just how many 'bigots' there are about the place.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Does he really think the idea that membership of the EU will make houses even more unaffordable (which I question), will persuade many people to his cause? Starting to wonder if he's a Brexit mole.
To add to what Alan said above; it's an inside baseball thing. The Conservatives have a majority among the over 40s (among under 40s Labour has a majority - but in general elections they are less likely to vote) who largely own their own homes. It's just an attempt to prop up the Conservative 'base' behind remain.

Yep. Whilst I have never bought the notion of Osborne as the supposed political genius many claim he is I think he's right tactically with this one.

People who worry about house prices dropping and might vote to leave will be persuaded by this argument. People who think (know) prices are stupid and are voting remain anyway are unlikely to change to leave in significant numbers.

AFZ

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.

Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU, it confirms to me that Leave is the only way I can vote.

Naturally, anyone who doesn't much care about such archaic and irrelevant concepts as self-determination or democracy is free to vote Remain.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.
Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU

While it certainly states the former, I can't see where it says the latter. Nowhere does it suggest that the EU is anti-democratic, and in its stated aim of subsidiarity, is profoundly pro-demos.

So, if you're intent on making an idol of the nation state, then yes, the EU is your worst nightmare come true. I don't worship lines on a map, so I don't feel the same way.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think this article provides a somewhat different dimension.
Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU, it confirms to me that Leave is the only way I can vote.

Naturally, anyone who doesn't much care about such archaic and irrelevant concepts as self-determination or democracy is free to vote Remain.

The European Commission is hardly democratic but the House of Lords wins any battle for the title of "Unelected oligarchy" outside of the College of Cardinals and the Marylebone Cricket Club.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The European Commission isn't meant to be democratic. That's why they don't make any decisions.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The European Commission isn't meant to be democratic. That's why they don't make any decisions.

OK, the Council of Ministers makes decisions. But how often does the Council act contrarily to the Commission? I'm sure they do, but they are hand in glove and the Council of Ministers isn't much more democratic anyway.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

The Commission can propose legislation, but it's entirely subservient to the European parliament, and to the Council of Ministers (who are the elected heads of the governments of the 28 member states).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The House of Commons isn't exactly a shining example of democracy. It's an intermittently elected dictatorship which much of the time is relatively benign, but when a party can have an overall majority on only 35% of the vote (2005), and another can increase its share of the vote by only 0.8% on the previous election and have an overall majority on under 37% of the vote (2015), the UK Parliament cannot claim to any credentials as representative democracy.

The argument that a leave vote is a vote for democracy is delusional.

[ 22. May 2016, 21:05: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Given that it states plainly that decreasing the sovereignty of individual nation states and eliminating the democratic process in favour of following the consensus of an unelected oligarchy were foundational aims of the EU
While it certainly states the former, I can't see where it says the latter. Nowhere does it suggest that the EU is anti-democratic, and in its stated aim of subsidiarity, is profoundly pro-demos.

What you call "pro-demos" is based on a political view of what is best for people, and one that has historically had little time for any suggestion that the people concerned should have a say in that. We've seen that on this very thread, with all the comments about people just voting for whatever the media moguls tell them, which sound to me a lot like saying the poor misguided dears shouldn't be given too much of a say because they'll just choose the wrong thing. Democracy, on the other hand, is all about the people being able to decide for themselves - regardless of whether what they decide is what the left-wing intelligentsia thinks is right.

The part of the article to which I was referring is this:

quote:
A final constituent element of solidarity is the commitment to political harmony. In contemporary debates over the EU much is made of the “democratic deficit” – that is, the extent to which European institutions fail adequately to demonstrate their democratic accountability. The early European institutions were designed in part precisely to avoid
democratic clashes of the Westminster parliamentary style. The Commission was meant to be a-political and based on consensus (there was also no majority voting). This reflects
a wider concern among the founders of the European project to prioritise harmony (a term that appears remarkably frequently across the two treaties in question).

Sounds to me like that's saying "harmony" is more important than the democratic process.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

To me it reads more like a commitment to develop a form of democratic representation that emphasises harmony rather than confrontation, democracy working to construct consensus among those elected to represent the people (and, thus achieve something that is as close as possible to being acceptable to the majority of the people) rather than the Westminster model of a Government representing a minority (just a larger minority than the Opposition) producing policies that are (presumably) acceptable to those who voted for them but quite possible not acceptable to the majority of the electorate.

I think there can be a very good case made that harmonious consensus is more democratic than other models.

The EU is a unique set of different bodies established to represent different groups within Europe, and to hold those in tension and harmony. We have a directly elected Parliament, representing the people of Europe. We have a Council of ministers representing the different governments within Europe. And, we have the Commission which represents Europe as a whole entity. Now, it might be claimed (probably with some justification) that the balance between those three interests is imperfect - but, it's a tripod that will continue to stand even if not perfect.

The question is, is there a more democratic way of having a body representing the whole of Europe other than the Commission of a-political appointees? Without any sort of pan-European political party system you can't get a government formed by the largest party in the Parliament, no matter how many forms of coalition you employ. You could directly elect members, but then how does that differ from the Parliament? And, even if those options work then you have the Commission beholden to the interests of individual citizens which removes the leg of the stool that represents Europe as a complete entity, and you create two legs representing the citizens against the one representing the governments.

It's a difficult situation to sort out (if it needs sorting out at all). One that is the direct result of a bunch of different sovereign nations (who all wish to remain sovereign) joining into a Union that is more than just a free-trade zone and common market but a long way short of being a federal state.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sounds to me like that's saying "harmony" is more important than the democratic process.

It sounds to me like that's saying "reaching an agreement is more important than allowing one group of ideologues to impose their view on others".

Which is exactly what they are saying. You might prefer another way, but don't make it sound sinister when it's not.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's a difficult situation to sort out (if it needs sorting out at all). One that is the direct result of a bunch of different sovereign nations (who all wish to remain sovereign) joining into a Union that is more than just a free-trade zone and common market but a long way short of being a federal state.

The tension here is between those who believe it should only be a free trade zone and common market and those who think it should be a federal state. The Commission has long been dominated by the latter, as have the governments of some of the most prominent players. British politics and public opinion has tended more towards the former. Now that Cameron has got it in writing that the UK is exempt from "ever closer political integration" it still remains to be seen if the British public thinks those aims are best served from within or without.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though, if the intention has been to create a federal European state the Commission and prominent European nations has done nothing towards forwarding that aim. Quite the opposite much of the time, with national governments basically trying to use European instruments to benefit themselves rather than Europe as a whole. The claim by some in the Leave camp that Europe is becoming a new German empire (or French, depending on who you're listening to) is a recognition that Europe is not moving towards a federal nation.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sounds to me like that's saying "harmony" is more important than the democratic process.

It sounds quite waffly to me, but I would interpret it as saying the EU is set up to find solutions that are acceptable to all members rather than merely a majority of members.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Marvin

How do national democracies control the increasing power of multinationals and the increasing impacts of globalisation when they do not operate in the best interests of their people?

How do they do that better than larger federal associations of national governments?

I think the growing threats to national sovereignty, as historically understood, are much more to be found by looking at both globalisation and the behaviour of multinational companies. Compared with the reach of those factors, the effects of EU membership have been pretty small beer.

Don't misunderstand me. I think economic globalisation is both a mixed blessing and a mixed curse. The argument is about sovereignty; if the effects of globalisation and multinationals are becoming a curse, what can a national government do better to preserve sovereignty than a multinational association? What practical steps can it take?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Marvin

How do national democracies control the increasing power of multinationals and the increasing impacts of globalisation when they do not operate in the best interests of their people?

How do they do that better than larger federal associations of national governments?

I think the growing threats to national sovereignty, as historically understood, are much more to be found by looking at both globalisation and the behaviour of multinational companies. Compared with the reach of those factors, the effects of EU membership have been pretty small beer.

Don't misunderstand me. I think economic globalisation is both a mixed blessing and a mixed curse. The argument is about sovereignty; if the effects of globalisation and multinationals are becoming a curse, what can a national government do better to preserve sovereignty than a multinational association? What practical steps can it take?

A government could vilify them, accusing them of defrauding honest taxpayers and claiming what they shouldn't while not showing the slightest inclination in paying their fair share.

No, let's not bother. We've got the disabled and benefits claimants for that. Moreover, they don't have the accounting, legal and PR talent to defend themselves either.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'd suggest that the best thing you could do would be to set Jacob Rees-Mogg onto them: he certainly had the number of the Governor of the BoE (and his flunkies) yesterday.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd suggest that the best thing you could do would be to set Jacob Rees-Mogg onto them: he certainly had the number of the Governor of the BoE (and his flunkies) yesterday.

I find that very hard to believe. Have you got a link?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Here's a link.

I've read the various accounts and watched the video excerpt. My reading is that Mark Carney played the ball and Jacob Rees Mogg played the man.

Playing the man seems to be the Brexit tactic. Anyone who provides forecasts of bad outcomes as a result of Brexit must be biased, or have a hidden agenda. I have not yet seen any pro-Brexit commentator attack the forecasts on the basis of their methodology. Playing the man involves a lot less work of course.

[ 25. May 2016, 14:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd suggest that the best thing you could do would be to set Jacob Rees-Mogg onto them: he certainly had the number of the Governor of the BoE (and his flunkies) yesterday.

Thank you Barnabas 62. Having watched the extract, L'organist, I drew exactly the opposite conclusion from you. The Governor of the BoE is clearly right to have given the public the advice he has given. Jacob Rees-Mogg is clearly wrong to have said he shouldn't have done.

He might as well be arguing that the Chief Medical Officer shouldn't advise against smoking because the taxation implications would be dabbling in politics.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Playing the man involves a lot less work of course.

And it is effective. It allows the audience to avoid actually thinking for themselves.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Which is what the politicians want. Get people used to not thinking for themselves, let them accept that other people can do their thinking for them. A thinking electorate is uncontrollable.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is what the politicians want. Get people used to not thinking for themselves, let them accept that other people can do their thinking for them. A thinking electorate is uncontrollable.

Careful, you'll have democracy breaking out.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No fear of that, I'm afraid.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is what the politicians want. Get people used to not thinking for themselves, let them accept that other people can do their thinking for them. A thinking electorate is uncontrollable.

In the current context, I'm not sure that an unthinking electorate is controllable either.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

A large proportion of the Electorate thought the 03 Iraq intervention was a bad idea, or at the best laden with risk. It didn't stop the Establishment pressing ahead.
Once in a while joe public is allowed to put a cross on a piece of paper in the belief it will change the course of future events. I'm very dubious as to whether that ever really is the case.

As for this ridiculous EU Referendum. If we think the Remain fear campaign has so far been lacking in imagination, wait a while, we haven't had the emotional blackmail yet....You know the bit whereby we are endangering the future of our kids if we vote leave? If the benefit of being in the EU is so obvious, coupled with the fact that it's filling all our pockets in the most spectacular way then why on earth is the opportunity even being presented to ditch our membership?

The thought of a return to the past in terms of war on the European Continent is the only thing that might cause me to vote remain. OTOH if this EU is developing into a bad marriage then there is no saying that tensions won't continue to rise by staying put.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the current context, I'm not sure that an unthinking electorate is controllable either.

Up to a point, but I think the 'problem' now is that a new equilibrium has been reached, so rather than de-escalating the situation, each politician believes that they can get a small amount of advantage every time they triangulate on some edge issue.

If you have been following the expenses story, it's pretty clear that this is the direction that the Tories took prior to the last election - both in importing Lynton Crosby, as well as practices from US (possibly in some ways trying to substitute technology for manpower). The various leaflet campaigns in the London mayoral election were just the most visible manifestation of this.

Should they chose to use the same tactics internally, a future leadership election could be fairly nasty.

[ 27. May 2016, 09:18: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
why on earth is the opportunity even being presented to ditch our membership?

One word. Tories.

quote:
The thought of a return to the past in terms of war on the European Continent is the only thing that might cause me to vote remain. OTOH if this EU is developing into a bad marriage then there is no saying that tensions won't continue to rise by staying put.

As someone on twitter has said:

Pre-EU:
War, war, war, war, war, war, war, war

EU:
Arguments about bananas

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Call me boring but I'd sooner have arguments about bananas.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Damn right.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Call me boring but I'd sooner have arguments about bananas.

Then in spite of your hesitations, you should vote remain.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Then in spite of your hesitations, you should vote remain.

Indeed I should.
However, like the confirmed pacifist who lied about his age to join up in 1914, I have a tendency towards being swayed by the climate.

< He was over 45 as opposed to under 18 >

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As I've a postal vote, I have now voted. Because of the Bank Holiday, it won't reach the Returning Officer for a few days, but it means I don't have to listen to ghastlies like Boris, Grayling or Andrea Leadsom any more.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes, we voted by post yesterday. Two Remainers clocked up.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As someone on twitter has said:

Pre-EU:
War, war, war, war, war, war, war, war

EU:
Arguments about bananas

People are pretty bad at thinking about time, in my experience. It's as if they think a mere 50 or 60 years without a conflict between Western European powers is significant. There have been plenty of similar periods in history, and all of them ended in war for one reason or another. Maybe the EU itself will be the cause of the next one?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The argument that the EU has brought us peace is probably the weakest of the reasons to remain in the EU. For a start, there has been an extended period of time while there has not been a war between European powers, but it's certainly not been a time without war - even within Europe.

And, of course, it's ultimately a argument from correlation. There's been peace between European nation while we've had the EU. Though I'm certain the EU has contributed to that - most importantly by bringing considerable prosperity to all the nations in the EU (even Greece and Portugal are much more prosperous now than they were 50 years ago) - I don't think anyone can say whether or not we would have had a similar period without war between European nations without the EU. Other factors have certainly contributed - NATO, the US funded reconstruction of western Europe, the simple decline of European nations as global superpowers and the end of empire being among them.

There are so many very strong arguments for staying in the EU that I don't quite see why people use the weak ones.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Yes, my guess is that the nuclear-backed standoff between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was a bigger factor contributing to non-conflict(if not outright peace) in Europe than was the EEC/EU.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The strong arguments are though all linked to prosperity, together with increased prospects of acquiring wealth or self-betterment of some sort.

The Leavers hung up on home rule, control of our own borders and wotnot aren't interested in all that carrot stuff. If it is possible to scare to shit out of folks by suggesting Western Europe could again see the type of conflict we all believe ended with AH blowing his brains out, then that stick will be used by Remainers .

But as Marvin has said it would be a moot point as to whether the tension caused by holding unwilling Member States together or allowing them the freedom to leave was, in the unhappy event of future hostilities, the actual cause.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The strong arguments are though all linked to prosperity, together with increased prospects of acquiring wealth or self-betterment of some sort.

The Leavers hung up on home rule, control of our own borders and wotnot aren't interested in all that carrot stuff. If it is possible to scare to shit out of folks by suggesting Western Europe could again see the type of conflict we all believe ended with AH blowing his brains out, then that stick will be used by Remainers .

But as Marvin has said it would be a moot point as to whether the tension caused by holding unwilling Member States together or allowing them the freedom to leave was, in the unhappy event of future hostilities, the actual cause.

Serious question, not rhetorical...

What portion of the Leavers do you think would be swayed over to Remain by the threat of another war?

I'm asking because, from what I've seen, a lot of Leavers are the kind of people who talk about how the EU represents the Second Coming Of Hitler, or other similarly fascistic scenarios. I know that's probably hyperbole, but still, the fact that they so easily associate Europe with Nazism makes me think they'd have a hard time imagining that anything in a Leave timeline could be worse than Remain.

[ 29. May 2016, 19:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

I'm asking because, from what I've seen, a lot of Leavers are the kind of people who talk about how the EU represents the Second Coming Of Hitler, or other similarly fascistic scenarios. I know that's probably hyperbole

A lot of Leavers seem to have a heavy dose of nostalgia about some mythical past when Britain was both democratic and in charge of it's own destiny (or to put it rather less tactfully, a view of Britain as equal parts Downton Abbey and Trumptonshire).

In that sense, I think that there are a lot of commonalities with the movement behind Trump in the US.

Of course, both movements will fail and fail catastrophically, whether or not we stay in the EU or Trump wins.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I think there could be a significant number of Leavers who, like myself, could be made to think twice about inviting instability to their doorstep.
There has been nut-ideas for some time that Germany has a hidden agenda of supremecy, neutering Britain into a position that it couldn't fight another war. Personally I think, since German reunification, such a position may already have been reached, meaning we'd do far better to stay on good terms with the old foe.

Johnson was a bit foolish to make comparisons between today's EU and the proposed Nazi super-state that never happened. Anyone with half a brain knows this is not the case.
If the Remain side overplay the 'could be war' bit, it starts to look like some kind of veiled threat. That will likely increase the suspicions of don't know voters who are already somewhat disturbed by the intensity negative campaigning.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
A lot of Leavers seem to have a heavy dose of nostalgia about some mythical past when Britain was both democratic and in charge of it's own destiny

I get that impression too. A failure to acknowledge that we've been part of Europe since at least the point when we went to get princes from the Netherlands or Germany to be out King.

But, I also recognise that the Remain camp can be just as bad looking back to how bad it was before we joined the EU.

We need to be looking forward. For the benefit of the people who live on these small islands are we going to be better or worse in the EU or out? For the benefit of the other people of Europe (after all if someone is going to play the 'Christian nation' card then we need to look beyond our own self-interest)? The rest of the world?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
A lot of Leavers seem to have a heavy dose of nostalgia about some mythical past when Britain was both democratic and in charge of it's own destiny (or to put it rather less tactfully, a view of Britain as equal parts Downton Abbey and Trumptonshire).

I think this is where Brexit woos a certain category of Christian, too, who want a "Christian Britain" back.

There is also a particular appeal to those who seem to have their Christianity tangled up with nationalism.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We need to be looking forward. For the benefit of the people who live on these small islands are we going to be better or worse in the EU or out? For the benefit of the other people of Europe (after all if someone is going to play the 'Christian nation' card then we need to look beyond our own self-interest)? The rest of the world?

This is the nubb of it for voters yet to make up their minds. Peering into the future do we a prosperous, benevolent Britain, a trusted and active participant of the European Union?
Or do we see ourselves as dumped on by a central power base which is, itself, is merely serving self interest?

As for the Christian Nationalism card, anyone with even the vaguest knowledge of the two catastrophic World/European wars will know that card to be at best a Joker, or at worst completely worthless.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

38 Degrees members voted to support fact checking and stay neutral on the EU referendum. They are working with Full Fact, a charity, to check information in speeches and leaflets.

On the Full Fact site there are a series of links to information cited in speeches, debates and leaflets. The site compares the best data they can find with the alleged facts and gives a true, false or unproven rating to each. The conclusions are in sound bites, but there is usually a discussion about each point and references to the sources. Where sources are in disagreement that is shown.

* 38 Degrees calls itself a campaigning community that asks members what stance they should take on different issues. On this one, the aim is dissemination of facts to counteract the increasingly hysterical claims and counterclaims of Remain and Brexit.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course, if our representatives in Europe don't bother to turn up to anything and participate in the discussions on European policy then we're going to find ourselves subject to decisions made without our input. On the otherhand, if our representatives do what we elect them to do then we'll have a say in the decisions made. It's not really all that difficult a concept.

But, what is not acceptable is for people who have been elected to represent the people of Britain not only taking the money offered and do nothing, but to then claim that Europe acts against British interests.

I'm not giving prizes for anyone wanting to guess who I'm thinking of.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
This is the nubb of it for voters yet to make up their minds. Peering into the future do we a prosperous, benevolent Britain, a trusted and active participant of the European Union?
Or do we see ourselves as dumped on by a central power base which is, itself, is merely serving self interest?

I don't think we are either trusted or liked and I get the impression that some member states would be glad to see the back of a country that seems to be forever raising objections and going for opt-outs.

It won't be possible to reform the EU from outside and they're going to be sniffy about trading.

The alternative, however, is more of the same. I'm trying to find the least worst option amidst a bunch of increasingly hysterical claims and counter claims. We'll lose our jobs and houses, the economy will go bust, terrorists will rampage through the country unchecked, Hitler will rise again, World War Three will break out and Satan will eat our babies.

I've given up trying to listen to politicians, almost everybody seems to be plugging their own agenda in a fairly negative way. I'm seriously thinking about not voting at all. Either that or it may come down to something as trivial as mobile phone roaming charges and the availability of Tayto crisps in Britain. Hell, it's all about self-interest ultimately isn't it?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Ariel wrote:

quote:
...and Satan will eat our babies.

As long as he granishes them with uncurved bananas, I think it'll meet the regulations.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I don't think we are either trusted or liked and I get the impression that some member states would be glad to see the back of a country that seems to be forever raising objections and going for opt-outs.

This isn't completely accurate. Up until recently the UK had plenty of - relatively natural - allies amongst Eastern European states who were generally more Atlanticist in perspective. Even the principle of opt-outs had a lot of support from the Scandanavians and the Netherlands.

Since when the UK government has managed to act in a way that has managed to alienate those allies - and allied itself to some of the most regressive regimes in both areas.

Let us assume for a moment that Leave wins, what happens afterwards? Who will the populists blame for their lack of success once they no longer have the convenient scapegoat of Brussels?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I don't think we are either trusted or liked and I get the impression that some member states would be glad to see the back of a country that seems to be forever raising objections and going for opt-outs.
This isn't completely accurate. Up until recently the UK had plenty of - relatively natural - allies amongst Eastern European states who were generally more Atlanticist in perspective. Even the principle of opt-outs had a lot of support from the Scandanavians and the Netherlands.

Since when the UK government has managed to act in a way that has managed to alienate those allies - and allied itself to some of the most regressive regimes in both areas.

Let us assume for a moment that Leave wins, what happens afterwards? Who will the populists blame for their lack of success once they no longer have the convenient scapegoat of Brussels?

Moreover, antipathy towards Brussels and the desire for "sovereignty", tougher border controls and a desire to make the life of immigrants harder, is stronger on the Right than on the Left, so it will be no surprise if a "Leave" vote doesn't lead to a Conservative minority government before 2020. Firstly, the existing government won't have its heart in negotiating exit, secondly some Euro-sceptic MPs will jump ship and thirdly the wolves are already baying for Cameron's blood.

I'm sure that's not what the "Leavers" want.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

As far as I can see, the "Leavers" want to expel anyone they consider to be insufficiently "English", plunge the nation into mass unemployment and poverty, and surrender control to multinational business. Cameron's blood will just be the appetiser.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cameron's blood will just be the appetiser.

So, an upside. Though not if it leaves us with Boris Johnson 'the Poundstretcher Trump' to quote Irvine Walsh.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Boris isn't completely stupid, and must have realised by now that if he does become PM in the wake of a vote to leave, his entire prime ministership will be about unpicking our relationship with Europe and negotiating new treaties and agreements to replace the current EU ones. For someone who doesn't like detail (or even facts), this is not an attractive prospect. He wouldn't get to do anything much else.

I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to renegotiate some opt-outs on the Brexit shibboleths like immigration, portrayed this (however bogus it might be) as dramatically better than Cameron's deal, and called a second referendum. And then the Brexit ultras would eat him as their main course. Cue total implosion of Tory party.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As far as I can see, the "Leavers" want to expel anyone they consider to be insufficiently "English", plunge the nation into mass unemployment and poverty, and surrender control to multinational business. Cameron's blood will just be the appetiser.

Yep, you've got me bang to rights. All that stuff about sovereignty, independence and the British people being able to decide for themselves what they think is best for Britain without having to worry about whether it's any good for Hungary or Portugal as well was just bluster, what's really important to me is xenophobia and economic Armageddon. [Roll Eyes]

I don't mind people saying I'm wrong about this. I really don't. But at least engage with what I'm actually saying rather than the same old tired strawman that all Brexiters are racist idiots.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Boris isn't completely stupid, ....

Are you sure about that?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
All that stuff about sovereignty, independence and the British people being able to decide for themselves what they think is best for Britain without having to worry about whether it's any good for Hungary or Portugal as well was just bluster, what's really important to me is xenophobia and economic Armageddon.

OK, define "sovereignty". And then explain how in a world of competing interests from multi-national organisations, both commercial and political, it means anything at all. Britain can't act independently of the rest of the world. There needs to be trade agreements, treaties, agreements with other nations over fishing quotas and greenhouse gas emissions (to name just two examples out of many options). I challenge you to enter treaty negotiations with Hungary or Portugal on issues of trade, pollution control or fisheries policy and not have to end up with a deal that isn't also good for Hungary or Portugal. In or out of the EU, if we want to be anything other than an insular little island isolated from the rest of the world, we will need to be in relationship with the rest of the world - and no nation is going to sign up to a deal that isn't good for them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... All that stuff about sovereignty, independence and the British people being able to decide for themselves what they think is best for Britain without having to worry about whether it's any good for Hungary or Portugal as well was just bluster, what's really important to me is xenophobia and economic Armageddon. ...

Actually, and perhaps I'm unusual in this, but it's the arguments about 'sovereignty, independence and the British people being able to decide for themselves' that are the ones that I regard as a load of kack, just as much as the xenophobia and racism ones.

Perhaps I might feel differently about them if we had even a half decent constitution and any say in what happens within our country, but we don't. If we did, I don't think we'd have ever got here in the first place.

Power is concentrated in Westminster. Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, we don't even have any devolution. The people who rant most about Brexit, sovereignty, the right of the British people to decide etc etc etc etc naus naus naus, turn out to be the same ones as oppose electoral reform and who see the whole thing as merely the opportunity to retain their once every five years' renewable elected dictatorship as untrammelled as possible.

This isn't about 'sovereignty, independence and the British people being able to decide for themselves'. It's about a particular clique of 325 + 1 individuals, currently with only 37% of the vote, retaining ''sovereignty, independence and them being able to decide for themselves', an b****r the rest of us.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Perhaps I might feel differently about them if we had even a half decent constitution and any say in what happens within our country, but we don't.

I detest this view. I detest the way so many people are saying we have to stay in the EU because it's our only defence against the Evil Tories, Media Moguls or Multinational Corporations.

And it's not because I voted Tory in the last election.

It's because such views are a slap to the face of every one of our ancestors who fought - often literally - for our right to have a say in how our country is run. From Magna Carta to Emmeline Pankhurst, such people don't seem to have thought it was a pointless exercise that wouldn't give them any real say.

It's because such views are so patronisingly insulting to the British people the ones espousing them claim to want to protect. As if they're just marionettes dancing on strings held by Evil Tories, Media Moguls and Multinational Corporations and can't possibly think or make decisions for themselves, the poor dears.

And above all it's because of the sheer defeatism behind those views. I'm no supporter of Corbyn, but at times it feels like I'm more confident that he can win the next election than those who are! If you want a government that will listen to you and do the things you think need to be done then campaign and vote for it. If enough other people do the same then you'll get that government, and there's absolutely nothing any Evil Tory, Media Mogul or Multinational Corporation will be able to do about it.

Of course, if that government is still shackled to EU law then there'll be very little they can actually do about the issues themselves. Just ask Greece. That will be the real situation in which we will have no say in what happens within our country, not the current one where you're just saying that because not enough of your fellow voters voted for the "right" party last year.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's because such views are a slap to the face of every one of our ancestors who fought - often literally - for our right to have a say in how our country is run. From Magna Carta to Emmeline Pankhurst, such people don't seem to have thought it was a pointless exercise that wouldn't give them any real say.

This is like saying that because we haven't eliminated starvation or poverty yet the struggles of the people who worked towards it were pointless.

Just because you haven't won the war yet doesn't mean you haven't gained ground.

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

I have looked through the last few pages of this thread, and find it surprising how few 'Leave' voices are being raised in what is an on-line magazine of 'Christian Unrest'. Marvin seems to be the only clear 'Brexiter' on here, and I wish that I'd written most of what he's argued! [Overused]

Does it not worry stay-in people that a question of remaining can unite Cameron, Corbyn, Farron, the Scots Nats, and of course our masters in Brussels (who want us to stay mainly because we are the second-highest net contributor to their 'budget'? It could turn one into a conspiracy theorist...

[ 31. May 2016, 16:29: Message edited by: Alaric the Goth ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:

Does it not worry stay-in people that a question of remaining can unite Cameron, Corbyn, Farron, the Scots Nats, [..] It could turn one into a conspiracy theorist...

Well, it could. On the other hand, if someone was to propose legalizing slavery, returning to the prior legal position where marital rape didn't exist, or any number of other bad ideas, you would find all those people lining up to tell you what an obviously bad idea it was.

Just because people with different politics agree on something doesn't make it a conspiracy.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:

Does it not worry stay-in people that a question of remaining can unite Cameron, Corbyn, Farron, the Scots Nats, [..] It could turn one into a conspiracy theorist...
Well, it could. On the other hand, if someone was to propose legalizing slavery, returning to the prior legal position where marital rape didn't exist, or any number of other bad ideas, you would find all those people lining up to tell you what an obviously bad idea it was.

Just because people with different politics agree on something doesn't make it a conspiracy.

And you can reverse it. Brexit apostles cross the ideological spectrum from Nigel Farage to George Galloway.

What I suppose unites them is that they're the kind of people who are usually seen as "non-establishment", whereas the Remainers tend to be more "in with the in crowd", if you know what I mean.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I detest this view. I detest the way so many people are saying we have to stay in the EU because it's our only defence against the Evil Tories, Media Moguls or Multinational Corporations.

And it's not because I voted Tory in the last election.

It's because such views are a slap to the face of every one of our ancestors who fought - often literally - for our right to have a say in how our country is run. From Magna Carta to Emmeline Pankhurst, such people don't seem to have thought it was a pointless exercise that wouldn't give them any real say.

It's because such views are so patronisingly insulting to the British people the ones espousing them claim to want to protect. As if they're just marionettes dancing on strings held by Evil Tories, Media Moguls and Multinational Corporations and can't possibly think or make decisions for themselves, the poor dears.

And above all it's because of the sheer defeatism behind those views. I'm no supporter of Corbyn, but at times it feels like I'm more confident that he can win the next election than those who are! If you want a government that will listen to you and do the things you think need to be done then campaign and vote for it. If enough other people do the same then you'll get that government, and there's absolutely nothing any Evil Tory, Media Mogul or Multinational Corporation will be able to do about it.

Of course, if that government is still shackled to EU law then there'll be very little they can actually do about the issues themselves. Just ask Greece. That will be the real situation in which we will have no say in what happens within our country, not the current one where you're just saying that because not enough of your fellow voters voted for the "right" party last year.

It isn't just evil Tories, media moguls, multinationals or even bankers for that matter. The last Blair/Brown administration only had 35% of the vote but got a comfortable majority of 66.

It's quite possible that in the next election, a Corbyn Labour Party will get a majority on the same sort of figures.

Our system means that it is more or less a fluke who gets to have a say in what happens within our country. Our government can make no claim any more to be either democratic or representative.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
... Does it not worry stay-in people that a question of remaining can unite Cameron, Corbyn, Farron, the Scots Nats, and of course our masters in Brussels (who want us to stay mainly because we are the second-highest net contributor to their 'budget'?

No.

quote:
It could turn one into a conspiracy theorist...

Only if one were to imagine there actually is a secret conspiracy. There's neither evidence for such a thing nor any reason to imagine that there might be one.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Does it not worry stay-in people that a question of remaining can unite Cameron, Corbyn, Farron, the Scots Nats, and of course our masters in Brussels

Not as much as Johnson, IDS, Gove and Nigel Farrage worry me, no.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Our system means that it is more or less a fluke who gets to have a say in what happens within our country.

No, it really doesn't.

It's true that the structure of our electoral system means that we elect the plurality winner rather than some kind of consensus majority. The last time that the elected government had a majority of the votes cast was (unless you count the 2010 Conservative/ Lib Dem coalition) the Conservatives under Stanley Baldwin in 1931 (although, of course, Ramsay MacDonald remained as Prime Minister, and one can hardly describe the Great Depression as "politics as normal". Before that, it would be the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists under Lord Salisbury in 1900.

But in almost all cases, the party with the largest number of votes in the nation has become the party of government. (The exceptions in the last century are 1929 (Conservatives got more votes, Labour got more seats), 1951 (Labour got more votes, Conservatives got more seats) and February 1974 (Conservatives got more votes, Labour got more seats). That's a total of about 7% of the last century (and in all cases, the governing party got close to the number of votes that the plurality winner got).

You can argue that picking the plurality winner is the wrong thing to do, and that we should have a different system that emphasises consensus-building, but to say that the winner under our current system is a "fluke" is frankly nonsense.

quote:
Our government can make no claim any more to be either democratic or representative.

I'm waiting for the claim that the EU is better, but it doesn't seem to be coming.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm waiting for the claim that the EU is better, but it doesn't seem to be coming.

The EU acts in the interests of ordinary people to a greater extent than UK governments do.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Well first from my own point of view, The EU elections are the only ones where my vote has made a difference - I actually helped to elect an MEP. I have never lived in a marginal constituency - you know one of those ones that dictate who gets a majority.

Secondly, the EU parliament much more accurately reflects the plurality of view that there are in Europe and that there are in the UK. A good thing in my view. It was a Tory, I believe. who said our system is in effect an elected dictatorship in between elections.

[ 31. May 2016, 20:58: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU acts in the interests of ordinary people to a greater extent than UK governments do.

This is a statement about your personal politics and perception of the EU. It's a perfectly reasonable reason to want to remain in the EU, but it has nothing to do with whether the EU is democratic or not.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU acts in the interests of ordinary people to a greater extent than UK governments do.
This is a statement about your personal politics and perception of the EU. It's a perfectly reasonable reason to want to remain in the EU, but it has nothing to do with whether the EU is democratic or not.

The UK government isn't democratic. We have one chamber elected by a method that creates artificial majorities, another of hereditary members, political appointees and bishops plus a hereditary head of state.

If you go beyond the democracy-yes-or-no issue, my point stands.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

If you go beyond the democracy-yes-or-no issue, my point stands.

But isn't your point judging the EU by what it does? It sounds like you're saying that the EU is good because it does things that Sioni Sais thinks are in the interests of the ordinary people of the UK.

This is very different from saying that the EU does what the people of the UK want it to do. (We have seen on many occasions that people don't vote for what we think would be in their interests.)

Basically, it sounds like you're making the "Evil Tories" argument. You seem to be saying that stupid British people who don't know what's good for them keep electing Tory (or Tory-lite) governments, and we need the EU to protect us from them.

This is a rational reason for someone from the political left to vote "remain" but it's not a democratic one.

(And just because the electoral system is designed to generate majorities rather than encourage consensus doesn't make it undemocratic. The Parliament Act renders the bizarre composition of the House of Lords relatively moot as far as democracy goes: it is always possible for the elected House to assert its primacy.)

[ 31. May 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
....Cue total implosion of Tory party.

Now there is something to tempt the tactical voter [Biased]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I can't help but wonder whether Sioni (among others) would be a Leave voter if the political situation was reversed and we had a socialist UK thinking about leaving an unapologetically capitalist (or worse) EU.

And if so, that seems to me to be a very short-sighted view. In a little under 4 years the UK may well elect Corbyn's Labour. Meanwhile, many countries in the EU seem to be moving rightwards. Shackling ourselves to them because they happen to be more left wing than us at the moment is just ignoring the very real risk that those positions can easily and quickly become reversed.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Our government can make no claim any more to be either democratic or representative.
I'm waiting for the claim that the EU is better, but it doesn't seem to be coming.

The question appears to assume that Westminster and the EU are comparable. Which, of course, they aren't, and there's no reason to expect either to change significantly in the foreseeable future.

Westminster is the Parliament of the UK from which the government of the UK is formed. We vote for MPs to represent us in Westminster, either within Government or Opposition.

The EU is not a government. We elect MEPs to represent us in a regional talking-shop, it's a very different body from the Westminster Parliament.

If asked whether I wanted government from Westminster or the EU I'd take Westminster every time (though, if I was given the option of Holyrood as well ...). Even though I'm pro-EU, there is no way the EU could function as a government. Even if the structures were reformed to create a government, how would that work without first creating pan-European political parties?

Since they are so very different in function, it therefore follows that the form of democracy in Westminster and the EU would also be different. And, it makes a comparison along the lines of "more democratic" largely meaningless.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can't help but wonder whether Sioni (among others) would be a Leave voter if the political situation was reversed and we had a socialist UK thinking about leaving an unapologetically capitalist (or worse) EU.

That sums up one of my reasons for voting remain. But we don't have a Labour government, let alone a socialist one.

quote:

And if so, that seems to me to be a very short-sighted view. In a little under 4 years the UK may well elect Corbyn's Labour. Meanwhile, many countries in the EU seem to be moving rightwards. Shackling ourselves to them because they happen to be more left wing than us at the moment is just ignoring the very real risk that those positions can easily and quickly become reversed.

And that leads to the biggest falsehoods that the "Leavers" are peddling. While the EU does place obligations on member states, they are still independent. Has the EU done anything to prevent the cuts to benefits? Our tax regime which benefits the rich at the expense of middle-income groups? Has it interfered with the privatisation of the NHS? The influence of the United States in our defence policy?

Really, the rhetoric of the Leave camp is a catalogue of emotive falsehoods.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A dead heat?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can't help but wonder whether Sioni (among others) would be a Leave voter if the political situation was reversed and we had a socialist UK thinking about leaving an unapologetically capitalist (or worse) EU.

And if so, that seems to me to be a very short-sighted view. In a little under 4 years the UK may well elect Corbyn's Labour. Meanwhile, many countries in the EU seem to be moving rightwards. Shackling ourselves to them because they happen to be more left wing than us at the moment is just ignoring the very real risk that those positions can easily and quickly become reversed.

If I thought that the plp would be behind Corbyn in supporting a socialist agenda radical enough to trouble the EU then I might consider voting leave. As it is I don't think even given a free hand Corbyn would be butting up against the EU all that much. Consequently part of the value of the EU is protection against the worst excesses of the right. And no, I don't care whether it conforms to a perfectly spherical model of democracy, I care about what helps those with the least the most.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And that leads to the biggest falsehoods that the "Leavers" are peddling. While the EU does place obligations on member states, they are still independent. Has the EU done anything to prevent the cuts to benefits? Our tax regime which benefits the rich at the expense of middle-income groups? Has it interfered with the privatisation of the NHS? The influence of the United States in our defence policy?

Hang about a second, you just said that one of your reasons for wanting to stay in the EU is that they can look after the interests of ordinary people better than the UK government. And yet now you're saying they can't actually do anything about it?

Either EU membership is better for ordinary people, which means the EU can interfere with UK government policy, or the EU is powerless to affect UK government policy in which case it's not any better for ordinary people at all. You can't have it both ways depending on which best supports your argument at the time.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm pretty sure that the behind the scenes support for Brexit has the straightforward agenda of making the UK a safe home for unbridled international capitalism, rather than some kind of restored "national homeland" for the British (sorry, the English). The latter is just a nostalgic pipedream in the modern world.

In the end, that is why I voted Remain. Anyway, at 73, if the vote goes Brexit, I'll have a relatively limited time to watch the unfolding. But if that happens, I do fear for my grandchildren. Who have had no say in this.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And no, I don't care whether it conforms to a perfectly spherical model of democracy, I care about what helps those with the least the most.

That's the sort of thinking that can (and has) lead to revolution/coup and subsequent removal of the right to vote because ordinary people don't know what's best for them and only The Party (and/or The Glorious Leader) can be trusted to do what's right.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And no, I don't care whether it conforms to a perfectly spherical model of democracy, I care about what helps those with the least the most.
That's the sort of thinking that can (and has) lead to revolution/coup and subsequent removal of the right to vote because ordinary people don't know what's best for them and only The Party (and/or The Glorious Leader) can be trusted to do what's right.

That is an argument as much of the right as of the left, add in efficiency of the method and definitely right wing.

[eta] Perfect democracy is a form of anarchy, it is rarely stable and often leads to dictatorship as well. I am and will remain a balance of power person.

Jengie

[ 01. June 2016, 10:15: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Did anyone hear the trades union people on the Today programme this morning? The guy from the RMT talked a lot of nonsense AFAIC and I did suitable amounts of yelling at my radio. The EU is going to take away people’s rights to unionise and strike apparently.

This in the same programme that reported on how a French trades union is currently in the process of attempting to shut down the country (the oil refineries are now back open, but as of tomorrow, we lucky, lucky Parisians can look forward to act II – crippling transport strikes). Funnily enough, the EU is doing exactly nothing to stop them.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Did anyone hear the trades union people on the Today programme this morning? The guy from the RMT talked a lot of nonsense AFAIC and I did suitable amounts of yelling at my radio. The EU is going to take away people’s rights to unionise and strike apparently.

Marvin will surprised to see this but Today plus RMT is a toxic mixture. The poorest mainstream news program plus a union with a gift for self-immolation isn't pretty.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Successive Tory governments have taken away a lot of the rights of workers to unionise and strike, without any help (or hindrance) from the EU. That seems to be a definite example of "argument to ignore".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
That is an argument as much of the right as of the left, add in efficiency of the method and definitely right wing.

Oh, absolutely. I'd no more want to live in a right-wing dictatorship than a left-wing one.

It just strikes me that there are some on this thread who would rather live in a left-wing dictatorship than a right-wing democracy. And I find that baffling.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I've not noticed anyone suggesting a preference for living in any sort of dictatorship, left or right. Perhaps you can help me out by pointing out an example of who you are thinking of.

A preference for a democratically elected left wing government against a right wing one is, of course, something several of us would prefer. Though I'm not sure how that relates to the EU which has no power to direct how people vote I'm not sure.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've not noticed anyone suggesting a preference for living in any sort of dictatorship, left or right. Perhaps you can help me out by pointing out an example of who you are thinking of.

The post I quoted four hours ago, for one. As soon as the ends start justifying the means like that, you're heading in a dangerous direction.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
at seems to me to be a very short-sighted view. In a little under 4 years the UK may well elect Corbyn's Labour.

We can but pray that this will be so.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Successive Tory governments have taken away a lot of the rights of workers to unionise and strike, without any help (or hindrance) from the EU.

I reckon it would have been a lot worse had we not has the EU constraining.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Successive Tory governments have taken away a lot of the rights of workers to unionise and strike, without any help (or hindrance) from the EU.
I reckon it would have been a lot worse had we not has the EU constraining.

What are you basing that thought on, though? I mean, if this government was so desperate to screw us all over but only being restrained by the EU then don't you find it odd that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in the "Remain" camp? If Big Businesses are so keen to throw off the shackles of EU regulation and really stick it to their workers, why are so many of their CEOs in the "Remain" camp?

I think all this bluster about Evil Tories, Media Moguls and Multinational Corporations is just a scare tactic to frighten people into doing what its proponents want them to do. It's a con. A lie. It's "don't leave the village because there are creatures in the woods".

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

My point is that democracy is not an end in itself, good government is. Democracy is an insurance against tyranny, but voting alone cannot prevent tyranny, as Weimar Germany discovered. You need a functioning system of laws and rights to protect minorities and those who are powerless. The current government seems set on undermining those rights, and membership of the EU serves to ensure they will be called to account. It's a sad fact (as Bonhoffer pointed out) that most people will not exercise their vote in the defence of the rights of others if their own do not currently appear to be threatened.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's a sad fact (as Bonhoffer pointed out) that most people will not exercise their vote in the defence of the rights of others if their own do not currently appear to be threatened.

If we vote solely for our own interests, we do not much deserve the right to vote.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Successive Tory governments have taken away a lot of the rights of workers to unionise and strike, without any help (or hindrance) from the EU.
I reckon it would have been a lot worse had we not has the EU constraining.
What are you basing that thought on, though? I mean, if this government was so desperate to screw us all over but only being restrained by the EU then don't you find it odd that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are in the "Remain" camp? If Big Businesses are so keen to throw off the shackles of EU regulation and really stick it to their workers, why are so many of their CEOs in the "Remain" camp?

I think all this bluster about Evil Tories, Media Moguls and Multinational Corporations is just a scare tactic to frighten people into doing what its proponents want them to do. It's a con. A lie. It's "don't leave the village because there are creatures in the woods".

Marvin, I think people are trying to tell you that this isn't a simple, binary issue. Some want it considered that way, but it isn't. Sure Britain in the EU isn't ideal, but it is known whereas Britain out of the EU is not known.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And no, I don't care whether it conforms to a perfectly spherical model of democracy, I care about what helps those with the least the most.
That's the sort of thinking that can (and has) lead to revolution/coup and subsequent removal of the right to vote because ordinary people don't know what's best for them and only The Party (and/or The Glorious Leader) can be trusted to do what's right.

FWIW, I think 'the EU is necessary to protect our rights' is a weak argument for Remain.

That said, practically every other democratic system in the world includes some checks and balances against the 'tyranny of the majority', in the shape of a written, hard-to-change constitution that sets out the rights of the citizens, and an independent judiciary that can strike down laws not in conformity with the constitution. Britain does not, and ISTM Britain is particularly vulnerable in this respect because, as observed above, our tyranny is of the plurality, not the majority.

To me this is more an argument for constitutional reform, but in the absence of such reform, it's arguable that the EU performs the checks and balances that are absent from our system of government.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Either EU membership is better for ordinary people, which means the EU can interfere with UK government policy, or the EU is powerless to affect UK government policy in which case it's not any better for ordinary people at all. You can't have it both ways depending on which best supports your argument at the time.

I think that it's by way of a counterargument that's attained independent life. It's countering the claim that the EU does nothing for us except strangle us in red tape: the argument is that in fact we benefit overall from the regulations that the EU has introduced. You are of course quite right that if the UK government had the political will it could introduce the regulations on its own (though generally speaking they seem not to).

It makes sense to share research subsidies with the people who are one hour's flight away in similar timezones than with the people who are five hours' flight away in another timezone.

That said, although you're extolling the virtues of UK democracy on this thread, on other threads in the past when the subject of democracy has come up without the EU context you've complained that you live in a safe seat, and even if you didn't a single vote doesn't make a difference anyway.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Marvin, I think people are trying to tell you that this isn't a simple, binary issue.

Yes.

I've been majoring on Brexit in the context of globalisation. In the face of the increasing social and economic effects of globalisation, there is no "going back" to some kind of nostalgic view of sovereignty. The Brexit decision needs to be viewed in that context.

There is multinational support for remaining in Europe and there is multinational support for withdrawal. Multinationals are involved in lobbying at both national and EU level so their public pronouncements are all about positioning for ongoing negotiations over freedoms for themselves as entities.

It seems obvious to argue that they have increasing power and influence over our lives as a result of increasing globalisation. Sometimes, that influence is for the better, but only when it serves their interests as well as ours. Otherwise, there are questions of control and regulation to be considered. That also seems obvious.

So the issue is do we do better in negotiations over such matters as members of a larger family of nations - or on our own?

[ 02. June 2016, 10:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That said, practically every other democratic system in the world includes some checks and balances against the 'tyranny of the majority', in the shape of a written, hard-to-change constitution that sets out the rights of the citizens, and an independent judiciary that can strike down laws not in conformity with the constitution. Britain does not, and ISTM Britain is particularly vulnerable in this respect because, as observed above, our tyranny is of the plurality, not the majority.

On the other hand, not having a set-in-stone constitution means we don't get any of the problems that come with something written for a bygone age being used in the modern day (e.g. the whole Second Amendment business in America). We're a lot more free to decide what laws are appropriate for the modern day without having to fret about what our great-great-great-great-grandfathers would think.

For reviewing, amending and possibly striking down proposed laws we have the House of Lords. OK, it's rammed full of political appointees that have the job for life - but the same would apply to any putative Supreme Court as well. So would the Parliament Act.

As for Britain being uniquely vulnerable, I'm afraid I don't see much evidence of that risk in our history, especially given how many other countries with written constitutions and democratic elections have nevertheless fallen into dictatorship (be it actual or de facto).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That said, although you're extolling the virtues of UK democracy on this thread, on other threads in the past when the subject of democracy has come up without the EU context you've complained that you live in a safe seat, and even if you didn't a single vote doesn't make a difference anyway.

Context matters. I think smaller nations are better in terms of people's votes (and therefore people themselves) actually mattering to their government, so when the discussion is about splitting up the UK (Scottish independence) I'll be in favour and when the discussion is about merging the UK into a larger political entity (the EU) I'll be against.

I think UK democracy doesn't work as well as it could because it's too big. To suggest that because I think that I should therefore support it becoming part of an even bigger political entity is nuts.

[ 02. June 2016, 10:32: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

I think the EU has become a scapegoat / excuse for the UK government. 10% of our legislation comes from the EU - and much of it is connected with worker's rights, safety, data protection etc - not the shape of bananas like UKIP would have us believe. That leaves 90% that the Government has direct control of.

Some of that 90% is stuff they would never do anyway - even without the EU - but it's far easier to blame them for not doing stuff rather than admit it's because they don't want too. [Big Grin]

The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight. And won't notice or mind they've spent the last few months bad mouthing them all the place.

If people want to to vote Leave, then that's fine. It's their demogratic right and all that. But expecting it not to have any impact is bonkers. We get certain things because we are members of the EU. If we leave we won't get them anymore. That's not scare-mongering. It's a simple fact. And anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Tubbs

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.

I don't want to be a member of any club that people are scared of leaving because of the other members.

That's not a club, it's a protection racket.

[ 02. June 2016, 12:56: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.

There's a less emotive way of seeing this; we can't expect to leave and get as good a deal as we currently have because simple politics and timing won't allow it - not for a fairly long time if ever.

The idea that "we are so wonderful that we will get as good a deal as we want and sod everyone else" seems to be willfully ignorant.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight.

But, when we're told "it's just a temporary separation while we sort some things out" it's not a big issue to hand over the home, the car, the assets. It's when having done so we're told that it's over for good and now those assets have been handed over good luck at trying to get them back. Then you can add betrayal to the mix of confused emotions.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight.
But, when we're told "it's just a temporary separation while we sort some things out" it's not a big issue to hand over the home, the car, the assets. It's when having done so we're told that it's over for good and now those assets have been handed over good luck at trying to get them back. Then you can add betrayal to the mix of confused emotions.

There is that. [Frown]

betjemaniac, I'm not saying that we shouldn't leave because the other countries will then gang up on us and give us a wedgy. But the level of dishonesty of the leave campaign and their dismissal of anything that doesn't fit their narrative of unicorns and rainbows post Brexit as "Project Fear" is stupid. Chris Stiles is right.

quote:
There's a less emotive way of seeing this; we can't expect to leave and get as good a deal as we currently have because simple politics and timing won't allow it - not for a fairly long time if ever.

The idea that "we are so wonderful that we will get as good a deal as we want and sod everyone else" seems to be willfully ignorant.

I'd have more respect for the leave campaign if they just came right out and said that leaving will be difficult, some bad shit will go down but the good things you'll get will be worth it. (Problem is, they don't seem to have anything about apart from "We hates the EU", "Migrants go home" and er ... That's it. Even they admit that all the spending promises they've made are just illustrations of what could happen)

Tubbs

[ 02. June 2016, 13:54: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

So the issue is do we do better in negotiations over such matters as members of a larger family of nations - or on our own?

It seems obvious that the answer to that question depends on the degree to which the rest of the "family" want the same things that we do.

If a group of people more or less agree on a desired outcome, then they do better negotiating for it en bloc rather than as individuals. If the group can't agree on a common outcome, they probably do worse negotiating as a group than they would as individuals.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

The Leave campaign reminds me of someone who wants a divorce but assumes that this will have no impact on their lives whatsoever. That their partner will just hand over the family home, car, kids and all the assets without a fight. And won't notice or mind they've spent the last few months bad mouthing them all the place.

Some divorces are perfectly amicable. The difference is the "bad mouthing them all over the place" that you assert in your last sentence. It's possible for a couple to decide that they want different things, aren't compatible any more, and that they'd be better off apart, without any bad-mouthing.

This happens.

If you divorce someone, it doesn't have to mean that you think they're a bad person - it can just mean that you don't think you're compatible. If one of the parties thinks that the way they think and behave is the only possible way to be, then they're not going to be able to think that, and so will be bound to think that divorce implies "you're a bad person".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If a group of people more or less agree on a desired outcome, then they do better negotiating for it en bloc rather than as individuals. If the group can't agree on a common outcome, they probably do worse negotiating as a group than they would as individuals.

And if all but one of a group want one thing, the only chance the dissenter has of getting what they want is to negotiate as an individual.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Successive Tory governments have taken away a lot of the rights of workers to unionise and strike, without any help (or hindrance) from the EU.
I reckon it would have been a lot worse had we not has the EU constraining.
What are you basing that thought on, though?

Women Workers’ Rights and the Risks of Brexit – TUC lists things that Pritti Patel wants to abolish

It explains how the Tories wanted a less effective Equal Pay Act and tried to veto the relevant directives.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.

I don't want to be a member of any club that people are scared of leaving because of the other members.

That's not a club, it's a protection racket.

That's not how it works though, unless you view your local sports club reserving its facilities for use by its members, as a 'protection racket'.

On the other hand, non-members inflicting themselves on the club, demanding equal treatment and refusing to pay their dues, is simple yobbishness.

That, I'm afraid, is the Brexit campaign in a nutshell.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

On the other hand, non-members inflicting themselves on the club, demanding equal treatment and refusing to pay their dues, is simple yobbishness.

That, I'm afraid, is the Brexit campaign in a nutshell.

Here's an alternative characterization: It's more like if your local sports club was also a dining club and maid service. The Brexit people want to play football, and the occasional round of golf, but don't like the food, and prefer to clean their own houses.

Whether or not they can negotiate for that, or whether the sports club will say that it's an all or nothing proposition, and if you want to play football you have to pay for our cleaners as well, is an open question, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to want.

(This analogy isn't very fair - the various bits of EU regulation that the Brexitters would like to avoid have more in common with the free trade area than a maid service has with a football team. I think your analogy is equally unfair in the other direction, and reality lies in the middle.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If a group of people more or less agree on a desired outcome, then they do better negotiating for it en bloc rather than as individuals. If the group can't agree on a common outcome, they probably do worse negotiating as a group than they would as individuals.
And if all but one of a group want one thing, the only chance the dissenter has of getting what they want is to negotiate as an individual.

Countries can negotiate on both the national and multinational level - and do so. Finding out what are common interests and what are remaining national interests is just normal in making trading arrangements. It's not a binary game.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Finding out what are common interests and what are remaining national interests is just normal in making trading arrangements. It's not a binary game.

But isn't that (partly) the point of the Brexit discussion? Finding out whether what we think our interests are is the same as what the EU thinks its interests are? Because being an EU member means that you are not free to decide for yourself that you have a different interest from the rest of the EU on something which is an EU competence.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.

I don't want to be a member of any club that people are scared of leaving because of the other members.

That's not a club, it's a protection racket.

This is the dilemma afflicting many voters. The Remain tactics have been something of a shambles from the start, and as they insist on keeping it up, (this morning we had it from the TUC), then the chances of it backfiring become ever more real.

People will generally be led rather the driven.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Leorning Cniht

There is a dynamic relationship between treaty agreements and challenges of the day. Sometimes interests converge, sometimes they diverge, so you get tensions. The strategic question is whether there are sufficient remaining common interests in play to make multinational co-operation still valuable. The founders of the EU saw a creeping convergence, by agreement, over many years. Saying the game is no longer worth the candle on the basis of current difficulties is also saying it will never be worth the candle again. That's the problem with making it a referendum choice. It's not just about balancing advantages and disadvantages today.

[ 02. June 2016, 18:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The strategic question is whether there are sufficient remaining common interests in play to
make multinational co-operation still valuable.

Sure, but cooperation and convergence are different things. Cooperation is what I do with my friends when we do things as a group. A bunch of us do something together, and if someone doesn't fancy it, then they are free to sit this one out and join in with the next thing.

That's not what the EU offers.

quote:
The founders of the EU saw a creeping convergence, by agreement, over many years. Saying the game is no longer worth the candle on the basis of current difficulties is also saying it will never be worth the candle again.

No - it's saying that on average, over the long term, it's not worth it. That's a different statement from saying that it will never be worth it.

I am not a proponent of Brexit. I'm not a fan of the EU, its political ambitions or its "ever closer union", but I don't think there's a path to get from where we are now to the universe I'd like to be in that doesn't involve unacceptably bad short to medium term risks. This also means that I think the referendum was a tactical error (because I worry that a "remain" vote will give the federalists more encouragement).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

In principle, I'm in favour of working towards an ever closer union, provided that unity is not mistaken for uniformity. So, to judge from his writings, was Robert Schuman, one of the founders of the EU. Despite its imperfections, I think the EU has and can still make a constructive contribution towards that hope.

But then, I'm a wartime baby. I grew up in a world repairing itself from the appalling damage caused by WW2. That still influences my hopes and my fears.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

..... it's fair to say my thinking has been influenced WW2 even though a 60s baby. My parents both came through it unscathed but passed on to us kids that feeling of history repeating itself when, as teenagers, they witnessed rumblings of war in the 30s became grim reality.

However when they voted in 1975 they wasn't any talk of war in Europe because the Cold War with the Soviets was dominant. Very strange that talk and fear of war has now silently crept back into the Western European language and thoughts when discussing EU unity.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

I would have thought that EU unity was the best preventive of war in Europe, and the best defence against non-EU warmongers.

Have filled in my polling card, but how, is my secret.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.

You may or may not find this site useful. I came away thinking that the Leave campaign may be focusing mainly on things that EU membership isn't actually directly involved in so leaving won't change much, which is a depressing thought. I don't want to vote Remain but it's starting to look like the least worst option.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The rebel in me says Leave, the level headed, rational thinking part of me says Remain.

In fact, as in 75, the wording has been carefully crafted. The word "leave" being associated with something drastic and dangerous as opposed to the word "remain" conjuring up feelings of security, together with the notion that things will stay the same.

Also, the cherry on top? Picking the Referendum date close to a all-European football tournament. Well...you know, if you want the desired response you have to press the right buttons. Now all that remains is to see if the Remain strategy wins the result.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, part of me wants to say bog off to the whole stupid fucking idea of a referendum. But how do I do that?

But then again the sight of some of the Leave campaigners in their charabanc, rather like an awayday run by Community Service, is so ghastly and parodic, that my hand wanders to Remain. This is probably a gross ad hominem, but so be it.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then again the sight of some of the Leave campaigners in their charabanc, rather like an awayday run by Community Service, is so ghastly and parodic, that my hand wanders to Remain.

It does start to smack of lunatics and asylums and so on. One does wonder as to how and why chest-thumping has become vogue 2016.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

To the Leave campaigners I have just this to say. Pack your bags and leave.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

There was a bizarre inversion of the "Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain" in the Telegraph (with Corbyn as the bad guy). I'm not sure what to make of it.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
To the Leave campaigners I have just this to say. Pack your bags and leave.

Of course, that joke can go the other way as well.

"To the Ramain campaigners: Stay right where you are. Don't come any closer."

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
There was a bizarre inversion of the "Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain" in the Telegraph (with Corbyn as the bad guy). I'm not sure what to make of it.

I think I uderstand this part...

quote:
"Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain"

But what was the inverted, anti-Corbyn version? Were they saying that, if Britain stays in the EU, Corbyn can better implement his harebrained socialist schemes?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

As much as like the cut of Obi-wan Corbyn's jib, the EU provides basic protections against all kinds of extremism, from equality issues all the way to property rights, taking in privacy and freedom of association along the way. To join and stay a member of the EU, you have to have a parliamentary democracy coupled with free and fair elections.

That's the bulwark against tyranny the EU gives. It's a guarantee for both left and right.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But what was the inverted, anti-Corbyn version? Were they saying that, if Britain stays in the EU, Corbyn can better implement his harebrained socialist schemes? [/QB]

That if we Brexited (so not a total inversion), Corbyn would get into power because reasons, then basically as you put it, word for word.

quote:

...just the sort of environment, in other words, in which Jeremy Corbyn and his madcap ideas could thrive.

And if he ever came to power, he would, once outside the EU, be able to do more or less whatever he wanted.
...

I guess I ought to put the source, (but sorry hosts)

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I remain to make my mind up, but every time someone makes the case that "we'd better not upset the other countries in case they take it out on us"or "we can't expect to leave and get a good deal because other members will take it out on us" I'm pushed a little bit more into the "well? to hell with them then" camp.
You may or may not find this site useful. I came away thinking that the Leave campaign may be focusing mainly on things that EU membership isn't actually directly involved in so leaving won't change much, which is a depressing thought. I don't want to vote Remain but it's starting to look like the least worst option.

I certainly had the feeling that people were obsessing over things that leaving the EU wouldn't change following a particularly depressing discussion on Facebook yesterday.

In the meantime, the BBC have an interesting article on possible twists after a vote to leave. That we pretty much stay anyway....

BBC article

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
There was a bizarre inversion of the "Without the EU, the Tory's can sell off Britain" in the Telegraph (with Corbyn as the bad guy). I'm not sure what to make of it.

Was that Janet Daley's piece?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But what was the inverted, anti-Corbyn version? Were they saying that, if Britain stays in the EU, Corbyn can better implement his harebrained socialist schemes?
That if we Brexited (so not a total inversion), Corbyn would get into power because reasons, then basically as you put it, word for word.

quote:

...just the sort of environment, in other words, in which Jeremy Corbyn and his madcap ideas could thrive.

And if he ever came to power, he would, once outside the EU, be able to do more or less whatever he wanted.
...
I guess I ought to put the source, (but sorry hosts) [/QB]

I see, so a right-wing, pro-EU argument. To balance off all the right-wing, anti-EU arguments.

This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."

Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters.

[ 06. June 2016, 15:59: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."

Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters.

OTOH when both Donald Trump and Putin think Brexit is a good idea, together with David Icke and various far-right groups, you don't necessarily want to be on that side. The alternative is deciding to be in the same camp as a bunch of quite unlikeable and untrustworthy politicians from various parties supporting the opposite view. There is no Good v Evil in this, neither Leave nor Remain are coming out of it at all well at present.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."

Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters. [/QB]

There are times when I wonder if that was the point, claim a mandate (I thought that meant having responsibilities too) from the winning side when convenient and get the credit for 'saving Britain' (from whichever loses).
And when it comes to the not so good bits, blame others for supporting the winning side and be the party that ...

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

This referendum must be a real brain-strainer for the kind of people who decide how to vote by saying "Well, if all these right-wingers[or left-wingers, depending] are for it, ya damn right I'm against it."

Not that I really have a lot of sympathy for those kind of voters.
OTOH when both Donald Trump and Putin think Brexit is a good idea, together with David Icke and various far-right groups, you don't necessarily want to be on that side. The alternative is deciding to be in the same camp as a bunch of quite unlikeable and untrustworthy politicians from various parties supporting the opposite view. There is no Good v Evil in this, neither Leave nor Remain are coming out of it at all well at present.

Perhaps that is a reflection of the fact that there aren't very many senior politicians in the UK who do command general respect at present.

In any event I don't really care what Gove's or Johnson's or Osborne's views are. This is not an election but a referendum, and so the views of economists*, constitutional lawyers and political philosophers are a bit more relevant.

Re the Guardian's report of a guerrila campaign to reverse a Brexit vote ie by way of a second referendum when the exit terms are known, this is very intersting. Just as with the Scottish referendum, the effects of leaving aren't known. As someone who is probably going to abstain or vote Leave, this makes me more likely to vote Leave.

*notwithstanding the fact that examining chickens' entrails often seems to result in more accurate predictions.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here's a link.

I've read the various accounts and watched the video excerpt. My reading is that Mark Carney played the ball and Jacob Rees Mogg played the man.

Not really. The issue was whether it was appropriate for Carney to make his comments. Carney said it was, because the economic effect was a relevant topic to the referendum. Rees-Mogg said he wasn't because the Bank of England should remain independent of politics.

There was a similar kerfuffle during the Scottish referendum when the UK gvt released a paper written by Nick McPherson, a senior civil servant, stating the reasons why a currency union between iScotland and rUK would be unworkable. The Yes campaign cried foul on precisely the same basis. I think subsequent to the campaign there was a finding that it was slightly improper for the UK govt to release the paper.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

Not really. The issue was whether it was appropriate for Carney to make his comments. Carney said it was, because the economic effect was a relevant topic to the referendum. Rees-Mogg said he wasn't because the Bank of England should remain independent of politics.

Yes, Rees-Mogg as a history of suddenly becoming a stickler for procedure when it suits him (he spends a reasonable amount of time in Parliament talking out legislation that he doesn't approve of - but on purely procedural grounds, you understand).

The difference between this and the other case you quote; is that Carney is employed as the head of an independent Bank of England, which is supposed to speak about economic risks - that is after all part of its remit (as Andrew Tyrie pointed out).

quote:

*notwithstanding the fact that examining chickens' entrails often seems to result in more accurate predictions.

One has to distinguish clearly between short term predictions of the effects of specific targeted policies, and medium to long term predictions of levels of risk of the effects of much larger scale policies. In the case of the former you will get a fairly large divergence of opinion, in the case of the latter there will be a lot more convergence - in this case the majority of economists are in agreement.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I don't think it's beyond Carney's remit to comment on the economic conditions post-Brexit.

I've already bought US dollars for my trip abroad at the end of the month, because the closer we get to the 23rd, the lower the pound will go. If we vote to leave the EU, it'll fall through the floor.

If I can see that now, Carney will have seen it months ago. He's paid to plan for the future, and I imagine the lights are on in Threadneedle St pretty much 24/7, trying to work out how much of our economy will be left, and how high interest rates will have to go.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I not with regret the "chicken entrails" observation. It's just part of the rubbishing of experts (or "experts").

I agree with chris styles' thoughtful response. Rees-Mogg was still "playing the man" in my opinion, but using procedural arguments as grist to his mill.

As chris observed, Mark Carney's job description invalidates Rees-Mogg's argument and the Scottish parallel.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

This is a rhetorical issue, an exercise in apologetics. They always play to a draw on an endless economic balance sheet. The rationale of the CAP, responsible for 40% of the whole budget to sustain 2% of the whole economy, is beyond me, but there are other non-rational factors I'm sure.

And it's those that we bring to the party. Remain is inclusive. Leave isn't.

And there's a global storm brewing in the Balkans.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's a bit like being in the madhouse, although less humane. Also a bit like Animal Farm, 'the creatures outside looked from man to pig and pig to man, and already it was impossible to tell which was which'.

I suppose if one is choosing between right-wing and ultra-right-wing, one tends to choose the former. Or two shades of neo-liberalism.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And there's a global storm brewing in the Balkans.

The old fuse still there, just waiting should Europe ever again turn itself into a pressure cooker ready to burst.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Brexit’s lack of properly thought through plans beyond the referendum is perhaps the biggest chink in its armour. And with a dearth of friends in high places, it probably lacks the means of developing them. A big concern about the competence of this politically fragmented group if it does win.

But is the EU itself any better? Where is its strategic vision for the next few years? Faced with an existential crisis, it seems unable to sell itself or communicate any evidence of a clear direction, leading many of us to fear an equal level of incompetence, rather than just an unwillingness to let the federalism cat out of the bag.

I'm leaning towards an abstention.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
But is the EU itself any better? Where is its strategic vision for the next few years? Faced with an existential crisis, it seems unable to sell itself or communicate any evidence of a clear direction

There isn't any strategic vision or clear direction. It's the nature of the union. A vague aspiration to "ever greater union". But, many voices calling for the EU to move in different directions. There is no European government, the very structures of the EU are designed to prevent any individual or nation to take control and lead the EU. The structures are for consensus politics, not leadership by a minority.

The EU is not a government. It should not be paraded as a failure to govern when that is not, never has been, the nature of the institutions.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU is not a government. It should not be paraded as a failure to govern when that is not, never has been, the nature of the institutions.

Moreover, the more Eurosceptic Europeans don't want it to be a government. With the refugee crisis, the UK is actively stymieing efforts on a coordinated approach.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's quite funny talking about strategic vision when looking at this referendum. The whole thing is a dog's breakfast, and convinces me that referenda are not the way to govern.

I suppose there is a macabre humour in watching the whole idiotic pantomime of it, full of lies and fakery. It reminds me of 'Versailles', but with less sex and lace.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It reminds me of 'Versailles', but with less sex and lace.

I'm sure Boris has more than enough of that to even things out...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was just reading an interview in the Guardian with people in Sunderland, many of them favouring Leave, and often citing immigration - they're taking all our jobs.

Then the writer mentioned in passing that Sunderland has 3% foreign residents!

Yet, in London, which is round about 50% foreign, I think Remain will have a strong vote.

So really, Leave are harvesting plenty of disgruntled people, who are living possibly in poor areas, with crap jobs, low wages, and all of this dissatisfaction is focusing on the EU.

Well, that's how politics works, I guess, but it shows the ways in which referenda are very imprecise instruments.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just reading an interview in the Guardian with people in Sunderland, many of them favouring Leave, and often citing immigration - they're taking all our jobs.

Then the writer mentioned in passing that Sunderland has 3% foreign residents!

This isn't uncommon though - a lot (not all) of the places that are most anti-immigration don't have a particularly large amount of immigration.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The other thing I keep noticing is that when there are reports about a certain town, with immigrants coming in, there is often a shy little rider that unemployment is going down. I've noticed this with reports on Oldham, Peterborough, and Stratford.

Incredibly, there was a business man on TV from Stratford (on Avon), who said, oh yes, we have very low unemployment, and I employ Polish workers, but I think we should leave the EU. Eh? How does that work?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just reading an interview in the Guardian with people in Sunderland, many of them favouring Leave, and often citing immigration - they're taking all our jobs.

Then the writer mentioned in passing that Sunderland has 3% foreign residents!
This isn't uncommon though - a lot (not all) of the places that are most anti-immigration don't have a particularly large amount of immigration.

IIRC Nissan has a big car factory in Sunderland. If Britain leaves the EU Nissan will pull that factory out in no more time than it takes to go through the formalities. Access to the EU is a big factor for companies investing in the UK.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yeah, but the fuzzy-wuzzies are here, and we don't like them, cos they're brown and smelly, and do that weird prayer thing on their knees.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Sunderland has historically significant support for far-right causes, NF, BNP, UKIP and Britain First, even though there are very few brown people in the North East of England - most of our immigrants are white.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I haven't read through this thread as it's too long, but thought I'd throw my current thoughts into the mixture:

Like most of the people I know, I want to freely trade with Europe but don't want political union, no United States of Europe or president of Europe. I don't think that it is good for democracy - not that I think that ours is perfect, but we are in theory supposed to be represented. We know who our MP's are, and know we can throw them out if enough people want to.

The last time I wanted to raise an issue with my Euro-MP, firstly I had trouble finding out who was supposed to be representing me, then when I contacted him I was never given the courtesy of a reply.

If we have had any influence at all in Europe, why are the accounts still not good enough to pass an audit?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

If we have had any influence at all in Europe, why are the accounts still not good enough to pass an audit?

This is a myth, see upthread, or:

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/the-eu-accounts-have-never-been-signed-off/

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
We know who our MP's are, and know we can throw them out if enough people want to.

The last time I wanted to raise an issue with my Euro-MP, firstly I had trouble finding out who was supposed to be representing me, then when I contacted him I was never given the courtesy of a reply.

I'm not sure quite how the failure of your Euro-MP to answer a letter somehow damns the EU. Nor do I see why you don't know him any better than your MP, or why you can't try to throw him out and get the numbers behind you.

Apart from our local councillors, we all have our State and Federal MPs - know who they are and also know how to try to keep them in their position/throw them out should we want to. The fact that Madame and I think little of either our State or Federal MPs, and have Buckley's of getting them out of office is irrelevant to the existence of our system of government.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Like most of the people I know, I want to freely trade with Europe but don't want political union, no United States of Europe or president of Europe. I don't think that it is good for democracy

Though it should be noted that the options on the 23rd of June don't include a United States of Europe. The EU we have is much more than a free trade area, although most of what the EU does relates to trade.

As I've said several times, the EU is not a government, and the current structures are totally unsuited to forming a government. I would agree that if there was a move to form a European government based on the current structures then we'll have a total disaster, it would not be good for democracy or anything else. But, even the minority who advocate a European government recognise that and their aspirations (which aren't even in the form of a plan) would include changes to the European structures - starting with the formation of pan-European political parties. If the EU makes a proposal to change their structures (eg: replace either the Commission of Council with an elected Senate, or give more powers to the Parliament so that the leader of the largest party may be elected as a Prime Minister) then that would be a reasonable basis to call a referendum where one of the options would be movement towards a European government.

quote:

The last time I wanted to raise an issue with my Euro-MP, firstly I had trouble finding out who was supposed to be representing me, then when I contacted him I was never given the courtesy of a reply.

It's no harder to find your MEP than your MP, here's the relevant page (if you don't happen to know that link, then Google "find my MEP"). Of course, because the election is for regional representatives by PR, you have several MEPs you could contact (8 in London, 6 in Scotland etc). So, you can pick the one you think is most likely to represent your views to contact - or email all of them. We all have had times when we've written to our MP and not got a reply, at least with several MEPs the chances of one of them replying are increased.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Listening (on BBC Five Live) to Question Time last night, I was able to be quite relaxed! [Smile]

Hilary Benn was strong of course, and Eddie Izzard was clear about the need for continued increasing communication and co-operation in the world, not for breaking up into smaller groups. I've recently finished listening to 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari and although I would like to argue with him on quite a few points here and there, I think he has it right when he says that the world is a sort of global empire .

I shall be on my way to Perth on the 24th, so I hope the flight attendants will be keeping up to date with referendum results!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

FT Poll of Polls link

Brexit betting odds.

Well, the bookie's odds will reflect what bets have been made already. The general rule is that the undecided who vote normally vote for the status quo, but this has been a weird campaign.

I'd say this is going to be close, with Remain a slight favourite.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Didn't think Remain came out of that Telly thing very well last night. Boris took a couple veiled insults on the chin and avoided the temptation to hit back.

The three females on the Remain side were getting more flustered than the two on Leave. Remain didn't have much of an answer to the claim that the EU is a failed experiment. I get a feeling that many folks are looking considerably further ahead than the next couple of years, and this does look like a chink in the Remain armour.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If anyone is interested the Beast of Bolsover has come over for Leaving the EU.

It might persuade some Labour supporters to vote Leave, but others might not want to be on the same side as Dennis Skinner for anything.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'd say this is going to be close, with Remain a slight favourite.

Yes, though for "close" read "on a knife edge". I'll probably tune in to 5 Live at some point in the small hours to find out how things are going.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you to those who gave me something to think about following my post, it will help to move me on a bit. This whole 'debate' seems to be one big rut in which the wheels are going around and around.

After the last election, I would not trust the polls. Nor should I. This is too important for a reaction vote.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I've been thinking about possible business opportunities following Brexit. (It's an ill wind...) It'll certainly be a boom time for lawyers with international clients and insolvency practitioners. For those with money to invest, there should be bargains to be had in European property when British ex-pats are forced to sell up and come home due to the collapse of reciprocal health care agreements (or are just re-defined as illegal migrants and deported).

People smuggling looks like the most lucrative proposition to me - all you will need to do is provide your clients with one-way bus tickets from Dublin to Belfast.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Vote Leave have just put a leaflet through my door. The punchline is "Imagine the question was the other way round. Would you vote to join the European Union? If not, Vote Leave."

Pause for thought.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Quite possibly. An ill wind and all that.
Many, including myself, are under no illusion that even in the unlikely event of a Brexit victory that the rich won't continue to get richer and the poor poorer.

Coming to the polls and the Referendum being a close call. This is probably hype. I always thought it likely that Remain will take it 70/30, maybe 60/40 if something unforeseen causes a late public mood swing favouring the Leave Campaign.

X posted

[ 10. June 2016, 21:39: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Might be eating my own words already because there is a poll out tonight giving Leave a 10 point lead.
Crazily enough Boris with his promise of blood, toil tears and sweat could just knock Dave's scaremongering into a cocked hat. Now we know why JC is a little non- plussed, maybe he can visualise a crater where the Tory party used to be.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Might be eating my own words already because there is a poll out tonight giving Leave a 10 point lead.
Crazily enough Boris with his promise of blood, toil tears and sweat could just knock Dave's scaremongering into a cocked hat. Now we know why JC is a little non- plussed, maybe he can visualise a crater where the Tory party used to be.

Remember that it will be *our* blood, *our* toil, *our* tears and *our* sweat. Boris and his pals won't bleed, work, cry or sweat, oh dear no.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Satan says Christians continuing to drink booze is "best and most desirable"

Is a headline that could only benefit the Temeperance movement.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Reciprocal health care agreements are not an EU thing - We have them with a lot of other countries.

M.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Stetson

Nice ironic link title. I'm not sure Boris would take kindly to having a exit supporters allied to the Temperance society. Mind you, I'm not impressed with Boris's egotistical Churchillian rhetoric either.

Regretfully it does begin to look as though Leave has got the momentum.

I think Dennis the Beast of Bolsover is channelling the ghost of the late Tony Benn. There's something sad about him finding himself in the same bed as Nigel Farrage.

Maybe that home in Mull is in my future after all? Much as that would be delightful I really wouldn't wish on any of us in the UK the dog's breakfast which will follow a Leave vote. Not even bloody Cameron.

(edited for text correction. My iPhone corrected Brexit to "a refit" - which made me chuckle)

[ 11. June 2016, 07:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course, if madness descends and the Brexit is a majority we can negotiate reciprocal healthcare arrangements just like we can negotiate trade deals. But, a) these will take time to negotiate (probably years), b) those with the EU will need to be accepted by all the nations in the EU, and c) being reciprocal they need to benefit both sides - what is the benefit of EU nations providing healthcare for Brits living there if the UK prevents EU citizens living here?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Regretfully it does begin to look as though Leave has got the momentum.

It's impossible to predict. There's also still a large chunk of undecided voters. Either way, life is likely to be more difficult after, not easier.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Alan Cresswell, I was trying to correct the apparent suggestion that it is only because of the EU that we have reciprocal health care benefits. Whether continuation of them with EU countries after a Brexit would be possible, likely or even desirable is a different question.

However, there are obviously several non EU countries that do find it in their interests to have such arrangements with us.

M.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although, in most cases, those arrangements are very basic. As a tourist it's probably advisable to take out travel insurance that also covers emergency medical treatment. If you work overseas then you would probably be enrolled in whatever the local medical insurance scheme is - either a private scheme or through some form of tax contribution to a state funded health service.

Though the costs of medical care to working age people are generally small. It's caring for the non-working elderly that costs the NHS, and other healthcare systems, the majority. So, if we exit the EU, close our borders to people coming to the UK to work and that's reciprocated by less UK people moving to the sun to retire then the extra costs to the NHS will be enormous - an extra cost that even the overly optimistic amount that the Leavers claim will be spent on the NHS is a drop in the ocean.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
]Remember that it will be *our* blood, *our* toil, *our* tears and *our* sweat. Boris and his pals won't bleed, work, cry or sweat, oh dear no.
".......and when the flower of England is dead those balding old Generals toddle off home to die in bed" --- from a WW1 poem.

If trumpism in the US and Leaverism is a fever at work among the Electorate then even the prospect of catastrophe isn't going to stop it. And yes, those at the bottom of the heap are usually the ones who get squashed the most.

Periodically in human history we see a form of collective madness take hold this could be what we are witnessing.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Reciprocal health care agreements are not an EU thing - We have them with a lot of other countries.

M.

I didn't say that they were an EU thing, I said that the act of leaving the EU would cause them to collapse. This was a bit of hyperbole in a rather flippant post, but they would at the very least have to be renegotiated - and as Alan said, we would be negotiating with a very weak hand:

"Please keep looking after all our elderly sun-seekers, even though we won't even let your young healthy people come and work here any more."

Yeah, right.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
]Remember that it will be *our* blood, *our* toil, *our* tears and *our* sweat. Boris and his pals won't bleed, work, cry or sweat, oh dear no.
".......and when the flower of England is dead those balding old Generals toddle off home to die in bed" --- from a WW1 poem.

If trumpism in the US and Leaverism is a fever at work among the Electorate then even the prospect of catastrophe isn't going to stop it. And yes, those at the bottom of the heap are usually the ones who get squashed the most.

Periodically in human history we see a form of collective madness take hold this could be what we are witnessing.

I don't think it's simply madness. It's partly a revolt against the establishment, on various issues, such as immigration. Problem is, it could well result in a Boris led government. As John Major said, you trust Boris, Gove and IDS with the NHS? Hysterical laughter.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

All over the developed world, there seems to be an increasing number of people who feel they're not living the life that they deserve, who feel that this is someone else's fault, and who will support any politician, left or right, who articulates their feelings. (In the developing world, where people would probably have more justification for feeling like this, they are too preoccupied with getting enough of life's necessities to rage against nebulous "elites" or "foreigners" who are supposedly doing them over, but hey, give them time.)

There is some small justification for this in that one of the effects of technology and globalisation is to make the rich richer. I don't think they necessarily make the poor poorer, but the benefits are not evenly distributed, that's for sure. Also technology means that the absurdly pampered lives of rich vulgarians are on constant show, which may inspire jealousy in some. Personally I wouldn't want to live like that but each to his own.

Rationally, it is likely that the consequences of Brexit will bear down most heavily on the poorest as the economy, already on life support, tanks. But this probably is a form of madness in that it is impervious to rational argument.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
it is likely that the consequences of Brexit will bear down most heavily on the poorest as the economy, already on life support, tanks.

This.

We're still in austerity...and Brexit will make it twice as bad.

It's the most vulnerable who will pay for the foolishness.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
All over the developed world, there seems to be an increasing number of people who feel they're not living the life that they deserve, who feel that this is someone else's fault, and who will support any politician, left or right, who articulates their feelings.

This week's Economist quotes a think-tank pundit who says the unrest is greatest amongst the lower middle classes, who feel both not well-off enough, and secure enough, to be a bit rebellious. The idea being that it's symptomatic of a particular set of circumstances along the road between austerity and recovery.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It surely has to be said that the poorest and most vulnerable people are likely to be worse off if we remain too.

The minimum wage already means little to them, even less so the more unskilled people there are chasing the few openings.

The NHS and schools are already stretched beyond reasonable capacity, unless you know differently.....

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Vote Leave have just put a leaflet through my door. The punchline is "Imagine the question was the other way round. Would you vote to join the European Union? If not, Vote Leave."

Pause for thought.

To answer that question honestly, you'd have to imagine what both Britain and the EU would currently be like if Britain hadn't previously joined. I'm pretty sure this is impossible for the average voter. So my reaction to the punchline was "these people are trying to pull a fast one".

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The NHS and schools are already stretched beyond reasonable capacity, unless you know differently.....

This is not the fault of the EU, but of the UK government.

And the last time I looked, the current UK government cares more about giving tax breaks to millionaires than funding the NHS properly or expanding the number of school places coherently.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Vote Leave have just put a leaflet through my door. The punchline is "Imagine the question was the other way round. Would you vote to join the European Union? If not, Vote Leave."

Pause for thought.
To answer that question honestly, you'd have to imagine what both Britain and the EU would currently be like if Britain hadn't previously joined. I'm pretty sure this is impossible for the average voter. So my reaction to the punchline was "these people are trying to pull a fast one".

This is one of the many fundamental problems with this stupid, stupid referendum. There are no hard facts on either side, no evidence worthy of the name. All argument is in the realms of fantasy. No country has ever left the EU, so we really have no idea what will happen when one does. And Britain did join in 1973, so asking people to imagine that it didn't is up there with "what if Hitler had won world war 2" - an interesting dinner party game, terrible basis for a decision of national importance.

For my money, when an economy is in as fragile a state as ours, propped up by zero interest rates, you don't want to do anything drastic which has an unknown outcome. (Actually, one outcome of Brexit we can be fairly certain of is a run on the pound, which will necessitate steep rises in interest rates.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Periodically in human history we see a form of collective madness take hold this could be what we are witnessing.

Insanity as the Zeitgeist? You know, there may be something in that. Here are a couple of already old quotations from R D Laing.

quote:
Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.

We live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is already disappearing.

Things have speeded up since Ronny Laing came up with the second of those. Seriously, the complexity of the modern world, the plethora of choices, the levels of manipulation (advertising, political spin, 24/7 news media) and the massive value shifts create a pretty confusing melange.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Seriously, the complexity of the modern world, the plethora of choices, the levels of manipulation (advertising, political spin, 24/7 news media) and the massive value shifts create a pretty confusing melange.

The Internet is changing everything, well everything apart from English football hooliganism it seems.
The depressing reappearance of,(mainly), white males stripped to the waist hurling objects at French police who are already stretched over the terror alert will, in an indirect way, help the Remain camp.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

The famous poll that gives Leave the 10 point lead is based on a sample of just over 1000 adults. On that basis the country is jumping up and down either panicking or eagerly anticipating.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The Internet is changing everything, well everything apart from English football hooliganism it seems.
The depressing reappearance of,(mainly), white males stripped to the waist hurling objects at French police who are already stretched over the terror alert will, in an indirect way, help the Remain camp.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? From what I've been reading in the news it seems that some hardcore French fans have been looking for foreigners to beat up, and have just gone in for the Northern Irish and Poles who were peacefully having pre-match drinks together. If anything I'd have thought that kind of thing would swing opinion to Leave.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Well it is a moot point to be sure. My conclusion is reached by thinking a spectacle of disruption on the Continent will cause a feeling of standing together. Agreed it can just as easily provoke people into saying the thing is falling apart we need to leave.
With so many Don't Knows the mood of the mass is everything on the 23rd. I still think poll claims that it's neck and neck is hype to increase voter turnout.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It surely has to be said that the poorest and most vulnerable people are likely to be worse off if we remain too.

No, Brexit will have a major and bad effect on the economy, which will result in cuts to support for the most vulnerable. Remain will have no effect.

quote:
The NHS and schools are already stretched beyond reasonable capacity, unless you know differently.....

I know a lot about schools, and they're not stretched beyond reasonable capacity.

However if Brexit happens, the resulting economic slowdown, and inevitable budget cuts, will cause serious problems to both schools and NHS.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

This entire spectacle has really really depressed me. I've spent lots of hours in the last two weekends engaged in "debate" on Facebook, the standard of which is so poor it barely merits the name.

Stupid viral posts that can't possibly be true.

Long, winding viral posts consisting of half truths to start off with, moving on to lies, and building up to a crescendo of irrelevant rubbish.

And people who I fear genuinely don't know any better posting captioned pictures that are overtly racist.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote, I fear this has set a terrible standard of debate that will become the norm in future elections. Quite frankly I think anything goes next time around, but sadly every time I think we must have reached the bottom, someone gets even worse.

It's a serious issue that merits serious debate, but people who genuinely don't know any better think it's fine to just post recycled right wing hate material whilst droning on about things that have precisely nothing to do with the EU. Just don't try telling them that, or analysing one of these viral posts....

I've never worried more about the future, and not just which way this result goes. At least there's a reasonable standard of debate on here. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't allow pictures on the boards. I think I'll make a donation to the floating fund, so there'll still be somewhere vaguely sane to talk about it all.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
... It's a serious issue that merits serious debate, but people who genuinely don't know any better think it's fine to just post recycled right wing hate material whilst droning on about things that have precisely nothing to do with the EU. Just don't try telling them that, or analysing one of these viral posts. ...

IMHO a lot of the reason for this is that there isn't much to have serious debate about. The EU is not perfect. In a lot of ways, it is fairly flawed. But after several months of this, I still have not heard any (and I mean any) serious or persuasive arguments for Brexit - at all. If there is anything that 'merits serious debate' even the Brexit enthusiasts haven't manage to find it.

So it all has to be by appeal to different versions of 'don't we all hate those nasty foreigners', and emotional misuse of words like 'sovereignty' as dogwhistles, people using dishonest manipulation aimed at the more reprehensible emotions as a substitute for that "serious debate", because the serious and rational arguments for their cause don't exist.

The most disturbing thing of all is the fear that so many of one's fellow citizens may be going to decide how to vote on this important subject by their emotions as stirred by other peoples' dishonest rhetoric rather than reason, common sense, or even their own best interests.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There was a Vote Leave stall in the High Street yesterday with someone waving a placard at the passing traffic. A significant number of drivers going past were tooting their horns in recognition - and probably agreement. I would say maybe half, maybe a third, but I wasn't watching the traffic and counting.

I vaguely recognised a couple of people manning the stall; normally I know most of those involved in anything run locally, so I'm not sure how local they were, or whether they were just people who aren't usually involved in things. Most of those running the stall were middle aged, which is the age group most likely to vote leave, but there was one young girl who I think I recognised as the daughter of one of the local Tory politicians.

This area has far right as the most likely influence for radicalisation; it's an area that is resisting the multi-culturalism of London.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still have not heard any (and I mean any) serious or persuasive arguments for Brexit - at all.

Brexit is essentially a negative argument. It's "we don't want that nasty EU". It's not about what we do want - there's no single Brexit vision of a future that people would like to get to but are prevented from achieving by the EU. Given that Brexit support (like Remain support) spans the political spectrum, it's hard to imagine what kind of positive vision there could be that everyone would agree on.

But as far as I see, the Brexit campaign is basically "we don't want that". and the Remain campaign is "your way is worse."

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It seems to me that both sides are more about emotion than sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It surely has to be said that the poorest and most vulnerable people are likely to be worse off if we remain too.
No, Brexit will have a major and bad effect on the economy, which will result in cuts to support for the most vulnerable. Remain will have no effect.

quote:
The NHS and schools are already stretched beyond reasonable capacity, unless you know differently.....
I know a lot about schools, and they're not stretched beyond reasonable capacity.

However if Brexit happens, the resulting economic slowdown, and inevitable budget cuts, will cause serious problems to both schools and NHS.

You are certain, I'm not. I'm sceptical of certainties on both sides. It seems to me that nobody knows. And so those who want to remain go on with fear-mongering and better the devil you know, while those who want to leave go on with fear- mongering and better to get out of this before it's too late, at least we will have some control.

I spoke to someone who lives in Southern Ireland. He said that they benefitted from being in the EU economically because of grants, but as he sees it there is no democracy, in the sense that there is no chance of making a difference to what Europe dictates. Have they sold their souls for a bowl of soup? Was it worth it?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Have they sold their souls for a bowl of soup? Was it worth it?

Countries are constrained on all sorts of levels; whenever I see these arguments about sovereignty, I want to ask; sovereignty over what, yield by whom, and on whose behalf?

On the flip side it appears that Boris and co would see the country burn as long as they were kings of the ashes.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
He said that they benefitted from being in the EU economically because of grants, but as he sees it there is no democracy, in the sense that there is no chance of making a difference to what Europe dictates. Have they sold their souls for a bowl of soup? Was it worth it?

To my mind it is entirely illusory to imagine that the UK can somehow exist geographically alongside the EU and not be pretty much obliged to comply with various aspects of its legislation if foreign exchange (of goods or people) is to continue unimpeded.

If you're manufacturing transmogrifiers for an export market, you'll lose a huge chunk of your potential market if you don't make them eligible for the CE marking, which involves complying with EU regulations.

If you accept that premise, it's better to have a seat at the negotiating table during such legislation-drafting than none at all.

I agree with you about the fear tactics on both sides, and repeat my despair that the only other arguments advanced appear to be purely economic ones. With the notable exception of Justin Welby, who as I understand it has framed the debate in terms of openness to others vs. withdrawal, which is how I see it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To my mind it is entirely illusory to imagine that the UK can somehow exist geographically alongside the EU and not be pretty much obliged to comply with various aspects of its legislation if foreign exchange (of goods or people) is to continue unimpeded.

If you're manufacturing transmogrifiers for an export market, you'll lose a huge chunk of your potential market if you don't make them eligible for the CE marking, which involves complying with EU regulations.

True, although the UK has had a pretty strong (manufacturing) standards culture for quite a while and after Brexit will have been working to the EU standard (which AFAIU are covered by the British standards) so I can't see that it will be so complicated on that score. Presumably other countries outside of the EU are working to the CE standards.

I mean, the Brexit arguments are mostly bollocks, but I don't really think this objection really washes.

On the other legal stuff - I think it basically boils down to whether the EU really wants to trade with you. In the Norway example, it seems like they've pretty much had to swallow all of the EU laws and regulations to get the benefits of the market without having any of the benefits of being an EU state.

Other places not so much. Just as an example - there is free trade agreement between the EU and Israel. The EU tries to exert diplomatic muscle onto Israel at times, but I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued that the EU-Israel trade deal should be rescinded.

I'm not sure exactly what the deal is with Russian oil and gas (for another example), but I'm thinking it is unlikely that there are too many restrictions and barriers to that product reaching the market because the EU states obviously need the product.

So then I think we have to ask the overall balance between the UK and the EU - does the EU need the UK more than the UK needs the EU (or vice versa)? I think that's quite hard to answer. It is hard to see many things from the UK that couldn't if necessary be produced elsewhere in the EU, but there are a lot of things the UK needs/uses from the EU. But then I think it is possibly true that the UK has more outward trading links (possibly partly due to its position inside the Common Market..?).

Would life change outside of the EU? Yes, I think it would. Exactly what that change would be is hard to parse. On one level it seems to come down to the relationship with third-party trading countries and whether Brexit would change their view of the UK. On another, maybe it relates to the perceptions of big countries left in the EU and whether it is politically advantageous to punish a post-Brexit UK.

It seems to me to be possible to conjure up scenarios in both directions, good and bad.

quote:
If you accept that premise, it's better to have a seat at the negotiating table during such legislation-drafting than none at all.

Well I certainly see that argument, but on the other hand it is clear that the EU has trading relationships with many countries outside who do not have any impact on the legislation, so I suppose it comes down to the total cost of being part of the club and the total benefits of being involved in the legislation.

quote:
I agree with you about the fear tactics on both sides, and repeat my despair that the only other arguments advanced appear to be purely economic ones. With the notable exception of Justin Welby, who as I understand it has framed the debate in terms of openness to others vs. withdrawal, which is how I see it.

I think my basic view here is that there is something about the British stereotype which assumes a level of superiority over other Europeans, which prides itself on its independence and which looks only at the EU for the tangible benefits. So on a crude level we like the idea of the EU because it means can retired to the Costa sunshine, but we don't like it because we have to hear Romanians talking a language we don't understand at the boot fair.

And somehow the rhetoric of Farage and his chums has captured the imagination of many: we can have all the good stuff without all the things we don't like! We can be Europeans without having any, y'know, Europeans in our towns! We can sell all our shit without being swamped with all that foreign muck! We can shop in Aldi and Lidl to save a few pennies whilst at the same time decrying the very thing that is reducing food prices!

It's all bollocks. But there we go. Just shows the power of rhetoric, I suppose.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It's all bollocks. But there we go. Just shows the power of rhetoric, I suppose.

Plus a worrying and increasing dependence on "expert views" as opposed to working things out for oneself.

I thought this was pretty good,

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus a worrying and increasing dependence on "expert views" as opposed to working things out for oneself.

I thought this was pretty good,

The irony being that Martin Lewis is himself an "expert", appears to be giving advice on how to vote in that blog.. etc.

About the only part I agree with him is that it is impossible to tell what will happen in the future. To say that one side is more risky than the other is a statement of opinion not fact. Why should we believe Martin Lewis' assessment?

In my view MSE lost all credibility with the student fees débâcle. For Martin Lewis to now lecture other people about risk when he totally underplayed the "risks" associated with having a £50k personal debt - where the deal can indeed be changed in retrospect - says something. Plenty of cooler heads at the time were saying that the deal could be changed at any time, Martin Lewis kept assuring everyone that he had a deal from the government that meant it couldn't. Which lasted about 2 years.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
after Brexit will have been working to the EU standard (which AFAIU are covered by the British standards) so I can't see that it will be so complicated on that score. Presumably other countries outside of the EU are working to the CE standards.

That's my whole point. "Working to CE standards" means having to work to a standard that, in legislative terms at least, you have no say in. Apparently Norwegian firms are always complaining they find out about changes to norms disadvantageously late.

quote:
I think my basic view here is that there is something about the British stereotype which assumes a level of superiority over other Europeans, which prides itself on its independence and which looks only at the EU for the tangible benefits.

I think there is some natural chauvinism in every country, but there is broad acceptance (or resignation, if you want to see it that way) that the European Union is the shape of the peaceable future. I was very surprised how easily France adopted the euro; I didn't hear any complaint at all.

In this respect I repeat my conviction that experiences of, and attitudes to, WW2 have a lot to answer for in respect of how Europe is viewed.

From this side of the Channel I don't know anyone who doesn't think that the Brexiters have taken complete leave of their senses.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's my whole point. "Working to CE standards" means having to work to a standard that, in legislative terms at least, you have no say in. Apparently Norwegian firms are always complaining they find out about changes to norms disadvantageously late.

I understand. Yes, I guess it must be true that a Brexit UK will learn about CE changes later than EU competitors even with the culture of British Standards. But then is it so unlikely that the British Standards people will be uninvolved with the CE standards in the future? I'm not sure.

But on the general point, I'd agree that British products would be at a disadvantage compared to EU products selling in the EU. I can't see how that can possibly be untrue.

quote:
I think there is some natural chauvinism in every country, but there is broad acceptance (or resignation, if you want to see it that way) that the European Union is the shape of the peaceable future. I was very surprised how easily France adopted the euro; I didn't hear any complaint at all.

In this respect I repeat my conviction that experiences of, and attitudes to, WW2 have a lot to answer for in respect of how Europe is viewed.

From this side of the Channel I don't know anyone who doesn't think that the Brexiters have taken complete leave of their senses.

That's easy to explain: they're not British. To about half the voting population of the UK, the myth of British superiority means that we'll be able to get all that we want with none of the things we don't want in the future.

Look at New Zealand. We want to be like them. But better at Rugby Union.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Plus a worrying and increasing dependence on "expert views" as opposed to working things out for oneself.

I thought this was pretty good,
The irony being that Martin Lewis is himself an "expert", appears to be giving advice on how to vote in that blog.. etc.

About the only part I agree with him is that it is impossible to tell what will happen in the future. To say that one side is more risky than the other is a statement of opinion not fact. Why should we believe Martin Lewis' assessment?

Sure, but I don't think he was urging folks to follow him. He says this.

quote:
I’m generally risk-averse, and that pushes me just towards an IN vote for safety, maybe 55% to 45%. Yet just as my dream holiday isn’t necessarily yours, no more is my choice of what’s right a call for you to follow me.

And from your same post

quote:
In my view MSE lost all credibility with the student fees débâcle. For Martin Lewis to now lecture other people about risk when he totally underplayed the "risks" associated with having a £50k personal debt - where the deal can indeed be changed in retrospect - says something.

Nobody gets everything right. As it happens I agree with you that he got that one wrong. But he's making a specific argument, not asserting you should accept it on the basis of his personal credibility.

That's part of the current problem. I think our choice can be informed by experts but where there is conflict of argument we need some independent capability to be able to assess the relative merits of arguments. I think Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farrage are all tossers, but I didn't vote Remain for that reason. Basically, I did a personal risk assessment, taking into account what I could find out.

[ 13. June 2016, 08:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To about half the voting population of the UK, the myth of British superiority means that we'll be able to get all that we want with none of the things we don't want in the future.

The reason we think they're mad is because just about every national here feels they are not only French but also European, a notion that's irrespective of, but fostered by, the EU. Brits have just never taken that idea - which to me, is one of the most crucial aspects of the whole thing, albeit abjectly communicated - on board.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

On the other legal stuff - I think it basically boils down to whether the EU really wants to trade with you. In the Norway example, it seems like they've pretty much had to swallow all of the EU laws and regulations to get the benefits of the market without having any of the benefits of being an EU state.

Other places not so much. Just as an example - there is free trade agreement between the EU and Israel. The EU tries to exert diplomatic muscle onto Israel at times, but I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued that the EU-Israel trade deal should be rescinded.

It tends to depend on exactly what the trade agreement covers. In the case of Norway it is all goods and services (there is no functional difference between their trade with the EU and the trade within the EU). In the case of the EU-Israel deal, it covers industrial (though constrains agricultural) goods, and crucially doesn't include services.

The problem with the idea that we will get a free trade agreement because the Germans want to sell us their cars is that we equally want to buy their cars. Meanwhile our main exports are in services which are somewhat more fungible.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... From this side of the Channel I don't know anyone who doesn't think that the Brexiters have taken complete leave of their senses.

It looks just the same over here.

The Brexiteers have now achieved the ability to reduce me to incandescent fury. This wasn't so when the process started. But now I don't just disagree with them. I've also lost all personal respect for any of them. I think it's the depth of their complacent dishonesty, the degree of their self-delusion and the way they are carrying other people along with them that is a large part of it. It's a long time since anything in politics has aroused such a strong reaction in me.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The reason we think they're mad is because just about every national here feels they are not only French but also European, a notion that's irrespective of, but fostered by, the EU. Brits have just never taken that idea

Agreed. There seems to be a great difficulty to accept even the possibility of multiple identities. British and European are complementary identities, not mutually exclusive ones.

Although, as I've said, personally I find national identity something too abstract to strongly identify with. My relational identity is with a relatively small number of people - family, colleagues at work, members of the church, friend - I find it impossible to identify in that way with a complete stranger just on the basis of being born on the same little section of the European continent. But, that's just me. I know others do identify with more than 50 million complete strangers on the basis of living on the same piece of land.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The reason we think they're mad is because just about every national here feels they are not only French but also European, a notion that's irrespective of, but fostered by, the EU. Brits have just never taken that idea - which to me, is one of the most crucial aspects of the whole thing, albeit abjectly communicated - on board.

I think this may have something to do with the political culture in the UK - which I'd argue has very largely been a form of small-island free-market Tory arsiness. In other parts of Europe, there has been a much stronger balance between the Right and (real) Left, with various forms of Socialism, Greens and the like.

One upshot of this might be that many people in (let's say 'original') EU countries have a much stronger notion of solidarity amongst Europeans.

Then I think it can be argued that many of the newer EU countries have been the recipient of the notions of solidarity. So - in a very general way - the EU countries either believed in socialist concepts of solidarity from the first place or were welcomed into the party in an act of solidarity.

Unlike the UK on this basis, who never entered the EU, never really believed that there was any sense of solidarity with other Europeans, always thought of itself as better than other people on the continent, only ever saw the EU project as something for which to benefit the UK economy and resisted many/most of the notions of solidarity the others believed in.

Wasn't it de Gaulle who torpedoed the initial British sniffing around the EEC? Maybe he was right all along. Maybe the British selfishness will destroy the thing.

[ 13. June 2016, 10:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The reason we think they're mad is because just about every national here feels they are not only French but also European, a notion that's irrespective of, but fostered by, the EU. Brits have just never taken that idea - which to me, is one of the most crucial aspects of the whole thing, albeit abjectly communicated - on board.

I, for one, don't think that I have a "European" identity, because that would seem to imply that I was more like a Greek than an Aussie or New Zealander - or indeed an American or a Canadian - and I don't think that's true.

I think I have far more in common with the Anglophone nations of the Western Hemisphere than I do with Greece or Spain - let alone Romania or Hungary.

So for me, the EU is an arrangement of mutual convenience rather than any kind of identity.

[ 13. June 2016, 15:08: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I feel pretty European during the Ryder Cup. But in general I'm more of an internationalist than anything else.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem with the idea that we will get a free trade agreement because the Germans want to sell us their cars is that we equally want to buy their cars. Meanwhile our main exports are in services which are somewhat more fungible.

Outside Germany, Britain is the single largest market for sales of BMW, Mercedes and Audi cars. If those manufacturers lost access to these shores it would be catastrophic for them, and thus for Germany.

Set against our desire to buy nice cars that's a pretty big thing.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem with the idea that we will get a free trade agreement because the Germans want to sell us their cars is that we equally want to buy their cars. Meanwhile our main exports are in services which are somewhat more fungible.
Outside Germany, Britain is the single largest market for sales of BMW, Mercedes and Audi cars. If those manufacturers lost access to these shores it would be catastrophic for them, and thus for Germany.

Set against our desire to buy nice cars that's a pretty big thing.

Cars represent 12% of Germany's exports by value. 7.1% of all Germany's exports by value are exported to the UK. So roughly speaking, cars exported to the UK will represent 0.8% of Germany's exports.

Even if you are still predisposed to think that will make a compelling case to the German government, then you should also factor in the reverse effect due to the fact that car components represent a significant UK export, and specifically in the case of BMW, they manufacture the Mini range in the UK. They manufacture their smaller, high-efficiency engines (including hybrid engines) at Hams Hall in the UK, and their plant at Swindon manufactures loads of pressings and subassemblies across the range.

Have you factored those things in? In fact, in the case of BMW, I don't even know whether we may be a net exporter or importer. You would have to be a BMW accountant to work that one out, let alone before you calculate the impact on out-of-house component suppliers.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Having now read the latest posts here on this page, I am feeling much more cheerful, especially after listening to the BBC's, in my strongly held opinion, very biased towards leave aspect of the 5:30 in/out slot on PM on radio 4. Thank you!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I feel pretty European during the Ryder Cup. But in general I'm more of an internationalist than anything else.

Internationalist? I had you as more Continental.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You are certain, I'm not. I'm sceptical of certainties on both sides. It seems to me that nobody knows.
<snip>
Have they sold their souls for a bowl of soup? Was it worth it?

I don't think anyone is claiming certainty. But when the overwhelming majority of financial analysts, Prime Ministers past and present, all three political parties and the markets are saying “don't do it”, Brexit starts to look like a really silly thing to do.

One thing is quite certain. Our access to EU markets is as good at present as it is possible to get. It won't be if we leave.

The arguments from Brexit have been entirely along the lines of “It won't be as bad as you think economically”. Their honest pitch should be, “It's a price worth paying”.

Is it really? We become a 'fax democracy' like Switzerland*.

Half the control people think we would get would be negotiated away within the first couple of hours just to get any kind of a trade deal.

(*The EU makes the rules, and sends us a note telling us what they are.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I feel pretty European during the Ryder Cup. But in general I'm more of an internationalist than anything else.
Internationalist? I had you as more Continental.

I'm flattered. But my Christopher Walken days are long past.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You are certain, I'm not. I'm sceptical of certainties on both sides. It seems to me that nobody knows.
<snip>
Have they sold their souls for a bowl of soup? Was it worth it?
I don't think anyone is claiming certainty. But when the overwhelming majority of financial analysts, Prime Ministers past and present, all three political parties and the markets are saying “don't do it”, Brexit starts to look like a really silly thing to do.

One thing is quite certain. Our access to EU markets is as good at present as it is possible to get. It won't be if we leave.

The arguments from Brexit have been entirely along the lines of “It won't be as bad as you think economically”. Their honest pitch should be, “It's a price worth paying”.

Is it really? We become a 'fax democracy' like Switzerland*.

Half the control people think we would get would be negotiated away within the first couple of hours just to get any kind of a trade deal.

(*The EU makes the rules, and sends us a note telling us what they are.)

I do think that there would be a massive 'remain' vote if this was about trading with Europe. It was what was voted in last time, and what people are happy with, in the main.

I agree that on the whole English people think of themselves as British first, and only European in the sense of geography rather than any feeling of kinship. It surprises me if Scottish and Welsh people think of themselves as European in kinship before British. If some resented it that rules were being made in London which affected them, why should it be any better if they are made in Brussels or Strasbourg?

I think that the referendum should be about asking the public what kind of Europe we want to be a part of, rather than an in/out, which seems like a cynical way of manipulating us along with scare-mongering to me.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

I think that the referendum should be about asking the public what kind of Europe we want to be a part of, rather than an in/out, which seems like a cynical way of manipulating us along with scare-mongering to me.

Except that we don't get to unilaterally decide that, because there's a lot of other countries in the EU too, and they might not want what we want.

And the rest of the EU has been making it pretty clear that they don't just want to be a trade union...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I don't think anyone is claiming certainty. But when the overwhelming majority of financial analysts, Prime Ministers past and present, all three political parties and the markets are saying “don't do it”, Brexit starts to look like a really silly thing to do.

Not sure about that, the point when Blair, Brown and Major stepped in was the point where a slight whiff of doubt was detected.

The opposite of almost anything Blair says is the truth, and that's the problem here. You can't trust a liar because you never know when he's telling the truth or just playing with words for his own personal power agenda.

quote:
One thing is quite certain. Our access to EU markets is as good at present as it is possible to get. It won't be if we leave.

It probably won't be. Nobody knows because nobody has been in this situation before.

quote:
The arguments from Brexit have been entirely along the lines of “It won't be as bad as you think economically”. Their honest pitch should be, “It's a price worth paying”.

I agree with this. They're asking us to believe in Boris, Gove and Farage - the three least believable men in the country.

quote:
Is it really? We become a 'fax democracy' like Switzerland*.

Half the control people think we would get would be negotiated away within the first couple of hours just to get any kind of a trade deal.

(*The EU makes the rules, and sends us a note telling us what they are.)

Nope. But looks like it is going to happen.

Incidentally - I'm not necessarily sure that Swissland is more faux than the UK. Both have only a veneer of true democracy.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
True, although the UK has had a pretty strong (manufacturing) standards culture for quite a while and after Brexit will have been working to the EU standard (which AFAIU are covered by the British standards) so I can't see that it will be so complicated on that score. Presumably other countries outside of the EU are working to the CE standards.

Definitely, indeed quite a few American/Australian standards are basically ripped off EU* standards (and I'm sure the same goes in reverse but it seems rarer). Turkey pretty much explicitly shadows the EN's (if I recall right).
ISO's often based on previous standards (such as the EN, which in turn is based ...). And when it's ratified it goes back, leading to fun situations such as BS-EN 39, being different from EN 39.

That said, if at an ISO committee it's a choice between an EN and a different BS, manufacturers in France, Germany, ... will want the EN while it will just be Britain that wants the BS. (and probably by that point America would either be in Europe's camp or EU&Britain adopting the ANSI). So the EN (and underlying DINN or whatever) would probably win even in the 10% of the time that the BS would have been the 'best'.
Whereas if at the initial meetings that 10% of the time the BS becomes the EN becomes the ISO

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

As a matter of interest, the European flag is on every public building in France, along with the tricolor. When was the last time any shipmate saw it hoisted anywhere in the UK?

Another symptom: My wife remarked to an acquaintance that we had just returned from a holiday in France. The reply: 'Aren't you glad to be away from all those foreigners?'

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
As a matter of interest, the European flag is on every public building in France, along with the tricolor. When was the last time any shipmate saw it hoisted anywhere in the UK?

Another symptom: My wife remarked to an acquaintance that we had just returned from a holiday in France. The reply: 'Aren't you glad to be away from all those foreigners?'

All those foreigners. Hmm. Had it not been for foreigners Britain, would still be plodding along as a second-rate European nation. Like Portugal, but inward looking, with worse weather and food. It was only when we started systematically stealing Spanish gold as it was carried from the Americas that we became anything more.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Sioni:

quote:
It was only when we started systematically stealing Spanish gold as it was carried from the Americas that we became anything more.

Well, there you have it. The fundamental British objection to the EU; we should be allowed to take all the good stuff and give them nothing in return.

Not going to happen. Ask Norway.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It surprises me if Scottish and Welsh people think of themselves as European in kinship before British. If some resented it that rules were being made in London which affected them, why should it be any better if they are made in Brussels or Strasbourg?

Because then they wouldn't be getting made by the filthy English scum. It's driven by hatred of England, not love of Europe.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
As a matter of interest, the European flag is on every public building in France, along with the tricolor. When was the last time any shipmate saw it hoisted anywhere in the UK?

Not exactly a flag, but I can think of two or three places in my town where the image is shown in public because the projects have received EU funding.

quote:
Another symptom: My wife remarked to an acquaintance that we had just returned from a holiday in France. The reply: 'Aren't you glad to be away from all those foreigners?'

I think this is a fair point. Very largely the EU states in continental Europe have been able to bury their hatred of their immediate neighbours. Whereas the English and French have barely-buried hatred for each other born out of hundreds of years of competition. Even, bizarrely in some ways, more than the feelings towards the Germans.

Generally speaking Europe is a place for holidays for most Brits. The vast majority wouldn't even consider living anywhere other than Blighty (well, unless it is in some kind of English enclave).

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

I think that the referendum should be about asking the public what kind of Europe we want to be a part of, rather than an in/out, which seems like a cynical way of manipulating us along with scare-mongering to me.
Except that we don't get to unilaterally decide that, because there's a lot of other countries in the EU too, and they might not want what we want.

Which is the issue in a nutshell. Do we want a Britain that has to kowtow to what other countries want, or one that gets to decide its own path (for better or worse)?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

I think that the referendum should be about asking the public what kind of Europe we want to be a part of, rather than an in/out, which seems like a cynical way of manipulating us along with scare-mongering to me.
Except that we don't get to unilaterally decide that, because there's a lot of other countries in the EU too, and they might not want what we want.
Which is the issue in a nutshell. Do we want a Britain that has to kowtow to what other countries want, or one that gets to decide its own path (for better or worse)?

The Brexiteers' delusion in a nutshell. The idea that any individual country decides its own path these days is rather quaint. In this globalised, interconnected world, the only entities with true freedon of action are multinational corporations. The only significant restraint on them is the power of their consumers to buy or not buy their products, supported by standards enforced by large groups of nations.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do we want a Britain that has to kowtow to what other countries want, or one that gets to decide its own path (for better or worse)?

First, of course, we don't 'kowtow' to other countries in the EU. The EU provides a forum for establishing a consensus, a solution agreeable to all (though potentially not quite what each wanted).

And, second, if Britain exits the EU then we still won't be able to "decide our own path" any more than we can now. If we want to trade with the EU, or anyone else, then the terms of that trade will need to be a consensus between the UK and the other nation. If we want to be part of the international community, eg: in NATO or UN, then we will need to accept certain conditions.

Put simply, within or outwith the EU the UK can not decide our own path, the UK will have to walk along a path that is constrained by other nations we trade with, have treaties with etc. EU membership has some influence on what the UK decides to do, outwith the EU the influences will likely be different but I'm not seeing any evidence that they will be any less - and, if we enter into a raft of new trade deals in a hurry to prevent the implosion of the UK economy then the influences may well be more restrictive.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which is the issue in a nutshell. Do we want a Britain that has to kowtow to what other countries want, or one that gets to decide its own path (for better or worse)?

That's totally not the issue. The only reason the debate is framed like this is that Boris and his numbskull friends have been pushing the lie that Brexit would mean that we'd get to chose our own way. Bullshit. If we want to trade with anyone, never mind the EU, we'd have to "kowtow to what they want". Ever heard of TTIP?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I have a certain fondness for a small island nation in the Caribbean. I've not been there, but I've met their head of state* and the place sounds like it has a lot going for it.

But what it doesn't have is anything else that anyone really wants very much. Hence it is cast adrift in the international community. It has no option other than to set its own path, as a result it is poor and has few financial reserves to cope with natural disasters.

Being alone and adrift is not a good thing.

*well their stand-in when QE11 isn't available for duty anyway

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

What you call 'kowtowing' I call cooperation.

People, we are facing the death of our planet. Accelerating desertification, unstable weather systems, escalating natural disasters - and the consequent migration of people. We are facing wars formented by extremism and funded by greed (there's money in arms) - and the consequent migration of people. We are facing the hegemony of unelected, transnational elites farming the world for their own enrichment.

And what do we do? We tear ourselves into ever smaller less powerful pieces. We attack the other inmates instead of storming the walls of our prison. We follow liars and demagogues and when they fail - as fail they will - what then? Worse still.

[ 14. June 2016, 08:33: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It seems clear now that the Brexit view has the momentum.

Here is the latest FT poll of polls information. The percentage of don't knows has decreased and the Leave vote has moved from a 2-point deficit to a 2-point advantage.

I heard Priti Patel on Radio 4 this morning and have now added her to my earlier list (Boris, Michael, Nigel) of people of whom I have a low opinion. But the visceral rhetoric seems to be winning.

Kowtow, Marvin? We are forced to be "excessively servile" as a result of our treaty agreements?

Well, if we do vote to get out, we may well find that "going our own way, for better or worse" will require a good deal of "excessive servility" as we seek to negotiate these new trade deals, following this voluntary raising of tariff barriers.

Of course I could be wrong. Good will may be completely unaffected by our exit. But that feels like "excessive optimism" to me. If the boot were on the other foot, I don't think the UK government and its people would be feeling a lot of goodwill. More likely it would be "let them stew in their own juice".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If the boot were on the other foot, I don't think the UK government and its people would be feeling a lot of goodwill. More likely it would be "let them stew in their own juice".

That there is a mighty good point. If Germany voted to leave and the UK remained inside the EU, we'd be pressurising everyone else to give them an almighty kicking.

If we leave with few negative economic impacts it'll be because Germany and France are rather more adult about nationality and winning than we are.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
People, we are facing the death of our planet. Accelerating desertification, unstable weather systems, escalating natural disasters - and the consequent migration of people. We are facing wars formented by extremism and funded by greed (there's money in arms) - and the consequent migration of people. We are facing the hegemony of unelected, transnational elites farming the world for their own enrichment.

And what do we do? We tear ourselves into ever smaller less powerful pieces.

The assumption here appears to be that bigger and more powerful political entities are more likely to fight back against the hegemony of unelected elites. But the way I see it, the bigger the political entity then the less important it's people are to its leaders. The unelected elites will always have the ear of politicians because money talks, but in smaller nations the politicians have to pay far more attention to what their people want because it takes a smaller number of discontents to vote them out. That is where protection from the unelected elites comes in - in bigger nations the politicians can enrich themselves and their elite friends while destroying the lives of millions because those millions simply aren't enough to matter at election time.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Logically then most nation states should be dismantled. We should move towards completely autonomous county governments, if not a parish-council-as-state model.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
People, we are facing the death of our planet. Accelerating desertification, unstable weather systems, escalating natural disasters - and the consequent migration of people. We are facing wars formented by extremism and funded by greed (there's money in arms) - and the consequent migration of people. We are facing the hegemony of unelected, transnational elites farming the world for their own enrichment.

And what do we do? We tear ourselves into ever smaller less powerful pieces.
The assumption here appears to be that bigger and more powerful political entities are more likely to fight back against the hegemony of unelected elites. But the way I see it, the bigger the political entity then the less important it's people are to its leaders. The unelected elites will always have the ear of politicians because money talks, but in smaller nations the politicians have to pay far more attention to what their people want because it takes a smaller number of discontents to vote them out. That is where protection from the unelected elites comes in - in bigger nations the politicians can enrich themselves and their elite friends while destroying the lives of millions because those millions simply aren't enough to matter at election time.

Though, Brexit is not changing the size of any nation (unless it leads to a second Independence referendum in Scotland and the UK is reduced in size by that). What the EU provides is a means for national governments to work together, for their common good, it isn't a government in it's own right.

To try and equate the EU with a government or nation is a fallacy, and severely weakens arguments made on that basis.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The fact is that the vast majority of UKIP and Brexit supporters are voting about immigration.

But it seems unlikely a Brexit would solve this problem in the way people seem to think it would.

For example: it is hard to be sure how many Brits there are just in Spain. Unlike the vast majority of Eastern Europeans in the UK, they're mostly not working and are retired.

So, says the Brexit rumour-mill, we'd be able to kick out all the people we don't want, particularly those doing low paid work - ie mostly the Eastern Europeans.

But then other Brexit people say that those English in Spain wouldn't have to leave because they're long-term resident.

So.. the English non-working wouldn't have to leave Spain, but the European working would have to leave the UK.

It's just more bullshit. If it was true that Brexit gave us control over immigration, then suddenly we'd have an even greater crisis in the NHS and the hospitals would be full of OAP ex-expats who'd been kicked out of Europe.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

For example: it is hard to be sure how many Brits there are just in Spain. Unlike the vast majority of Eastern Europeans in the UK, they're mostly not working and are retired.

Not just this; immigration from non-EU countries is running as high as it is from EU countries - and for some time has been running ahead of government targets. The government had the opportunity to do something about this - should they have chosen to have done so - since 2010, but have obviously not done a thing.

and as you point out; kicking out a bunch of working age people (who pay taxes to boot) and repatriating a bunch of old people, isn't going to do much for the NHS.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

How many battalions does the Pope have? Or the President of Albania or Iceland or Benin? There's a reason for treaties, pacts and alliances.

You can be as sensitive as a seismometer on the San Andreas to every twitch of your electorate but does that give you the power to influence external factors?

'Stop all these people coming here'

'Done that. Turned away the students and the doctors and the nurses and the plumbers and the joiners and the people prepared to work all hours in wet fields.'

'Give us the good jobs'

'They seem to have taken quite a few industries and services with them. However, if you fancy picking lettuce in East Anglia...'

It will also be amusing seeing a post-Brexit government attempting to get our power generating industry back from the French or rail transport back from the Dutch and Germans.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It is a shame that no politician can really stomach making the argument that immigration is a good thing. That actually we need the labour of some, the re-balancing of our demography, the expertise of others. If there is a campaign of fear and appealing to scare stories it is the politics around immigration. Our politicians seem to start from the position that immigration is an evil and then differ over the extent to which it is a necessary evil.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
How many battalions does the Pope have? Or the President of Albania or Iceland or Benin? There's a reason for treaties, pacts and alliances.

You can be as sensitive as a seismometer on the San Andreas to every twitch of your electorate but does that give you the power to influence external factors?

'Stop all these people coming here'

'Done that. Turned away the students and the doctors and the nurses and the plumbers and the joiners and the people prepared to work all hours in wet fields.'

'Give us the good jobs'

'They seem to have taken quite a few industries and services with them. However, if you fancy picking lettuce in East Anglia...'

It will also be amusing seeing a post-Brexit government attempting to get our power generating industry back from the French or rail transport back from the Dutch and Germans.

Corbyn's plan for railways basically appears to be to wait until franchises expire and then effectively nationalise them at that point.

If we were to exit we presumably wouldn't have to offer the franchise rights to "bloody foreigners" anyway - but given the complexities of international ownership etc anyway, I don't think it really matters. Existing EU owners would just become like existing Chinese or American or Indian owners I suppose....

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is a shame that no politician can really stomach making the argument that immigration is a good thing. That actually we need the labour of some, the re-balancing of our demography, the expertise of others. If there is a campaign of fear and appealing to scare stories it is the politics around immigration. Our politicians seem to start from the position that immigration is an evil and then differ over the extent to which it is a necessary evil.

Well, for advocates of the free market - which you would think that the right wing of the Tory party would be - state control of migration seems odd. Labour shortages suck in labour - isn't that the mechanism? If you interfere with that process, you are taking a big risk. Local farmers are already panicking that the carrot harvest will not get picked, if EU migration stops.

But then it's not meant to be particularly rational, is it? If you can appeal to the xenophobic and racist feelings of some people, so be it. All is fair in love and politics.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is a shame that no politician can really stomach making the argument that immigration is a good thing.

That's because they are all morons.

quote:
That actually we need the labour of some, the re-balancing of our demography, the expertise of others.

Add to which we gain culturally from what others bring - what would the UK population do without a curry, or a donor kebab on the way home from the pub?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

File "curry" under "expertise". [Biased]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

There would still be immigration if we left the EU. There's plenty of people who'd like to come to the UK from the rest of the world - and the EU is pretty useless when it comes to curry!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Concerning the railways - the real money - for comparisons sake - isn't to be made by the operating companies but by the rolling-stock owning companies, whose ultimate financial ownership seems to be registered in tax-havens, for reasons that currently escape me.

[ 14. June 2016, 10:45: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

I think that the referendum should be about asking the public what kind of Europe we want to be a part of, rather than an in/out, which seems like a cynical way of manipulating us along with scare-mongering to me.
Except that we don't get to unilaterally decide that, because there's a lot of other countries in the EU too, and they might not want what we want.

And the rest of the EU has been making it pretty clear that they don't just want to be a trade union...

Have they? Are politicians speaking for those they represent?

The veneer of democracy, the kind of idea we have been fed that we vote for people who represent our views, seems to be showing its cracks.

Of course we should be asked what kind of Europe we want to be a part of, if our representatives are going to at least pretend to speak for us.

Consultation usually means letting us all have a say, and then ignoring what was said, but at least the pretence was there.

Perhaps that's all this referendum is.

I've just been sent a 'Don't Risk It' leaflet, scaremongering again. Don't they know what my immediate reaction will be to that?

[brick wall]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is a shame that no politician can really stomach making the argument that immigration is a good thing.

A lot of them have on the debates - even Farage.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Logically then most nation states should be dismantled. We should move towards completely autonomous county governments, if not a parish-council-as-state model.

I would love that. But I'm realistic about the chances of it ever happening.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Most politicians are in favour of "good" immigration (doctors, engineers) whilst opposing "bad" immigration (unskilled, unemployed, extended family etc..)

Most of them get that the NHS would be truly stuffed without immigration, few seem to realise that without our army of low-paid immigrant carers, our increasingly ageing population will be left to dribble in front of Homes Under the Hammer, largely untended.

And if we send 'em all home, who'll get in the harvest? Schoolkids? In post-Brexit back-to-the-thirties Britain it may be the only holiday many of them get.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
And if we send 'em all home, who'll get in the harvest? Schoolkids? In post-Brexit back-to-the-thirties Britain it may be the only holiday many of them get.

We seem to have an abundance of unskilled but otherwise perfectly fit people currently on the dole. Maybe they can do it?

Of course, many of them won't want to do it. But in that case they shouldn't get the dole any more.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Logically then most nation states should be dismantled. We should move towards completely autonomous county governments, if not a parish-council-as-state model.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I would love that. But I'm realistic about the chances of it ever happening.

Do you not think that education policy for tertiary technical skills, or public health measures like vaccination or security issues such as tracing criminals across the nation would become increasingly difficult to organize?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is a shame that no politician can really stomach making the argument that immigration is a good thing.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of them have on the debates - even Farage.

Really? I thought he was against immigration.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Unfortunately our good Mr Cameron seems to have overlooked the first rule of a referendum: never call one unless you are absolutely certain that you will get the result you want.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I have to admit I am feeling fear now. Leave are unleashing clouds of poisonous racism and xenophobia, which they will find difficult to dispel. Immigrants are being widely blamed for lack of housing, poor NHS service, and so on. When these deficits continue under a right-wing Boris/Gove government, what then?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Immigrants are being widely blamed for lack of housing, poor NHS service, and so on. When these deficits continue under a right-wing Boris/Gove government, what then?

They'll demand an ever more extreme set of policies.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
And if we send 'em all home, who'll get in the harvest? Schoolkids? In post-Brexit back-to-the-thirties Britain it may be the only holiday many of them get.
We seem to have an abundance of unskilled but otherwise perfectly fit people currently on the dole. Maybe they can do it?

Of course, many of them won't want to do it. But in that case they shouldn't get the dole any more.

We'd have to introduce a mass programme of compulsory internal migration to get the unemployed from the cities (where most of them are) to the countryside where the crops are.

Most unemployed people do not stay unemployed for very long. Mostly, they are between short-term/casual jobs, and have reasonable hopes of getting something better paid and more agreeable than farmwork fairly soon, which is why compulsion would be needed.

When people are long-term unemployed, there's usually a reason and it often makes them unable to do any work, e.g. substance abuse. Sure, they shouldn't abuse substances but in the real world, people do.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Rocinante, Rocinante, Rocinante,

[Disappointed]

You are using reason and reality. That is not where MtM's post came from.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When these deficits continue under a right-wing Boris/Gove government, what then?

First they came for the disabled, the unemployed and the sick. But we were not disabled or unemployed in our leafy suburban homes, so we bought solar panels and cashed in our final salary pensions.

Then they came for the refugee even in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in decades. But we weren't refugees so we sat around in our garden spa pools.

Then they came for the immigrant. But we were not immigrants, so we joined UKIP and plotted strategies to leave the EU.

And then they came for the Muslims. But we were not Muslim, so we made stupid comments about the "dangers of Islam" as we at quiche at the church picnic.

And then they came for the gays. And we were not gay so we cried crocodile tears as they were shot and tried to make the attacks an attack on our nationalism even as we did nothing to protect these minorities.

And then in time The Donald, Gove, Boris and Farage came for me. And I realises that all these people who had been working in the NHS, who had been picking the fruit in the fields, who had been holding my society together were not the problem. But by then it was too late.

[ 14. June 2016, 13:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's a shame, though, that the state has allowed so many British people to become unemployable. The idea seems to be to write certain people off (including many of the offspring of previous immigrants) and just ship new people in. I don't know how that can be sustainable in the long run, but for the individuals and companies that benefit I suppose it's a good thing.

You have to decide whether you're one of the ones who benefit overall and vote accordingly.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

To quote my siter-in-law: 'Why are we having a referendum anyway? We elect MPs to decide these things for us.'

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
And if we send 'em all home, who'll get in the harvest? Schoolkids? In post-Brexit back-to-the-thirties Britain it may be the only holiday many of them get.
We seem to have an abundance of unskilled but otherwise perfectly fit people currently on the dole. Maybe they can do it?

Of course, many of them won't want to do it. But in that case they shouldn't get the dole any more.

One of the speakers in the You and Yours (BBC Radio 4) phone-in today was a man who runs an employment agency in the Norfolk area for farm jobs such as harvesting fruit and veg. He said that British workers just do not want to do the work and, politely, mentioned that they were not physically fit enough either.

He spoke very well, and did not allow himself to be drawn into any very critical comments about the British workers ... or perhaps I would call them non-workers.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
To quote my siter-in-law: 'Why are we having a referendum anyway? We elect MPs to decide these things for us.'

And, when our elected MPs made decisions on major changes to the European treaties in recent years there were demands that these should have been put to a referendum.

This referendum is different. Basically it's a political tactic Cameron employed to hold the Tory party together during the General Election. There has long been a very strong Eurosceptic faction within the Conservative Party, that has sometimes caused problems, but they've managed to put on a united front come election time. The steady rise of UKIP has presented an alternative for the Eurosceptic wing, and threatened to pull enough Tory voters away that election success was looking unlikely. Cameron promised a referendum to keep the Eurosceptics in the fold, putting their crosses for the Conservatives. And then, rather atypically for a politician, decided to actually honour his promise.

His tactic was always going to be short term. It succeeded in getting him back to No 10 without needing a coalition partner, which looks to me like all he wanted. As is evident, the referendum campaign has opened the splits in the Conservative Party wide open - and Leave or Remain I can't see how those splits will ever be mended. If we remain then the Eurosceptics will either jump ship to join UKIP or remain as a constant thorn in the Conservative Party. If we leave then UKIP will stand triumphant for a while, but will (hopefully) largely disappear as their purpose is done, so there probably won't be a large defection from the Tories that way - but those in the Conservative Party in the Remain camp will be strongly tempted to jump ship in the other direction - maybe a resurgance for the Lib Dems - or will not be campaigning strongly come the next election. Either way Cameron will step down sometime before the next election, and I can't see how whoever replaces him as a hope of leading the party to election victory, and it may be a very long time before we have a majority Conservative government.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's despicable that Cameron has dragged the country through a referendum to try and temporarily hold the Conservative Party together. If there was a substantial amendment to the EU treaties then a referendum may be appropriate.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is a shame that no politician can really stomach making the argument that immigration is a good thing.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of them have on the debates - even Farage.
Really? I thought he was against immigration.

He's in favour. Isn't his wife/secretary German?

With the momentum behind the leave campaign I'm pinning my hopes on the negotiations turning into such a monumental clusterfuck that neither the government nor the Brexiteers emerge with any credit. The LibDems & Labour can sitback and let UKIP and the Tories tear themselves apart leaving the civil service to get on with the serious business of running the country unimpeded by policy initiatives and legislative changes.

Well, it's a hope. I'm sure it'll take until Xmas 2018 to sort out the mess.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the speakers in the You and Yours (BBC Radio 4) phone-in today was a man who runs an employment agency in the Norfolk area for farm jobs such as harvesting fruit and veg. He said that British workers just do not want to do the work and, politely, mentioned that they were not physically fit enough either.

He spoke very well, and did not allow himself to be drawn into any very critical comments about the British workers ... or perhaps I would call them non-workers.

What criticism would he need to add that the above hasn't made implicit? If he says that British 'workers' don't want to work and aren't physically fit that's criticism enough.

There's a group of voters who are likely to take such criticism as criticism of themselves, or of people like themselves. It's hardly surprising if such people don't want to vote in accordance with the people who are critical of them.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
He's in favour. Isn't his wife/secretary German?

Farage is like a tinpot dictator who encourages people to do what he says and not what he does. He doesn't like the way the EU wastes money, so he goes to Strasbourg to relieve them of as much of it as possible whilst doing as little as possible as an MEP. He wants to control immigration, just not the kind that actually affects him. He doesn't like his party being called racist but is content to allow known racists to persist. He says he'd sit down and shut up after the election, but guess what, he didn't.

The man is utterly full of shite and believes the crap that comes out of his mouth - on the basis that he's said it and therefore it must be true.

If he ever got his hands on anything important - even a library card - he'd be dangerous.

quote:
With the momentum behind the leave campaign I'm pinning my hopes on the negotiations turning into such a monumental clusterfuck that neither the government nor the Brexiteers emerge with any credit. The LibDems & Labour can sitback and let UKIP and the Tories tear themselves apart leaving the civil service to get on with the serious business of running the country unimpeded by policy initiatives and legislative changes.

Well, it's a hope. I'm sure it'll take until Xmas 2018 to sort out the mess.

I still think at very least there would have to be another GE given that the majority of the HoC appears to be Remain. It isn't clear whether parliament would have to vote through the referendum result to make it valid, but I'm assuming they would.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
<snip>I still think at very least there would have to be another GE given that the majority of the HoC appears to be Remain. It isn't clear whether parliament would have to vote through the referendum result to make it valid, but I'm assuming they would.

I'm pretty sure that the referendum itself has no binding legal status. I've read at least one article that suggests that since a majority of MPs are pro staying in, they could just block all the votes required to effect leaving, such as the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

No doubt that would be an almighty rumpus come the next election though. Interesting times, particularly given the latest odds.

The Scum have come out for Brexit on their front page today, and I've seen a tweet that says that the last time they were on the losing side was the 1970s.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I'm pretty sure that the referendum itself has no binding legal status. I've read at least one article that suggests that since a majority of MPs are pro staying in, they could just block all the votes required to effect leaving

That is correct, and legally they could do just that. Of course, there would be hell to pay at the next election, but until that point they would be untouchable. It would, of course, make the next election effectively a repeat of the referendum.

Whether that would be a good road to go down in the event of a leave vote depends on whether you think the will of Parliament is more valid than the will of the people. Anyone who has ever gone to the streets to protest against a government decision is on interesting ground when they answer that question (assuming they think parliament should block an out vote of course)...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I heard Priti Patel on Radio 4 this morning and have now added her to my earlier list (Boris, Michael, Nigel) of people of whom I have a low opinion. But the visceral rhetoric seems to be winning. ...

What's Andrea Leadsom done to be left off? You are insulting her. No list of Bexiteer ghastlies is complete without her name being on it.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I'm pretty sure that the referendum itself has no binding legal status. I've read at least one article that suggests that since a majority of MPs are pro staying in, they could just block all the votes required to effect leaving
That is correct, and legally they could do just that. Of course, there would be hell to pay at the next election, but until that point they would be untouchable. It would, of course, make the next election effectively a repeat of the referendum.

Whether that would be a good road to go down in the event of a leave vote depends on whether you think the will of Parliament is more valid than the will of the people. Anyone who has ever gone to the streets to protest against a government decision is on interesting ground when they answer that question (assuming they think parliament should block an out vote of course)...

But of more relevance is the question of what the proposal is afterwards. If someone ends up negotiating for free movement of people in order to retain access to the single market, then all the people who voted for Brexit because they wanted less immigration are going to go potty.

That's the twist isn't it - in a straight in/out question, there's no sliding scale about what happens. People will vote out for different reasons, and not all of them will necessarily be satisfied.

Whereas in a general election, different parties could campaign on the basis of what their aims would be in negotiation after we knew that the referendum went that way. Thus allowing them to claim a mandate for negotiating for that.

Therefore if we vote for Brexit, a reasonably quick GE is a good plan.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Really? I thought he (Farage) was against immigration.
He's in favour. Isn't his wife/secretary German?

Well, there are immigrants and there are immigrants.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
But of more relevance is the question of what the proposal is afterwards. If someone ends up negotiating for free movement of people in order to retain access to the single market, then all the people who voted for Brexit because they wanted less immigration are going to go potty.

Quite so. I expect there to be protests on the streets whatever happens.

quote:
That's the twist isn't it - in a straight in/out question, there's no sliding scale about what happens. People will vote out for different reasons, and not all of them will necessarily be satisfied.

I predict that almost nobody will be satisfied.

quote:
Whereas in a general election, different parties could campaign on the basis of what their aims would be in negotiation after we knew that the referendum went that way. Thus allowing them to claim a mandate for negotiating for that.

Therefore if we vote for Brexit, a reasonably quick GE is a good plan.

Yes, I can see that argument, but trying to see far enough ahead to tell what will happen would be difficult. I suspect that a Remain win would probably cause a collapse of the government, which would probably lead to a GE where UKIP would do very well.. and who knows what would happen then.

But a Leave win might leave the elected members of the HoC in a difficult constitutional position so a GE becomes inevitable - where UKIP is likely to do very well.. and who knows what would happen then.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
<snip>
Yes, I can see that argument, but trying to see far enough ahead to tell what will happen would be difficult. I suspect that a Remain win would probably cause a collapse of the government, which would probably lead to a GE where UKIP would do very well.. and who knows what would happen then.

But a Leave win might leave the elected members of the HoC in a difficult constitutional position so a GE becomes inevitable - where UKIP is likely to do very well.. and who knows what would happen then.

It's unlikely that any but the mildest of them could get what they want, given that the big players in the EU have basically said it won't be possible for the EU to grant Britain a good deal, because out is out and all that.

So they probably end up failing, and we have another election, and another. The problem with that is that eventually the EU are just going to tell us they aren't spending any more time on it and we should just get lost...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I expect there to be protests on the streets whatever happens.
[...]
I suspect that a Remain win would probably cause a collapse of the government, which would probably lead to a GE where UKIP would do very well.. and who knows what would happen then.

But a Leave win might leave the elected members of the HoC in a difficult constitutional position so a GE becomes inevitable - where UKIP is likely to do very well.. and who knows what would happen then.

This isn't France. I can't imagine the British doing any serious demonstrating, and certainly not the middle aged and elderly people who are the most engaged by this issue.

As for UKIP, not everyone who might choose Brexit is likely to be a fan of Nigel Farage. UKIP might benefit from a hung parliament, but then again, which mainstream party would seriously want to get into bed with them? Maybe BoJo's Tories? I can't see Labour Brexiters having enough clout to get the whole of their party to accept UKIP.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, there are only two ways in which a General Election can be called within the normal five year period.

1. If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

2. If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

For 1. to be possible, a lot of Blue Blood would have to flow post-Brexit vote. For 2. to be possible, I guess the pro-Remain MPs, who I think represent about a two thirds majority, might come together under certain circumstances.

But it's no longer a case of the PM just going to the Queen.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

What a complete, unholy mess Cameron has (potentially) landed us in.

I can only conclude that he never thought he'd have to deliver on the referendum promise, assuming that he'd be in coalition with the liberals again, and could therefore blame Clegg for vetoing it. I wonder if he had an "Oh Shit" moment on May 8th last year...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
What a complete, unholy mess Cameron has (potentially) landed us in.

I can only conclude that he never thought he'd have to deliver on the referendum promise, assuming that he'd be in coalition with the liberals again, and could therefore blame Clegg for vetoing it. I wonder if he had an "Oh Shit" moment on May 8th last year...

I have a feeling that came up earlier in the thread. But it's a good point. Not too many forecast an overall Tory majority at the last election.

I think what we have here is a Perfect Storm. And there are some strong indications that the markets are now reacting to the real risks of a Brexit. The Brexit "scare story" card looks like it's going to get tested a little in advance in the Real World. I suppose that might make a difference in the end to the way some people vote.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is a shame that no politician can really stomach making the argument that immigration is a good thing.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A lot of them have on the debates - even Farage.
Really? I thought he was against immigration.

He admits that immigrants bring skills that help us to prosper - but if wer left ther EU we could accept more immigrants from the Commonwealth and elsewhere based on a points system - rather than having to accept anyone from the EU regardless of their skill set.

[ 14. June 2016, 19:01: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, there are only two ways in which a General Election can be called within the normal five year period.

1. If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

2. If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

For 1. to be possible, a lot of Blue Blood would have to flow post-Brexit vote. For 2. to be possible, I guess the pro-Remain MPs, who I think represent about a two thirds majority, might come together under certain circumstances.

But it's no longer a case of the PM just going to the Queen.

A massive constitutional change for which I think we should probably have had a referendum ...

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

For 1. to be possible, a lot of Blue Blood would have to flow post-Brexit vote. For 2. to be possible, I guess the pro-Remain MPs, who I think represent about a two thirds majority, might come together under certain circumstances.

For 1 to happen, very few Tories would have to abstain or vote against the government. They only have a working majority of 17.

If Brexit succeeds, I can't really see that a Cameron government could continue. If Remain win, I think there would be a lot of stabbing in the back and a rush to the ballot box from the Brexit Tories. Either way, I'm not sure either Cameron or the Tory government will survive for long.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I should think that if Brexit Tories or the Remain Tories force an early General Election, the Tory Party would lose credibility in that election. The party grandees will want the MPs to accept the result and put it behind them. Use the interval before the end of the fixed period Parliament to try to heal the wounds. That looks to be the common self-interest. Of course it may not be possible. But an openly divided party never wins.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011, there are only two ways in which a General Election can be called within the normal five year period.

1. If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.

2. If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".

For 1. to be possible, a lot of Blue Blood would have to flow post-Brexit vote. For 2. to be possible, I guess the pro-Remain MPs, who I think represent about a two thirds majority, might come together under certain circumstances.

But it's no longer a case of the PM just going to the Queen.
A massive constitutional change for which I think we should probably have had a referendum ...

Two things:-

1. Theoretically, there is a third option, which is simply to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

2. As the Fixed Term Parliament Act was introduced without any suggestion that it was a constitutional change that required a referendum, why should anyone suggest that either activating it or repealing it might require one.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

IRRC it wasn't in any party's manifesto - possibly the lib dems but I don't think so - it significantly extended the governments power. What government will repeal it whilst in government ?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm not sure it would be any easier to marshal the votes for a repeal of this recent fixed-term law than it would be to get the votes that the law calls for. For repeal, you'd have to get the votes in both Houses for a start.

[ 14. June 2016, 20:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
but if wer left ther EU we could accept more immigrants from the Commonwealth and elsewhere based on a points system - rather than having to accept anyone from the EU regardless of their skill set.

This is sort of what I'm getting at. No politician will stand up for the immigration that we actually have. It is always for some other form of immigration (less, from a different place, a more carefully vetted group, more points etc). And usually it is for some unrealistic idea, as if a points-based system to import a few skilled engineers is all we need rather than a flow of less skilled workers, with the implied myth that UK unemployment would vanish if only immigrants would stop coming.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think I basically agree with Monbiot here - however my bet is that the majority of the things he doesn't like about the EU have been pushed and/or proposed by the UK. If the EU is bad, it is because we're a leading free-market voice in it.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And usually it is for some unrealistic idea, as if a points-based system to import a few skilled engineers is all we need rather than a flow of less skilled workers, with the implied myth that UK unemployment would vanish if only immigrants would stop coming.

As a note of the unrealism mentioned above - the UK already gets far more people (as a percentage) who have been through tertiary education than Australia does under its point system.

As pointed out above, the other pull factor for immigration is seasonal work, which is usually in areas of the country where the bulk of the unskilled unemployed do not live.

The national problems with housing are largely the cause of BtL combined with the increasing lack of council housing - that this is worst in London doesn't mean it isn't bad elsewhere.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
As a note of the unrealism mentioned above - the UK already gets far more people (as a percentage) who have been through tertiary education than Australia does under its point system.

I've heard anecdotally that there are many employers who rely on very well educated EU migrants who will work for low pay whilst living in shared and unsuitable accommodation.

So one has to question if those didn't exist whether British graduates would or could take their place. I think it is pretty unlikely given the loading of debt of many British graduates which means that a £20-£25k job is barely worth doing in many places. So it'd just end up in the same situation; the employers would try to recruit locally, when they've been able to show that nobody suitable applied, they'd then be able to recruit from international applicants.

[ 15. June 2016, 07:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is now a clear shift to Leave.

I'm not sure what the Remain campaign can do about it in the short time before the vote. It looks as though gloomy forecasts (however realistic) have been no match for the Brexit rhetoric.

The markets seem to have steadied after the big fall yesterday. But there is time for a strong "bear" market to set in. That is about the only thing now which might (emphasis on "might") produce some second thoughts.

My guess is that the big players in the markets know that TTIP is effectively a done deal whether we stay or go. So the onward globalised free trade march will continue either way. But maybe they don't much fancy the temporary effects, both the the UK and elsewhere, so they will sell short to offset that?

[ 15. June 2016, 09:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

But for better or for worse, most people don't actually follow what the stock market is doing. As someone fortunate enough to be able to invest some money on a regular basis, I do watch what the FTSE et all are doing and compare it with the value of my investments.

But if you asked most people what the average of the FTSE was over the last few months and what direction it's going in, I don't think they'd know.

For Remain to scream "look what's happening to the market" might have a small impact, but it's a bit abstract. If food prices shot up as a result, people might take notice, but there's too much lag for prices to change between now an polling day.

Ironically of course, we'll probably be out before TTIP comes in, and not part of it anyway if we leave.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The problem that Remain face is that all the data we have, and our best forecasts, all point in the same direction. A Brexit would result in a significant short-term negative impact on the UK economy - we'll see job losses as UK business contracts, increased prices in the shops, probably an interest rate rise, decreased funding for the NHS etc. Even the Leave campaign admit this, but in their more honest moments say it's a price worth paying (for what I'm not sure), in their overly optimistic moments claim that it will be a small effect and will quickly be replaced by growth as the UK establishes new trade networks (though, with whom it isn't clear - with the rest of the EU it will be re-establish what we currently have but under less favourable terms, with everywhere else then the question is why would we start trading and working together if we aren't already?).

The problem Remain have is that if we point out these facts, especially when we point out that these are likely to be substantial and long term, it gets labelled as "Project Fear".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Ironically of course, we'll probably be out before TTIP comes in, and not part of it anyway if we leave.

TTIP just ratifies the removal of obstacles to free trade and since Brexit has been big on euro-bureaucracy, a post Brexit Tory government would try to find some way of meeting the TTIP criteria pretty quickly. Maybe they would go for associate NAFTA membership? It's been talked about before.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Ironically of course, we'll probably be out before TTIP comes in, and not part of it anyway if we leave.
TTIP just ratifies the removal of obstacles to free trade and since Brexit has been big on euro-bureaucracy, a post Brexit Tory government would try to find some way of meeting the TTIP criteria pretty quickly. Maybe they would go for associate NAFTA membership? It's been talked about before.

Cameron has said he would put rocket burners under the deal (or some such) and would ratify it today. Lots of MEPs other EU Governments such as the French seem to be opposed, so it will be interesting to see where it ends up. Given that it's supposed to be ratified by everyone.

Of course Obama warned that we wouldn't be part of it and would be at the back of the queue for a different deal.

Perhaps Boris and Trump will both be mad for it [Help]

(Come to think of it, have you ever seen them in the same room together?)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Overleaf link.

Sure. I know it's a good argument for Remain, both ways, as mr cheesy's Mombiot link pointed out. But you are also right about the general level of economic literacy and interest.

I guess I'm thinking marginally. What might influence two or three don't knows or two or three pro-Brexiters out of a hundred to change their minds? Enlightened self-interest is a pretty strong vote-motivator when push comes to shove.

[ 15. June 2016, 11:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

High drama today, with Osborne warning of an emergency budget if we exit, with Boris and Gove claiming the right to table a whole bunch of immediate legislation changes if we exit.

Accompanied by high farce, as Nigel Farage and Bob Geldof have a face off on the Thames, as Geldof tries to upset Farage's "Brexit Flotilla".

As usual, you couldn't make it up.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Overleaf link.

Sure. I know it's a good argument for Remain, both ways, as mr cheesy's Mombiot link pointed out. But you are also right about the general level of economic literacy and interest.

I guess I'm thinking marginally. What might influence two or three don't knows or two or three pro-Brexiters out of a hundred to change their minds? Enlightened self-interest is a pretty strong vote-motivator when push comes to shove.

You're thinking rationally too, which is lacking in the debate. And as for "Enlightened self-interest" there's a long tradition of voting against one's best interests and enlightenment is no more than a period in history.

Brexit is based almost entirely on a desire to "get rid of them", but the alternative is a pretty nasty combo. They will fit well with Putin and Trump though.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Forget sanity. Forget reality. Just put on re-runs of It's a Knockout in place of the TV "debates".

It's just as likely to influence the undecided as anything else... [Mad]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's a Knockout, adapted from a French show and part of the Jeux Sans Frontières franchise.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Leave is successful, precisely because it's not rational. Whether your taste runs to Farage's foreign rapists, Boris's clowning, or the infinite supply of money being awarded - to farmers, fishermen, NHS, etc. - there's something for everyone.

It's a fun-packed Leaving party, with balloons, Thames flotillas, the Beast of Bolsover, go, go, go.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I had to laugh last night, watching TV, when a guy was interviewed, who described how his local Tesco's had Polish food in it! That was it, that was his argument against the EU.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The Leave campaign is uncoordinated (though, Remain isn't very coordinated either - but at least everyone knows what the current status quo is), with different voices presenting mutually incompatible promises for a golden age with the UK outside the EU. So, while this makes it easy for the overall picture to be dismantled (eg: some people are saying all money we send to the EU can be spent on the NHS, others are saying that all the money we get from the EU to support farmers, fishermen, scientific research, regional development etc will still flow but from Westminster rather than Brussels - even if the Leave campaign could form a government those promises are mutually exclusive, even if the economy doesn't nose dive), there's also something someone is saying that appeals to large numbers of people.

I'm seeing a massive contrast with the Scottish Independence campaign. Both Leave and Yes present a glorious vision for the future, compared to the hum-drum of the status quo. But, there the similarity ends.

The Yes campaign were centred around and coordinated by the SNP, who held power in Holyrood, and so were in a position of government. So, the vision they presented was plausible, even realistic, and the Yes campaign were in a position to at least attempt to deliver it.

The Leave campaign is really several parallel campaigns by people who would probably prefer not to be in the same boat. Most Tories, ISTM, for example, would be ecstatic if Farage wasn't around. And, the campaigns are presenting mutually contradictory visions, appealing to slightly different sectors of the population. Some of what is being presented is more plausible than other parts - an instant set of trade agreements and treaties such that there is no interuption in trade with the EU, or a drop to practically zero net immigration are totally implausible. Other parts of the package are more plausible - that the UK would eventually form trade agreements with the EU, for example. But, plausible or not, the Leave campaign would need to gain power in Westminster to even attempt to get their proposals into law. Which might work if the uneasy truce between the different parties in the Leave campaign can hold beyond the 24th June, but probably couldn't be fully realised until the next general election - and, even then it's not certain that those making these promises would be in a position to follow through.

The Yes campaign offered a coherent, plausible but difficult to achieve vision and were in a position to act on that. The Leave campaign are offering an incoherent and largely implausible vision, which would be nearly impossible to achieve and are not, and possibly never will be, in a position to act on it.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh last night, watching TV, when a guy was interviewed, who described how his local Tesco's had Polish food in it! That was it, that was his argument against the EU.

This holds a serious point regarding voter turnout.

A low turnout gives Brexit enthusiasts the possible edge. A medium turnout of Cameron's scared witless hordes gives Remain the edge. However, get your average xenophobe, who never normally bothers his or her arse about voting, into polling booths next week and boris' fingers might start twitching over that champagne cork .

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

All the debates involving those who are in the 'leave' campaign centre on very empty promises of a UK (although that title might quickly dissolve) that will be wealthier, have more jobs, more control, be much greater and better in every respect. What they don't spell out is how this new wonderland might happen. They've spelt out exactly no policies. It's like voting for a wishing machine. They do talk - a lot - about the money they will save out of the EU, yet neglect to mention debts they might have to pay off, the future problems with trade and expense of border controls and duties and the strong likelihood of a very seriously devalued pound. There is no acknowledgment of the social aspects, of the possibility of a destabilised Northern Ireland (and you can bet that's going to cost a lot of money) and the significant likelihood of an independent Scotland. I'm not sure where all the manufacturing is going to be magicked from; although Boris seems to think the UK exports enough cake to keep it afloat. Then there is the aftershock nobody seems to be talking about - the horrific prospect of a loony right wing government; a New Conservatives and UKIP coalition with either Boris or Farage as PM.

I find the whole thing unthinkable and very, very worrying.

[Votive]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh last night, watching TV, when a guy was interviewed, who described how his local Tesco's had Polish food in it! That was it, that was his argument against the EU.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.

Ours has a Mexican section in it. We need to build a wall.

Seriously, you get all sorts. I've never forgotten the vox pop before one election some years ago when one lady said "I like gardening, so I'm voting Green." You're always going to get an element of that in any election, but that's democracy.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh last night, watching TV, when a guy was interviewed, who described how his local Tesco's had Polish food in it! That was it, that was his argument against the EU.

How do you deal with that? I don't know.

I saw that too, in Mark Easton's report I think? He said that his local Tesco had two whole aisles dedicated to Polish food. Quite amusing.

But presumably what he was doing was pointing to the wider social change that's occurring where he lives? (And two whole aisles in a major supermarket dedicated to a cuisine previously very rarely seen in the UK is evidence of this?)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
High drama today, with Osborne warning of an emergency budget if we exit, with Boris and Gove claiming the right to table a whole bunch of immediate legislation changes if we exit.

There's a really serious point here, a few people in favor of leaving keep saying that this isn't a vote for Johnson, Gove, Farage and so on.

Which is true - up to a point - however, there isn't a clear plan for Leave at all. Someone is going to have to take charge post a Leave vote and make stuff happen, and it makes all the difference whether or not you trust them to be able to make good decisions or not.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Alan:

quote:
It's a Knockout, adapted from a French show and part of the Jeux Sans Frontières franchise.

Yes, that was the point [Cool]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
High drama today, with Osborne warning of an emergency budget if we exit, with Boris and Gove claiming the right to table a whole bunch of immediate legislation changes if we exit.
There's a really serious point here, a few people in favor of leaving keep saying that this isn't a vote for Johnson, Gove, Farage and so on.

Which is true - up to a point - however, there isn't a clear plan for Leave at all. Someone is going to have to take charge post a Leave vote and make stuff happen, and it makes all the difference whether or not you trust them to be able to make good decisions or not.

Well, Farage isn't even an MP, but given the standard of most of the "debate" I've been engaged in Facebook, some of the numb-nuts don't even seen to realise that, and seem to think he'll become the prime minister
[Roll Eyes]

And of course Boris, Gove and co on the leave side, and Cameron, Osborne and co on the remain side, have all been insisting the Cameron remains the PM no matter what the outcome of the referendum is.

Whether that will mean anything by tea time on Friday remains to be seen. They could be dropping like flies, like they were after the 2015 general election. It's certainly going to be a couple of days to keep the TV coverage on....

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Alan:
quote:
It's a Knockout, adapted from a French show and part of the Jeux Sans Frontières franchise.
Yes, that was the point

Of course the rights to that were subject to a British buyout - although I don't expect the rights holder has quite the right profile to do anything with it nowadays....

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Well, Farage isn't even an MP, but given the standard of most of the "debate" I've been engaged in Facebook, some of the numb-nuts don't even seen to realise that, and seem to think he'll become the prime minister

To be clear, I wasn't commenting on whether or not Farage (or any of those other figures would be PM), but what role they may play after a Leave vote.

Because a vote for Leave is not a plan to leave. It's the vote for someone, somewhere to start some process. It has a large downside and limited upside. Voting Leave unless you are reasonably confident of who is likely to be in charge of that process, and how they are likely to run it, seems like a colossal risk.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Do you really think Cameron can remain as PM after a leave vote? If the pounds tanks - which in all likelihood it would - the financial crash happens, the investment withdraws and unemployment sky rockets (to name but a few); can Cameron really stay in power? I think in that instance you are far more likely to have a strongly right wing government. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Do you really think Cameron can remain as PM after a leave vote? If the pounds tanks - which in all likelihood it would - the financial crash happens, the investment withdraws and unemployment sky rockets (to name but a few); can Cameron really stay in power? I think in that instance you are far more likely to have a strongly right wing government. I hope I'm wrong.

If I was him, I might be tempted to stay on just to say "I told you so". He could plausibly say that all of the above were not his fault, and if there was a leadership challenge the Brexiters would have to agree on a candidate, a process which would be amusing to watch for the neutral spectator. Can't see Gove putting up with Boris as PM, somehow.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Do you really think Cameron can remain as PM after a leave vote? If the pounds tanks - which in all likelihood it would - the financial crash happens, the investment withdraws and unemployment sky rockets (to name but a few); can Cameron really stay in power? I think in that instance you are far more likely to have a strongly right wing government. I hope I'm wrong.

I think the likelihood is that Cameron will not continue as PM in either scenario, and that it is very likely that we'll have a GE and a very rightwing new parliament.

I also hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not. Choppy water ahead.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Do you really think Cameron can remain as PM after a leave vote? If the pounds tanks - which in all likelihood it would - the financial crash happens, the investment withdraws and unemployment sky rockets (to name but a few); can Cameron really stay in power? I think in that instance you are far more likely to have a strongly right wing government. I hope I'm wrong.

If there's a Brexit then Cameron will really struggle to maintain his position as leader of the Conservatives, and if he manages it he will do so as a lame duck unable to do anything because he would be unable to count on the votes from the Eurosceptic members of his party.

If he steps down (which would seem most likely) then the Eurosceptics would be riding high and the new Conservative leader will almost certainly be from their ranks. Which will move the government to the right. But the government would then struggle to keep those members closer to the centre in line, and is likely to lose a few votes in the Commons if they tried to implement anything too radically right wing.

Either way, we get a few years of a fractured and weak Conservative government. Some Tory MPs may even resign the whip - from the right to defect to UKIP, from the centre to the LibDems or as independents. A loss of the Conservative majority in the Commons is possible. Though as noted previously, the Tories do have a history of pragmatism to hold themselves together.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

Well, Farage isn't even an MP, but given the standard of most of the "debate" I've been engaged in Facebook, some of the numb-nuts don't even seen to realise that, and seem to think he'll become the prime minister

To be clear, I wasn't commenting on whether or not Farage (or any of those other figures would be PM), but what role they may play after a Leave vote.

Because a vote for Leave is not a plan to leave. It's the vote for someone, somewhere to start some process. It has a large downside and limited upside. Voting Leave unless you are reasonably confident of who is likely to be in charge of that process, and how they are likely to run it, seems like a colossal risk.

Yes, I agree. I'm sure you have grasped these points - this has been by far the most intelligent forum for debate.

But I'm quite serious about what I wrote about the points on Facebook - some of it has genuinely been so vacuous that I think there are people who seriously believe that this is some sort of election between two parties, and we ARE voting Boris for PM if we vote leave.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Do you really think Cameron can remain as PM after a leave vote? If the pounds tanks - which in all likelihood it would - the financial crash happens, the investment withdraws and unemployment sky rockets (to name but a few); can Cameron really stay in power? I think in that instance you are far more likely to have a strongly right wing government. I hope I'm wrong.
I think the likelihood is that Cameron will not continue as PM in either scenario, and that it is very likely that we'll have a GE and a very rightwing new parliament.

I also hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not. Choppy water ahead.

First Parliament would have to find a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act before we can have a GE. I just can't see that happening. There's nothing in it for the sitting Tories, and Labour would be staring down the barrel of going to the country with a leader people aren't sure about, and having just been whacked by their own core vote (assuming Brexit). I just can't see a GE happening and reckon the current Parliament will limp on to 2020.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
First Parliament would have to find a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act before we can have a GE. I just can't see that happening.

I could be wrong, but I understood a "vote of no confidence" would still bring the government down.

quote:
There's nothing in it for the sitting Tories, and Labour would be staring down the barrel of going to the country with a leader people aren't sure about, and having just been whacked by their own core vote (assuming Brexit). I just can't see a GE happening and reckon the current Parliament will limp on to 2020.

On the contrary, there would be everything in it for the Brexit Tories, because as it stands the parliamentary majority is in favour of Remain, and there would be great difficulty in getting a majority to support the necessary Brexit legislation.

I think the numbers are quite stark. The Tories have a working majority of 17. So that means around 10 Tories need to vote against the government or around 20 need to abstain.

If it was obvious that the Brexit legislation was stalling, I think a vote of no confidence would be arranged very quickly.

And in the reverse scenario where Remain win, there would only need to be a small number of Tories voting in a no confidence vote to bring down the government and trigger a GE where they'd hope to get an increased number of Brexit politicians and force the changes through.

Either way, the result is the same.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
First Parliament would have to find a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act before we can have a GE. I just can't see that happening.
I could be wrong, but I understood a "vote of no confidence" would still bring the government down.

quote:
There's nothing in it for the sitting Tories, and Labour would be staring down the barrel of going to the country with a leader people aren't sure about, and having just been whacked by their own core vote (assuming Brexit). I just can't see a GE happening and reckon the current Parliament will limp on to 2020.
On the contrary, there would be everything in it for the Brexit Tories, because as it stands the parliamentary majority is in favour of Remain, and there would be great difficulty in getting a majority to support the necessary Brexit legislation.

I think the numbers are quite stark. The Tories have a working majority of 17. So that means around 10 Tories need to vote against the government or around 20 need to abstain.

If it was obvious that the Brexit legislation was stalling, I think a vote of no confidence would be arranged very quickly.

And in the reverse scenario where Remain win, there would only need to be a small number of Tories voting in a no confidence vote to bring down the government and trigger a GE where they'd hope to get an increased number of Brexit politicians and force the changes through.

Either way, the result is the same.

you're right on no confidence - however you still need to get a majority for that.

In Brexit most Tory MPs are Remainers, so it's unlikely that you'd get a no confidence majority which was a going to force a GE as it's not in their or any other party's interests either. In the case of Remain you're looking at a minority of spurned Brexit Tory MPs trying to top up pretty well every non-Tory MP in the house to get a majority for no confidence when, again, an election isn't in the interests of any MP except spurned Brexiters.

Like I said, I don't have any claim to seeing the future, but I don't see a GE coming. Unless they're complete masochists it's not in the interests of a majority of MPs across all parties to put themselves up for re-election until they have to - whether the vote is Leave or Remain.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Prior to a general election Brexiters would need to ensure that local constituencies would select a pro-Brexit candidate where the current member is pro-Remain. Which would probably need a motion at conference to align the Conservative party policy with the referendum result - which would be where the major Troy bloodletting is likely to occur. Then the pro-Remain members would be holding opinions contrary to party policy, grounds for deselection.

You would then have Tories standing on a platform of "we'll pass through legislation to enact a Brexit". Presumably UKIP would only stand if the local conservative party selected a candidate opposed to Brexit. The other parties may decide to stand on a platform of "we'll oppose Brexit legislation", especially if it's a close referendum result. There will be the usual hard-core party loyalists, but floating voters who strongly oppose Brexit (or support it) may swap alliegence at that point. The general election at that point would be a second referendum, and it's possible (especially if the count is close next week) that we could return a Parliament where the pro-Brexit members are in the minority (almost certainly larger than the current minority) and a pro-Remain party has the majority. What a fine mess that would be.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

You would then have Tories standing on a platform of "we'll pass through legislation to enact a Brexit".

Well, this is where it would then become tricky. Because Leave.EU differ widely on what would constitute 'enacting a Brexit' (as I said above, the vote would be an aspirational one, it doesn't put a specific plan into play).

Some leavers want an immediate triggering of article 50. Leave.EU had an article on their website that said that they wouldn't trigger article 50 but would immediately open up talks with the EU on future directions. Then there are the various constituencies who have been bought off by promises that massive change will come soon (naturally whilst keeping free movement and free trade [Roll Eyes]

) who will only be satisfied by a fairly dramatic reversal of everything that has happened since joining the EU.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Aye. That's an enormous problem for Leave. They have no coherent vision for what Leave would look like. They are a loose alliance of different organisations with different issues with the EU, united for the moment around a common "we don't like the EU" basis, but with each group having a different vision of what they want. Leave has won support in the electorate by appealing across the board, trying to be all things to all people. If there's a Brexit I'd lay money on none of those supporting Leave being happy with the outcome - if we remain in the EFTA then those wanting more open trade with the Commonwealth won't get it, if we spend money currently sent to the EU on the NHS then the farmers and others will be out of pocket, if we continue to subsidise farmers and support regional development and science then those wanting more money spent on the NHS will be disappointed, nothing anyone does is going to make a significant dent in immigration with the best outcome being a bit more money from visa application fees.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
you're right on no confidence - however you still need to get a majority for that.

In Brexit most Tory MPs are Remainers, so it's unlikely that you'd get a no confidence majority which was a going to force a GE as it's not in their or any other party's interests either. In the case of Remain you're looking at a minority of spurned Brexit Tory MPs trying to top up pretty well every non-Tory MP in the house to get a majority for no confidence when, again, an election isn't in the interests of any MP except spurned Brexiters.

I think one has to consider how hated the Tory government is - and how it would look if Labour or the SNP voted that they "had confidence" in the Tory government. I'm not sure that an opposition has ever voted for a government subject to a no confidence vote.

I think one also has to consider that whoever wins, around 50% of voters are going to be voting Remain, so it isn't a foregone conclusion that the Labour party would do badly at a GE. It must be in their favour (in the eyes of some) that they've taken a pretty unambiguous Remain position (with very few Brexiters) - so a Labour GE campaign would undoubtedly point out that another Tory government would mean increased austerity under Brexit and Remain.

As far as I can see, there is zero chance of Labour or the SNP voting for a split Tory administration, at best they'd be abstaining.

If everyone votes against the government in a confidence vote, in my opinion, there is no question it would fall with a few Tory rebels who vote against or abstain. If people like the DUP etc vote with the Tory government, the maths gets more complicated. If the opposition abstains, who knows what will happen.

quote:
Like I said, I don't have any claim to seeing the future, but I don't see a GE coming. Unless they're complete masochists it's not in the interests of a majority of MPs across all parties to put themselves up for re-election until they have to - whether the vote is Leave or Remain.

I don't think this really washes. Assuming that the Brexit Tories actually believe in Brexit, they're not going to be content to have the referendum without legislative action in the HoC. Because that'd be daft.

The question is then what happens to the former-Remain MPs. Do they accept the popular vote and accept that they've no choice but to vote through the Brexit legislation? Do they continue the Remain fight via sabotage?

I can't read the tea-leaves, but I can't see how the majority of the MPs can continue in the HoC with a Brexit vote and without a GE. It just doesn't seem credible that they'd vote through a major constitutional change which they don't believe in.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

On Remainers being grateful for Labour's Remain position, the problem is that support for Leave overindexes in precisely the group which overindexes in voting Labour. This is why Remain have suddenly identified Labour voters as holding the key to remaining, and the reported (see Guardians passim) despair of Labour MPs dutifully pounding the streets and finding it incredibly tough. I said on the other thread in Hell that the story here could actually be Labour (for the greater good) inflicting on itself exactly what it inflicted on itself in Scotland when it argued for No. Their support for Remain could well be stoking up their future electoral problems.

Labour won't want to go to the polls much before they can help it, so they're not going to be rushing to support a no confidence vote. I don't think their position is in their favour in the eyes of *enough.*

What Remain MPs will do (if they've got any sense) is say "I support the will of the people" and get on with trying to hold onto their jobs. The calculation for most will almost certainly be that a few years to see if things die down and people forget what they said before they rowed in behind "making Brexit work in the national interest and putting aside personal preferences" might be worth it before they risk going to the country.

Those calling for a confidence vote will be a minority, and the nutters. In fact, a minority of nutters calling for a confidence vote might be the very thing to make the rest of the house changing its views in the national interest look statesmanlike.

Unless you think that a couple of hundred MPs are actually going to put principle before salary?

Something which occurs to me in writing the response which I hadn't considered before is that in the event of a Leave vote we might have to move into the territory, far from a GE, of a government of national unity, with everyone working together to achieve the best deal. The rules of the game in the event of things going Leave next week will politically put us into 1939-40 territory.

The spectacle of Jeremy deciding which Tory he and the Labour Party are prepared to serve under "during the present emergency" would be an enjoyable moment in a fraught time.

For anyone who isn't following the Hell thread, I'm personally minded to vote Remain by the way - so none of the above is a Brexiteer's fantasy. I'm just reading the political runes the way I see them.

I really think when it comes down to it a mixture of pragmatism and personal survival instinct is going to kick in at Westminster.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

For those interested in polling this site has very interesting discussion and I have been following it closely. In brief, the most scientific polls have, in the last week, shown significant swings towards Leave. Most of them are showing Leave leads, the most recent being 7 points. There is a parallel to the Indyref: in the last few weeks before polling support for Yes increased substantially, particularly after the second Darling-Salmond debate. My view on this was that in Scotland there has been for a long period strong sympathy for independence ie, "yes, but we can't", which changed to "actually we could".

The other thing to note was swingback is said to have followed. My view is this was overstated. There was actually only one reputable poll that showed Yes in the lead, and even then by only 2 points. It led to ridiculous panic amongst senior Westminster politicians who duly all trekked north to tell the Scots about what the Scots had already been discussing for years, not to mention the absurd and incomprehensible "Vow" which I don't believe swung the final result at all.

The situation we have here is that Leave appear to have far stronger support than Yes did. There were simply no polls showing Yes leads of 7 to 10%. And I think it has to be accepted that Leave don't have to make anythign like as coherent a case as Yes. In the event of a Leave vote there will still be a UK (at least for the time being) with its own government and civil institutions).

My own view is that has been clear for a very long time that there are really ownly two main arguments for Leave. One is sovereignty and the other is immigration. I differ with the majority views on this thread in their attitudes to these points. There are of course arguments in favour of pooling sovereignty and in heavy immigration. But there are also perfectly clear and respectable arguments against. The utter complacency with which those arguments have been treated (including on this thread) have undermined Remain, which like the No in the Indyref will have lost the campaign even if it wins the vote.

Of course what may change everything is the very distressing news of Jo Cox's murder.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

My own view is that has been clear for a very long time that there are really ownly two main arguments for Leave. One is sovereignty and the other is immigration. I differ with the majority views on this thread in their attitudes to these points. There are of course arguments in favour of pooling sovereignty and in heavy immigration. But there are also perfectly clear and respectable arguments against.

I've read the Brexit arguments and they really don't strike me as clear, so I don't give them a pass as respectable. They do seem to me to misunderstand how national sovereignty works in the modern world, the different categories into which immigrants fall and the practical issues involved in safeguarding national borders.

I haven't dismissed them because I haven't read them. I prefer the Remain arguments because they seem to me to make more coherent economic and political sense.

[ 17. June 2016, 22:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

My own view is that has been clear for a very long time that there are really ownly two main arguments for Leave. One is sovereignty and the other is immigration. I differ with the majority views on this thread in their attitudes to these points. There are of course arguments in favour of pooling sovereignty and in heavy immigration. But there are also perfectly clear and respectable arguments against.
I've read the Brexit arguments and they really don't strike me as clear, so I don't give them a pass as respectable. They do seem to me to misunderstand how national sovereignty works in the modern world, the different categories into which immigrants fall and the practical issues involved in safeguarding national borders.

I haven't dismissed them because I haven't read them. I prefer the Remain arguments because they seem to me to make more coherent economic and political sense.

I agree. That gets three of these [Overused]

Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :

This thread ought to be compulsory reading before anyone is allowed to vote! I haven't found this much sense, not to mention civility, anywhere else.

Yesterday we received in the post a leaflet headed 'Official Information about the Referendum' and in large letters 'The European Union and Your Family - The Facts'. It begins with the '£350 million per week' lie and continues with the scaremongering about how many people are in the countries applying to join the EU, which I suppose should be a giveaway, but it's not until the bottom of the back page that you find a very small 'Vote Leave' logo. I'll be reporting it to the ASA as misleading advertising, but they will take six months to wag a finger and tell them not to do it again. I'm amazed that they are allowed to do this - isn't anyone in charge of what both sides are allowed to do?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
isn't anyone in charge of what both sides are allowed to do?

Both sides are run by politicians, with the moral integrity of a toad. That's the moral integrity of one toad shared between them, if each of them had the integrity of a toad that would be an exaggeration of their integrity.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

For some reason, the Daily Mail has published this week's Spectator's editorial urging a Leave vote. Quite an interesting read, I thought.

Posted by Stumbling Pilgrim (# 7637) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
isn't anyone in charge of what both sides are allowed to do?
Both sides are run by politicians, with the moral integrity of a toad. That's the moral integrity of one toad shared between them, if each of them had the integrity of a toad that would be an exaggeration of their integrity.

That's so true I don't know whether to
[Killing me]

. But isn't there anyone this kind of blatant deception can be reported to, who can actually do something about it?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

So we're not down with a more respectful tone of debate to avoid murderous gits slaughtering mps in the streets then ?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Anglican't:

quote:

For some reason, the Daily Mail has published this week's Spectator's editorial urging a Leave vote. Quite an interesting read, I thought.

'Interesting' is an interesting way to put it. One of the great frustrations about the whole debate is the lack of actual facts. On the leave side there are simply accusations, nothing backed up by fact. Undemocratic is oft slung around about an organisation which is all elected and no post held in perpetuity. A threat to sovereignty is oft heralded, but each new person seems to have a completely different understanding of what this means although all seem bound by the notion that some mysterious and hidden bureaucrat somewhere in a Brussels warehouse is actually pulling the strings of a puppet Europe. Hugh Fearnley Wittingstall demonstrated just how easy it was to lobby effectively in Europe even without being an elected member to achieve a good result about fishing quotas. Britain elects Farage who sat on exactly one of forty-however many meetings and achieved exactly nothing so that you could sit at home on your arse and complain about an undemocratic Europe. Can you not see the irony of control Farage exercised over your own mind and futures? Immigration needs to be more controlled, and yet Europe has come under international criticism for its response to the Syrian crisis and we know immigration would in all likelihood not change significantly if Britain left the EU - if anything it might go up. It's a threat to our democracy, they cry, and well it might when you consider the type of 'democracy' Britain actually has and the importance placed upon peerage and privilege. We only get the spin from newspapers and articles like this one that throw around wild accusation with absolutely no facts to back any of it up and nothing whatsoever by way of suggestion or policy that might be in any way better. All we have is the emphatic repeated declarations of 'what's mine is mine' and the degraded defiant stench of 'I am not my brother's keeper'.

Don't get me wrong though; the argument of the remain side has been equally as pathetic. Not a word about a once great Briton by the name of Winston Churchill and the not insignificant matter of the birth for the European dream and all those who died for it. Not a word about the longest held peace we know of in Europe. No shouts about the great successes of controlling the rise of the scary right in a world wildly swinging that direction just about everywhere. No mention of the cultural exchange, the richness, the diversity that brings beauty and wealth to so many lives throughout Europe. Only petty arguments about responding to myths and the smoke screen of lies. Not a word about sharing wealth for the benefit of all. Nothing about the ideal of a duty of care to our neighbours.

This campaign will have no winners. You'll both still slouch on to give birth to your rough beast in Bethlehem. Maybe you've already birthed it.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Not a word about a once great Briton by the name of Winston Churchill and the not insignificant matter of the birth for the European dream and all those who died for it. Not a word about the longest held peace we know of in Europe.

You mean something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLgwtfWYdTs

There has been some material written and said along these lines, however the more sensational claims end up in the headlines.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:

Don't get me wrong though; the argument of the remain side has been equally as pathetic. Not a word about a once great Briton by the name of Winston Churchill and the not insignificant matter of the birth for the European dream and all those who died for it. Not a word about the longest held peace we know of in Europe. No shouts about the great successes of controlling the rise of the scary right in a world wildly swinging that direction just about everywhere. No mention of the cultural exchange, the richness, the diversity that brings beauty and wealth to so many lives throughout Europe. Only petty arguments about responding to myths and the smoke screen of lies. Not a word about sharing wealth for the benefit of all. Nothing about the ideal of a duty of care to our neighbours.

Churchill was in many ways a bigot, albeit our bigot who was ruthless as a war leader.

And I for one am glad that few have tried to use my relatives deaths in the war as collateral for their political platforms.

Many died in the war withany different political views. Don't try to suggest that they'd have supported or opposed the EU which formed decades afterwards.

That kind of playing with a form of the myth of redemptive violence is the lowest form of argument.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Chris:

quote:

You mean something like this?

I saw that when it first came out and thought it was quite good, but it's been lost under the tidal wave of bullshit.

posted by Cheesy:

quote:

And I for one am glad that few have tried to use my relatives deaths in the war as collateral for their political platforms.

Many died in the war withany different political views. Don't try to suggest that they'd have supported or opposed the EU which formed decades afterwards.
That kind of playing with a form of the myth of redemptive violence is the lowest form of argument.

Both where you live and where I live know the ugly, disfigured legacy of the insane notions of blood sacrifice. But I do rather strongly suspect that those who died would turn in a grave at the thought of throwing away a democratic collaboration of the kind we have today with such feckless carelessness, amid panto's on the Thames and propaganda that has trumped any genuine attempt to get at the truth. If anything, such a notion strikes at the heart of the nonsense of redemptive violence that Farage seems happy to let loose on your own streets.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Both where you live and where I live know the ugly, disfigured legacy of the insane notions of blood sacrifice. But I do rather strongly suspect that those who died would turn in a grave at the thought of throwing away a democratic collaboration of the kind we have today with such feckless carelessness, amid panto's on the Thames and propaganda that has trumped any genuine attempt to get at the truth. If anything, such a notion strikes at the heart of the nonsense of redemptive violence that Farage seems happy to let loose on your own streets.

There is absolutely no way of telling. Let's not go there. Nothing good comes from that direction.

--

I've also been able to establish in the last half hour that there is at least one party using the image of Churchill and the deaths in the war for their political campaigning: Britain First.

[ 18. June 2016, 14:48: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

Simple question but a not so simple answer. Given how the official Labour line has been so supportive of Remain, is the Labour Party not in serious danger of having a large amount of 'egg on face' if Leave wins it ??

I suppose commentators will then be saying that maybe it was wiser to continue with Corbyn's initally 'cool/ support with reservations' approach ??

For those who live in various parts of the UK, what is your general take on the 'feeling' on the matter in your area .... There is a strong sense where I am (Shropshire) that there will be a big % for Leave,, but of course attitudes may be very different elsewhere .......

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The leave campaigners shout louder, I think. I've not heard much chat about it here, other than people commenting on the paucity of facts upon which to base a decision. I'm where Corbyn is - remain with reservations. I've a lot of sympathy for those on the left who are for leave (RMT et al) but I think they're far too optimistic about the prospects of a left-wing exit. If, at some point in the future, a Labour government are butting up hard against state aid rules while trying to restructure the economy then there's an argument for getting out, but at the moment all it does is free the tory's hands to screw working people even further.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If Leave win it will be more than just Labour with egg on their face. Cameron and a large portion of the Cabinet will also be egg-faced, probably more so than Labour as they called the referendum in the sure and certain expectation of an easy Remain victory. But, egg-faced politicians will be the least of our worries at that point.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

That's Old Etonians for you - the idea that if you sail into something with enough chutzpah it'll all come right in the end. As it is, I can see Cameron going into the history books as the PM who not only wrecked the UK as both an economy but also as a significant player in world politics and probably facilitated the dismantling of the very entity he was tasked with leading (if clever Ms Sturgeon has anything to do with it). He can also add screwing up the N Irish question btw.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
That's Old Etonians for you - the idea that if you sail into something with enough chutzpah it'll all come right in the end. As it is, I can see Cameron going into the history books as the PM who not only wrecked the UK as both an economy but also as a significant player in world politics and probably facilitated the dismantling of the very entity he was tasked with leading (if clever Ms Sturgeon has anything to do with it). He can also add screwing up the N Irish question btw.

Sir Anthony Eden lost a substantial amount of Britain's standing too, thanks to his mishandling of the Suez Crisis in 1956. He was an Old Etonian too.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is some talk this morning about the "Jo effect" and some early evidence that her death is causing some folks to re-evaluate their voting intentions. One of the challenges to both campaigns, as they resume, will be how they handle the significance of her death in the wider context of the debates. I will be interested to see how well (or how badly) they do that.

Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is some talk this morning about the "Jo effect" and some early evidence that her death is causing some folks to re-evaluate their voting intentions. One of the challenges to both campaigns, as they resume, will be how they handle the significance of her death in the wider context of the debates. I will be interested to see how well (or how badly) they do that.

I'm just waiting for the "Jo effect" to turn into the next conspiracy theory ....

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankly My Dear:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is some talk this morning about the "Jo effect" and some early evidence that her death is causing some folks to re-evaluate their voting intentions. One of the challenges to both campaigns, as they resume, will be how they handle the significance of her death in the wider context of the debates. I will be interested to see how well (or how badly) they do that.
I'm just waiting for the "Jo effect" to turn into the next conspiracy theory ....

Here ya go

(link includes a self-playing video)

So far, it seems to be mostly no-names positing the conspiracies here. The Alex Jones website confined itself to saying that the pro-EU crowd will "exploit" the killing.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That kind of rubbish won't have much impact on the genuine don't-knows. It's just preaching to their baleful choir.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is some talk this morning about the "Jo effect" and some early evidence that her death is causing some folks to re-evaluate their voting intentions. One of the challenges to both campaigns, as they resume, will be how they handle the significance of her death in the wider context of the debates.

This whole thing kinda takes me back to the bitter days of the Miner's strike. Ol' Thatch was just waitin an waitin... Then, hey presto, a couple of jerks dropped a lump of concrete onto to a taxi taking strike breakers to a pit. The taxi driver was killed and my goodness didn't she fall on that incident like a hungry hound.

If Leave are tempted to use the violent death of a female MP by a right-wing fanatic as some sort of gift they'd well advised to resist that temptation. I've already heard a Bishop of some renown liken Mrs Cox to a martyr. Unwise to make any such comparisons until Thursday is out the way IMO.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think it is entirely possible that this unfortunate attack will make voters realise that much of the Leave arguments are flimsy cover for fascism without sermons or speeches needed to add 2 and 2 together.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If Leave are tempted to use the violent death of a female MP by a right-wing fanatic as some sort of gift .....[/QB]

Correction. I meant Remain

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is some talk this morning about the "Jo effect" and some early evidence that her death is causing some folks to re-evaluate their voting intentions. One of the challenges to both campaigns, as they resume, will be how they handle the significance of her death in the wider context of the debates.
This whole thing kinda takes me back to the bitter days of the Miner's strike. Ol' Thatch was just waitin an waitin... Then, hey presto, a couple of jerks dropped a lump of concrete onto to a taxi taking strike breakers to a pit. The taxi driver was killed and my goodness didn't she fall on that incident like a hungry hound.

If Leave are tempted to use the violent death of a female MP by a right-wing fanatic as some sort of gift they'd well advised to resist that temptation. I've already heard a Bishop of some renown liken Mrs Cox to a martyr. Unwise to make any such comparisons until Thursday is out the way IMO.

I don't think they will do this explicitly, (you obviously mean Remain). But I would expect Remain campaigners to wax lyrical about Jo Cox's qualities, as I think Cameron has been doing. This is quite possibly genuine, but it has the added bonus of saying sotto voce, look at the right-wing nutters who have killed her; I am not a right-wing nutter, you can trust me. Even that might have unpredictable effects in this vote, which seems to have broken all the norms about irrationality.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One of the things that baffles me is that historically free movement of labour (and goods, capital and services), is a right-wing position, following classical economics.

But here we seem to have right-wing politicians apparently advocating state control of immigration, and the left defending free movement.

Well, movements of people classically respond to labour shortages, so how will a right-wing government control this? Mr Smith the potato farmer needs his potatoes picking, and 50 Lithuanians turn up to do it. Does the government then say, no, not allowed?

Or maybe I've got it wrong.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If Jo Cox's death has any effect it will probably be to reduce the number of people voting. It has tainted the entire campaign.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I think it'll mean more people who want to Remain will turn out. They'll 'do it for Jo'.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the things that baffles me is that historically free movement of labour (and goods, capital and services), is a right-wing position, following classical economics.

But here we seem to have right-wing politicians apparently advocating state control of immigration, and the left defending free movement.

Well, movements of people classically respond to labour shortages, so how will a right-wing government control this? Mr Smith the potato farmer needs his potatoes picking, and 50 Lithuanians turn up to do it. Does the government then say, no, not allowed?

Or maybe I've got it wrong.

I'm left-wing and anti-racist, but not an Open Borders supporter, or even necessarily a supporter of greater immigration.

I've had at least one progressive try to square the circle by telling me that free movement of labour is actually good for the well-being of workers, since an increase in immigrants is an opportunity to get more people joining unions. I am somewhat dubious as to the logic there.

As for the right-wingers, I've rarely if ever seen a tabloid paper editorialize against immigration on the grounds that they drag down wages, and I'm guessing there's a reson why that particular dog never barks, ie. they know that keeping wages low is part of the reason for immigration, and their corporate buddies are quite happy with the arrangement.

Usually, the objection is to immigrants who allegedly dress funny, try to get the host country to change its customs, make a ruckus about injustice back in the old country("Why can't they just leave that all behind instead of importing it here?") etc. A lot of this probably slots roughly into the law-and-order agenda much beloved by the tabloids, or at least the longing for a static, unchanging society.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Stetson - I just meant that I don't understand how a limit to immigration works. For example, some industries are subject to expansion and contraction, e.g. building, catering, agriculture. If there is a limit on immigration, and there is a shortage of say, 100, 000 building workers, will a right-wing government actually say, sorry, we can't let them in?

I doubt it, as it would crash the industry. So they would let them in, so there is no limit in fact.

But as I said, maybe I've got this part of economics wrong!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It seems to me, looking at history, that 'limiting immigration' is not something that can ever be achieved. Limiting legal migration, certainly, by denying incomers registration papers, tax codes, and threatening them with deportation, but nothing will ever stop illegal migration, since it's already illegal.

IEngland has been subject to repeated waves of immigration from Europe, from Ireland, from Scotland, from India, from the Caribbean, from Africa, and the Middle East. It also has large movements of people internally. None of this will change.

If there are sufficient pull factors (stable government, rule of law, human rights, jobs), people will come for those. The only way to dissuade them is to make the country a miserable shit-hole where none of those things apply.

Oh, wait... [Paranoid]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Corbyn was saying much the same thing this morning - but arguing the best solution is addressing the push factors. Was immediately slated by all other guests for 'candour'. As in, it may be true but you shouldn't say it.

I find this bizarre. I'd much rather the debate was conducted honestly. That said, I found the exchange between Paddy Ashdown and John Mann on the Sunday politics quite heartening. With them both demonstrating a bit of respect for each others position.

[ 19. June 2016, 16:13: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If Jo Cox's death has any effect it will probably be to reduce the number of people voting. It has tainted the entire campaign.

The Thursday morning before this horrible incident I already felt like spoiling my ballot paper. Yes it is a privilege to be able to exercise our rights in a democracy but this referendum is too bizarre for words.
In fact I spoke to 2 different people that day, both of whom seemed genuinely baffled and almost mildly distressed at the choice we are being asked to make.

The Remain Campaign has left many feeling they are on a cliff edge, the choice being either to stay put or jump off. In other words what is this amazing 'once in a lifetime' decision the Electorate has been called upon to make when the consequences of leaving the EU are, so we keep being told, dire in every way imaginable.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The best answer to that is to vote for the status quo, which is Remain. I hate referendums (see the Hell thread) but abstaining is even worse.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand how a limit to immigration works ....
But as I said, maybe I've got this part of economics wrong!

I think you're economics are probably right.

But, the debate (such as it is) on immigration is unrelated to economics.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... The Remain Campaign has left many feeling they are on a cliff edge, the choice being either to stay put or jump off. ...

And the Leave campaign doesn't leave you with the same feeling? ... Really?

If you are genuinely unsure or still confused about which way to vote, or know people who are, this explanation by a law professor from Liverpool University which came my way today might help.

Four warnings, by the way.
1. It's twenty five minutes long.
2. It's not in legalese. He's easy to understand and to listen to.
4. He knows what he's talking about, and
4. It is measured, dispassionate and lacking in polemic but it is no comfort to anyone who might be inclined or even tempted to vote leave.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

The Remain Campaign has left many feeling they are on a cliff edge, the choice being either to stay put or jump off.

In some ways though, this is an apt analogy. If Remain win, I expect things to mostly stay as they are.

A vote for Leave is not for a specific plan - it's a statement of intent which is at the mercy of whoever emerges after a Leave vote to choose to carry out in whatever way they feel fit and can get away with. Complicated by the fact that a lot of the main contenders ideas are contradictory and/or impractical.

I've seen the video Enoch posted above - I thought it was worth watching, and goes some way towards expanding on some of the statements made earlier in the thread about the difficulty of getting trade agreements. On the other hand, we now in a weird post fact zone where politicians like Gove urge people to ignore experts and create a reality in their own hearts.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Nigel Farage's "immigration isn't working" poster has apparently caused Baroness Warsi to switch sides.

It's a bit odd that leading politicians should be changing their minds at this late stage, but perhaps an indication that they are starting to see being associated with Farage's brand of increasingly visible nastiness as too much of a liability?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's a bit odd that leading politicians should be changing their minds at this late stage, but perhaps an indication that they are starting to see being associated with Farage's brand of increasingly visible nastiness as too much of a liability?

Given that we know that some of the leavers (Boris) have adopted that position purely out of political expediency, it shouldn't surprise us that some jump ship for the same reason.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nigel Farage's "immigration isn't working" poster has apparently caused Baroness Warsi to switch sides.

It's a bit odd that leading politicians should be changing their minds at this late stage, but perhaps an indication that they are starting to see being associated with Farage's brand of increasingly visible nastiness as too much of a liability?

although, as usual with Baroness Warsi, this may also end up with her looking like an opportunistic grandstander.

The BBC were reporting this morning that there is "genuine bemusement" in the Leave camp as they didn't know she was part of them to start with. She's also just had a rough ride on the Today Programme from Sarah Montague.

I'm not voting Leave, but I also usually tend to think that anything Baroness Warsi says or does should be given a stiff ignoring!

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
If Remain win, I expect things to mostly stay as they are.

Although worth noting that things mostly staying as they are isn't on the ballot paper.

One of the big problems with this whole sorry referendum is that it's asking people to take a 40-50 year plus view of two unknowable futures and decide between them. Whichever way the vote goes, things won't be staying the same.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Worth listening to. A Eurosceptic leaves "Leave" because of lies and xenophobia.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Although worth noting that things mostly staying as they are isn't on the ballot paper.

One of the big problems with this whole sorry referendum is that it's asking people to take a 40-50 year plus view of two unknowable futures and decide between them. Whichever way the vote goes, things won't be staying the same.

Up to a point. After all, one could see 'Remain' as a placeholder for deferring the decision to a later time, rather than purely a decision to 'Remain'.

Though there is a greater sense in which your first sentence is true - namely that the campaign itself has significantly changed the political landscape. To what end is unclear at this time.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Up to a point. After all, one could see 'Remain' as a placeholder for deferring the decision to a later time, rather than purely a decision to 'Remain'.

Unfortunately I fear that is the truth. It isn't a "once in a lifetime vote", the chances of Farage sitting down and shutting up after a Remain vote are negligible.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

What is the reason for restricting migration across borders, but allowing free movement of capital?

Money is a form of token - it is something earned from somebody's work, and if it is not going to dissolve away it will be put to further work* within that community. If you allow the freedom of capital but not labour, you connive with the disadvantaging of the "protected" community.

(Lovers of close reading will spot that this phrase has two meanings)

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately I fear that is the truth. It isn't a "once in a lifetime vote", the chances of Farage sitting down and shutting up after a Remain vote are negligible.

Yes this too is true. However, I meant it more from the perspective that a Remain vote wasn't necessarily a vote for an absolute and unconditional devotion to the EU in all possible circumstances, and a reluctant Remain vote can be driven by an aversion to risk.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The timing and content of the self-defending pronouncements today by Nigel Farage provide an accurate picture of his uselessness. He didn't even have the sense to keep his head down in view of the special session of the House of Commons.

[ 20. June 2016, 13:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

It's now in the news that Nissan are suing the official Vote Leave campaign for unauthorised use of the Nissan logo on various leaflets etc.

This is an interesting twist isn't it? A bit like the Conservative party battle bus expenses, but with an even bigger prize.

Everyone has accused everyone else of lying, but what it either official campaign gets had up in court, either before or after the referendum? Of course, it seems likely to be after the referendum by now.

Next thing you know, the losing side will be contesting the legality of the result in court as well, and it'll be fifty years before the case is decided as to whether the referendum was ever legal in the first place.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It's at times like this that I wish I hadn't given up litigation some 15+ years ago.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I saw the headline 'Boris: Vote Leave and Build the Future', and I thought of another one, 'Boris: Vote Leave and Help Boris'.

The really idiotic one is 'vote leave and take control'. This is so bizarre, I can't believe that anybody believes it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Indeed. From my church experience, the noun "control" is like one of those irregular verbs: good when the speaker is seeking to exercise it, downright evil if anyone else attempts it. In this instance it means "handing control to people who can't even agree on what happens on Brexit Day +1".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Late in the day, but I changed the thread title to help newcomers and occasional visitors.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think many small c conservatives will vote Remain out of a fear of change, and many folk on the left and in the centre will do so as a way of rejecting racism and extremism.

Brexit is likely to appeal most to those who have relatively little to lose. Most British people are not in that position, no matter how they might feel about Brussels, or the changing demographics of their town.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The timing and content of the self-defending pronouncements today by Nigel Farage provide an accurate picture of his uselessness. He didn't even have the sense to keep his head down in view of the special session of the House of Commons.

Not one of the Leave Camp's better days.
The only twig to cling to today was someone's idea to set a Facebook page to campaign for the George Medal being awarded to the pensioner who tried to save Mrs Cox from her attacker.

This Referendum has become far removed from an EU participation issue. In many ways it feels like a struggle for the soul of Britain. Remain might think this thing is in the bag after the last few days. Yet still no-one is entirely sure as to what extent the Electorate will back the 'we know best' line consistently pedalled by the Establishment. An Establishment that seems blissfully unaware that it not held in the esteem it once was.

Posted by Khuratokh2312 (# 17634) on :

Anyone seen question time? Cameron held his own reasonably well, I thought. Especially against the "Europe wants Turkey to join tomorrow" the £350 million, and "the millions are going to cross the English border" lies.
"If we're going to leave, let it be for a legitimate reason. Not some made up nonsense"
Or words to that effect.

Unfortunately, he also dropped the ball by again standing by his words that ISIS will cheer if the UK leaves.
And seeing no problem with staying on as PM if the remain campaign fails.
In fact. There's noone better to lead the country if that were to happen.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The timing and content of the self-defending pronouncements today by Nigel Farage provide an accurate picture of his uselessness. He didn't even have the sense to keep his head down in view of the special session of the House of Commons.
Not one of the Leave Camp's better days.
The only twig to cling to today was someone's idea to set a Facebook page to campaign for the George Medal being awarded to the pensioner who tried to save Mrs Cox from her attacker.

This Referendum has become far removed from an EU participation issue. In many ways it feels like a struggle for the soul of Britain. Remain might think this thing is in the bag after the last few days. Yet still no-one is entirely sure as to what extent the Electorate will back the 'we know best' line consistently pedalled by the Establishment. An Establishment that seems blissfully unaware that it not held in the esteem it once was.

In what way is, to take a random example, Boris Johnson not 'the establishment' !?!

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The timing and content of the self-defending pronouncements today by Nigel Farage provide an accurate picture of his uselessness. He didn't even have the sense to keep his head down in view of the special session of the House of Commons.
Not one of the Leave Camp's better days.
The only twig to cling to today was someone's idea to set a Facebook page to campaign for the George Medal being awarded to the pensioner who tried to save Mrs Cox from her attacker.

Also, the Jo Cox fund has now passed one million pounds.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I note that Gove has distanced himself from the Farage poster. The impression remains that the more "established" members of the Brexit coalition have, up to now, been quite content with Farage mobilising the rancid support to increase the Leave vote.

Well, I guess they are stuck with that embarrassment to the bitter end. They deserve it.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Indeed. From my church experience, the noun "control" is like one of those irregular verbs: good when the speaker is seeking to exercise it, downright evil if anyone else attempts it. In this instance it means "handing control to people who can't even agree on what happens on Brexit Day +1".

Last night I 'listened again' to the 'Vote Now Show' which was broadcast on Radio 4 on Sunday evening. It wasn't really that funny, but the bit where they put together the 38 times that Goe had used the word 'control' in one interview was amusing!

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I note that Gove has distanced himself from the Farage poster. The impression remains that the more "established" members of the Brexit coalition have, up to now, been quite content with Farage mobilising the rancid support to increase the Leave vote.

Well, I guess they are stuck with that embarrassment to the bitter end. They deserve it.

Thing is that Leave is an unhealthy coalition of a range of views, so it was hard to argue that Gove and Farage were ever really on the same team.

Gove is an unpleasant opportunistic politician, but Farage is way off the scale.

[ 21. June 2016, 06:46: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, the Jo Cox fund has now passed one million pounds.

It was always going to hit the Diana button.
One might hope that the money raised can go to alleviate a some of the suffering caused in the Mid-East by the worst foreign policy decision Britain has made in it's recent history.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Khuratokh2312:
....And seeing no problem with staying on as PM if the remain campaign fails.
In fact. There's none better to lead the country if that were to happen.

Darn right.
Let him put his back to the plough and sort out the mess his politicking caused if Leave win it. I don't suspect many who vote leave on Thursday want either farage or johnson anywhere near the top job.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

One of my granddaughters sent me this link to a talk by Prof Michael Dougan, an expert in EU law explaining why he is voting remain. It's about 25 minutes and very interesting.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Does anyone know when the first results from the referendum will be announced or how long it might be after the polls close before a progress report is likely?

Huia

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think the pundits are starting on the tv 5 minutes before the polls close - I would expect we'll get the result by the begining of the working day Friday - they usually manage that for the general election and in some ways the count should be a lot simpler.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There will be 382 local centres around the UK counting votes. Each will announce their totals as soon as they've finished counting and checking. So, we should get the usual trickle of results in from about midnight, with probably the majority coming in between 2am and 4am. There will be a few centres that will take longer to count, so we may still be awaiting a couple of counts during Friday morning, but I would be surprised if the result isn't effectively certain by about 4am.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There will be 382 local centres around the UK counting votes. Each will announce their totals as soon as they've finished counting and checking. So, we should get the usual trickle of results in from about midnight, with probably the majority coming in between 2am and 4am. There will be a few centres that will take longer to count, so we may still be awaiting a couple of counts during Friday morning, but I would be surprised if the result isn't effectively certain by about 4am.

Fascinating/Boring (delete as applicable)
parliament briefing note infers that it's also being collated into 11 regional results. Not sure what the point of that is if all the parts of those 11 regions are doing a declaration themselves.

It also points out that if it's very close, as was the Welsh devolution vote, it could go down to the very last constituency to declare.

It's going to be a pretty interesting night...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
parliament briefing note infers that it's also being collated into 11 regional results. Not sure what the point of that is

It saves someone the small amount of effort to determine whether one or more regions vote in a direction significantly different from the rest of the UK. Simple ammunition for those who might want to exploit such a difference in a claim for independence from the rest of the UK.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
parliament briefing note infers that it's also being collated into 11 regional results. Not sure what the point of that is
It saves someone the small amount of effort to determine whether one or more regions vote in a direction significantly different from the rest of the UK. Simple ammunition for those who might want to exploit such a difference in a claim for independence from the rest of the UK.

Round here you'd get chopped in half for trying that anyway - "The North West" count is in Manchester - they're going for the "Northern Powerhouse" thing with Leeds etc, whereas Merseyside are going for an elected mayor and some unified authority type thing with a number of neighbouring boroughs.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Interesting map:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-map-poll-live-latest-brexit-remain-leave-a7093886.html

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Having seen the sheer amount of outright nonsense (trying to put it politely) in this "campaign", my late breaking idea is that there should be a number of true/false questions on the ballot paper, concerning basic knowledge of the EU.

If you get the questions wrong, you don't get to vote in the core referendum question.

Perhaps a bit late in the day for that though...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It tells me that you can't settle a large number of complex issues with a yes/no question. That's why I think referendums are atrocious.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
[QB] It's now in the news that Nissan are suing the official Vote Leave campaign for unauthorised use of the Nissan logo on various leaflets etc.

This is an interesting twist isn't it? A bit like the Conservative party battle bus expenses, but with an even bigger prize.

I wonder how much of a case Nissan really has, given that they HAD previously expressed an opinion on Brexit. So, it could be argued that, having entered their company into the debate, use of their symbol is fair game.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
[QB] It's now in the news that Nissan are suing the official Vote Leave campaign for unauthorised use of the Nissan logo on various leaflets etc.

This is an interesting twist isn't it? A bit like the Conservative party battle bus expenses, but with an even bigger prize.
I wonder how much of a case Nissan really has, given that they HAD previously expressed an opinion on Brexit. So, it could be argued that, having entered their company into the debate, use of their symbol is fair game.

Don't know - the leaflet in question featured a number of other logos as well. The claim is actually that all the firms in question had said they would still be here after Brexit. Nissan appear to claim that they are not backing one side or the other as it's a matter for the voting public - which is a different angle.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
[QB] It's now in the news that Nissan are suing the official Vote Leave campaign for unauthorised use of the Nissan logo on various leaflets etc.

This is an interesting twist isn't it? A bit like the Conservative party battle bus expenses, but with an even bigger prize.
I wonder how much of a case Nissan really has, given that they HAD previously expressed an opinion on Brexit. So, it could be argued that, having entered their company into the debate, use of their symbol is fair game.
Don't know - the leaflet in question featured a number of other logos as well. The claim is actually that all the firms in question had said they would still be here after Brexit. Nissan appear to claim that they are not backing one side or the other as it's a matter for the voting public - which is a different angle.

Nissan have expressed an opinion

quote:
The global car manufacturer ... said that while this was ultimately a matter for the British people to decide, the company believed it made the most sense for jobs, trade and costs for the UK to stay within Europe.

I can quite see why they might be more than a bit miffed to find themselves listed among companies supporting a Brexit.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
[QB] It's now in the news that Nissan are suing the official Vote Leave campaign for unauthorised use of the Nissan logo on various leaflets etc.

This is an interesting twist isn't it? A bit like the Conservative party battle bus expenses, but with an even bigger prize.
I wonder how much of a case Nissan really has, given that they HAD previously expressed an opinion on Brexit. So, it could be argued that, having entered their company into the debate, use of their symbol is fair game.
Don't know - the leaflet in question featured a number of other logos as well. The claim is actually that all the firms in question had said they would still be here after Brexit. Nissan appear to claim that they are not backing one side or the other as it's a matter for the voting public - which is a different angle.
Nissan have expressed an opinion

quote:
The global car manufacturer ... said that while this was ultimately a matter for the British people to decide, the company believed it made the most sense for jobs, trade and costs for the UK to stay within Europe.
I can quite see why they might be more than a bit miffed to find themselves listed among companies supporting a Brexit.

According to Reuters, the pamphlet implied that Nissan had said they would stay in the UK, regardless of how the vote went. It doesn't appear that they said Nissan supported Brexit.

And it would seem that what Nissan is suing over is the use of their logo, not the alleged misrepresentation of their position. I'm just not sure they have a case on that, since logos get appropriated all the time for political usage.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
According to Reuters, the pamphlet implied that Nissan had said they would stay in the UK, regardless of how the vote went. It doesn't appear that they said Nissan supported Brexit. [/QB]

I suppose Nissan will be building their case on the observation that a lot of people don't read the pamphlets but just subconsciously take on board the message. And, if you don't read the details but see a bunch of corporate logo's under a "Vote Leave" caption then the message you're likely to take away is that those companies support the Vote Leave campaign.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Interesting comments from Jean-Claude Juncker as reported on the BBC.

We were speculating upthread what might happen after a Brexit vote given that most MPs are Remain. Well, according to Juncker that won't matter in the slightest what the HoC decides, if the vote is Out, then the rug will be pulled from the EU side.

No doubt Farage and the Brexiters think that Juncker is exaggerating. But that's quite a risk - if Boris and Farage end up being right and that EU in the end negotiate a better deal than (a) the UK had inside the EU and (b) than other European non-EU states like Norway have gotten, then he is going to look particularly stupid and arse-licky.

I suppose the question is who to believe; Boris and Farage or those who actually would be sitting across the table to negotiate a deal.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Interesting comments from Jean-Claude Juncker as reported on the BBC.

We were speculating upthread what might happen after a Brexit vote given that most MPs are Remain. Well, according to Juncker that won't matter in the slightest what the HoC decides, if the vote is Out, then the rug will be pulled from the EU side.

No doubt Farage and the Brexiters think that Juncker is exaggerating. But that's quite a risk - if Boris and Farage end up being right and that EU in the end negotiate a better deal than (a) the UK had inside the EU and (b) than other European non-EU states like Norway have gotten, then he is going to look particularly stupid and arse-licky.

I suppose the question is who to believe; Boris and Farage or those who actually would be sitting across the table to negotiate a deal.

IS that supposed to mean we're going to get expelled? How would it actually work in practice? We are supposed to invoke Article 50 at our convenience to announce our intention to leave - not get booted out. It's not clear when Cameron would do that assuming he would stay in charge.

Boris and Gove have suggested that in the UK they would table motions to revoke the European Community act of 1972 ASAP. Presumably if Boris displaces Dave, he'll be doing Article 50 ASAP as well....

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

My understanding was that Junkers was saying that an out vote will not lead to a new negotiation.

So the government couldn't go back, get a new deal, then put it to the country again.

Presumably this would play out as Cameron/Johnson going to the EU and saying 'please can we have a summit ?' And the EU saying 'no'.

Then the UK government either triggers article 50 or doesn't.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

IS that supposed to mean we're going to get expelled?

No, I assume it is a clumsy attempt to signal that the position that Leave sometimes seem to indicate is their strategy ("We will enter a new period of negotiation once in power") is not going to be viable.

I say clumsy, but I'd want to read the original language - given the press' track record, there is a good chance that its a distortion of something fairly reasonable.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Cameron does not need enabling legislation after a Leave vote. He has the authority to invoke Article 50. I think his previous pronouncement means he has to do that even if there is a majority of 1 vote in the referendum. It's not advisory to the House of Commons, it is mandatory on the Prime Minister.

I suppose Cameron could wriggle if it is a virtual dead heat. Or he could resign and a new PM could wriggle. But I think these are pretty theoretical possibilities.

I don't think Juncker is saying anything new and I do think the Leave campaign are playing their usual "you can't trust the EU" game. But given how knife edged all this is now, I doubt whether Cameron is very pleased with Juncker tonight.

[ 22. June 2016, 19:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It tells me that you can't settle a large number of complex issues with a yes/no question. That's why I think referendums are atrocious.

Referendums mean politicians can blame the Electorate whatever the outcome.
If The UK is plunged into another recession starting tomorrow at least this time the government can truthfully say the people have brought upon themselves. And for an Electorate disillusioned with politics that might just have the feel of refreshing, if only temporary, novelty about it.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I hope the polling goes peacefully. There are obviously strong emotions on both sides of the debate [Votive]

Huia

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Referendums mean politicians can blame the Electorate whatever the outcome.

It seems to me that the greater danger is that the politicians can spend the mandate they've been given in such a binary way in a wide variety of ways.

Whatever happens, getting on for 50% of people will have expressed dissatisfaction with the EU, but the stupidity of the referendum means that the real issues are hidden and instead it has been a campaign based on smoke-and-mirrors.

So if there is a Remain vote, does the British government have a mandate to sign up to TTIP? We can't tell, we weren't asked to vote directly on TTIP and it didn't feature significantly in the discussion.

Of course we could also say the reverse; if Leave win, approximately 50% of voters will have signalled that they're in favour of the things they like about the EU. But we don't know exactly what those things are - presumably they're not the corruption, the waste, the other dumb shit.

So if, as seems likely, we're left tomorrow with a very small majority in one direction or the other, then we (a) are not really any the wiser as to precisely what it is that the majority like or dislike about the EU and (b) we're going to have the baggage of a massive proportion of the voting public disagreeing with the majority view on this.

In a GE this would result in roughly equal parties in the HoC, of course. But uniquely in terms of a referendum, we're left with a final decision that lots of people are not going to like.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
we're going to have the baggage of a massive proportion of the voting public disagreeing with the majority view on this.

whatever the result, this is going to be the key thing here I think. That is going to present huge and new challenges whichever way the vote goes. Just reinforces the fact that things staying as they are isn't going to be what anyone gets.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
we're going to have the baggage of a massive proportion of the voting public disagreeing with the majority view on this.

whatever the result, this is going to be the key thing here I think. That is going to present huge and new challenges whichever way the vote goes. Just reinforces the fact that things staying as they are isn't going to be what anyone gets.

In fact, it strikes me that a narrow result either way is going to give governments ammunition to proceed in a direction that neither side wants, viz:

Narrow Leave - we leave, but the govt does its level best to keep as close to the EU as possible because nearly half the country want that - so the true believer Brexiters don't get what they want.

Narrow Remain - we stay, but with turbocharged Euroscepticism and a government (of any colour frankly) knowing that it can't afford to be a constructive engaging EU partner because half the country will be screaming blue murder every 10 seconds. So the Euro enthusiasts find themselves stuck in a country which is as Eurosceptic as ever, but this time with the numbers and overt divisions to prove it.

Not sure either future is going to be fun.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Of course the Scottish Independence result was close. Not living north of the Border, I cannot say what legacy of division that has left. North East Quine, can you shed any light on matters as they stand?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Generally it's not much different from before the Independence referendum. There's still a hard-core independence movement, who have been heartened by the level of support they got, but seem to be no more vocal than before the referendum was called. The majority of people are satisfied with some increased devolved powers, and are waiting to see how they work out. There has been a lot of speculation that Labour support for the "No" campaign contributed to their collapse in the general election here. But, then the SNP didn't wipe the floor with everyone else in the Scottish election earlier this year, and to the surprise of many even the Conservatives did fairly well. The relatively close referendum result hasn't radically changed Scotland.

The Independence referendum has, however, cast a largely unwanted shadow across the EU referendum debate here. Although Nicola Sturgeon has admitted to having a contingency plan in the event of a Brexit, and that the possibility of a second Independent referendum is in there, she has tried to avoid Independence on the campaign trail - not very successfully as the media keep asking the question, and the Remain campaign in England keeps on waving the "Brexit will break the Union 'cos the Scots will vote for Independence" banner. Plus, many of the Remain campaigners in Scotland have been trying to present the positive sides of EU membership, and been quite uncomfortable being on the same side as another "Project Fear" coming from down south.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I hope the polling goes peacefully. There are obviously strong emotions on both sides of the debate

Huia

Er, this is ENGLAND and it's not 1936.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I hope the polling goes peacefully. There are obviously strong emotions on both sides of the debate

Huia
Er, this is ENGLAND and it's not 1936.

Human nature has changed since? I'd say that's precisely why we need the union most. Wars between nations still happen, and on our doorstep too. Domestic unrest is not at all unlikely.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

I posted my vote weeks ago, and hope that all things, including the inertia vote, combine to keep us in.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I hope the polling goes peacefully. There are obviously strong emotions on both sides of the debate

Huia
Er, this is ENGLAND and it's not 1936.

I realise that Martin, I'm not thinking of jackboots marching down the street, but one woman has already lost her life for reasons that seem related to the referendum. When passions run high the unexpected can happen.

Huia

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Just for a bit of fun, an unnofficial Ship exit poll

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Well, polling day is here and the decision has to be made, so I'm going to set out my thoughts on the various issues at play. As this is a complex issue this will be a long post, but I think the decision is important enough to treat with respect. I’ll add a “tl;dr” at the end if you’d rather skip to that [Big Grin]

I’d like to start by thanking everyone here on the Ship for their conduct during the debate. This has been one of the most thoughtful and least reactionary discussions about the issue I’ve had, read or watched.

Sovereignty

I’m still convinced that being out of the EU would be better for UK democracy and sovereignty, and that British people should be able to decide things for themselves without having to consider what someone in France, Spain or Romania thinks about it. I realise that trade deals inevitably involve negotiated compromise with the other country, but we’d be able to negotiate our side of things on the basis of what’s best for Britain rather than what’s best for Europe as a whole. And no, the two are not the same thing!

I still firmly believe that smaller political entities are inherently better for democracy than bigger ones, for the simple reason that each vote is more important the fewer people there are voting. Even a perfectly democratic EU – which it is manifestly not – would be worse than an independent UK for this reason alone.

As an aside, I think those who argue that the UK is not democratic because of the House of Lords are missing a very big point. The Lords can only review and revise legislation, they cannot create it – and it follows (in theory!) that only policies that have been voted for in a general election will ever become law. This is in stark contrast to the EU where the unelected Commission proposes legislation and the elected parliament reviews and revises it. This lack of any ability for the elected part of the EU government to propose legislation breaks the link between the people and the laws that will govern them.

Set against these arguments is the fact of the UK’s opt-out rights, which mean we don’t have to go along with shit like Schengen or the Euro if we don’t want to. We wouldn’t get those rights back if we ever wanted to re-enter the EU.

The Economy

Everyone agrees that Brexit will cause an economic downturn, differing only on how severe and long-lasting it would be. It seems certain that prices would rise, due to both trade tariffs and a fallen pound. The way the markets have followed the polls (remain on top = pound up, leave on top = pound down) should give us all pause.

What’s left of our manufacturing sector certainly seems to benefit from EU membership, with companies like Nissan choosing the UK for their factories because of our unique combination of access to the EU market and speaking English (the international language of business). These factors also make us a natural bridge between the EU and the US/Canada/Australia, which is not to be sniffed at. If we left the EU it’s possible – though not certain – that these relationships would also end.

In the Higher Education sector – which is important to me for obvious reasons – funding from EU government, industry and charities makes up a respectable fraction of university income. EU students are something of a red herring as – at my university at least – there aren’t really enough of them to make a significant difference to the figures. EU academic staff, on the other hand, would be very sorely missed. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the ability to go on study or work years abroad is important to prospective students, and the majority of said exchanges are made possible by EU membership.

Immigration

I’m in favour of controlled immigration. Not no immigration, because that’s stupid and will never happen, but also not completely unrestricted immigration, even if it’s only from 27 other countries.

However. We are currently not part of the Schengen area, which means that while we cannot prevent EU citizens from coming here we can set up customs and passport checks to ensure that they’re not bringing anything here we don’t want (be it food, unquarantined animals or whatever), and to provide the required control over non-EU people who immigrate from other EU countries. And odd as it seems continued EU membership does seem to be the safest way to ensure that state of affairs continues.

Security

Let’s discount the whole “the EU is the only thing preventing European War” guff. There have been, and are, so many other factors at play in the world that to narrow them down to one thing like that is specious.

The police seem to like the EU arrest warrant system and the ability to share information about criminals across the whole continent. That obviously has to be set against the ability of said criminals to operate across the whole continent.

I think terrorism is another red herring, to be honest. It’s an issue that crosses national borders across the world, and will continue to be so. Nothing about the EU debate will change that.

The Campaigns

A pox on both their houses.

People I Give A Shit About

There have been rational, reasoned arguments on both sides of the debate. There has also been a whole load of shit on both sides of the debate.

Conclusion

It’s been a tough decision. Before the campaigns started I was pretty firmly in the leave camp, but once the arguments started being made (and the question was actually about to be answered) I quickly moved to “on the fence, but leaning towards leave”. That lean has become less and less pronounced as time has gone by, and at least part of that has been due to the excellent arguments being marshalled right here on this thread.

Ultimately, I have to go right back to the basics. A vote for Remain is a vote for the status quo, and a vote for leave is a vote for change. As an inherent conservative, for me that puts the onus on leave to demonstrate why their option would be better. And now, after all the arguments have been made, I can honestly say that I am not convinced that they have. Ergo, and with some reservations, I will be voting remain.

tl;dr

Lots of things to consider, some good for remain, some good for leave. Remain just outweighs leave in the final analysis.

And there you have it.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I have voted Remain

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I hope the polling goes peacefully. There are obviously strong emotions on both sides of the debate

Huia
Er, this is ENGLAND and it's not 1936.
I realise that Martin, I'm not thinking of jackboots marching down the street, but one woman has already lost her life for reasons that seem related to the referendum. When passions run high the unexpected can happen.

Huia

Indeed Huia. We are more socio-politically polarized than since the Poll Tax Riot of '89, Thatcher's nemesis, perhaps. There will always be lone nutters. I don't think they can be correlated with owt much. Energized by greater events may be. My money says nowt will happen anywhere, including after 07:30 tomorrow, regardless of the outcome.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Wow, Marvin, so much kudos. If only the whole debate could have been of that calibre. [Overused]

(And in a hostly response to Matt Black's post, if all you want to do is record your voting choice - rather than explain why - I suggest you do so on Alan's poll in the circus)

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I've done so.

Likewise, kudos to Marvin.

I voted Remain for the following reasons:

1. To avoid economic uncertainty and the risk of enjoying another recession so soon after the last one.

2. To protect our working rights.

3. Because, if I feel any allegiance to any polity beyond Phil 3:20, I feel primarily European, having grown up knowing largely nothing else other than the EU in various incarnations.

4. For my children, that they will continue to have the opportunities to live, work and travel with ease in the rest of the EU.

5. For the EU, to avoid destabilising it at a time of difficulty if not crisis over the combo of refugees and Eurozone problems: a Brexit could lead to the whole project unravelling, leading to instability on the continent and greater exposure to threats from eg: Russia (yes, I know there's NATO, but one can be threatened in more ways than just military...)

6. Because I can't stand Farage, Gove, IDS, and Johnson. Yes, I know one shouldn't vote according to personalities, but I can't ignore the fact that some of the more odious (IMO) individuals in British politics (and those on the continent too - Le Pen, Wilders, Petry, Pegida, etc) are pro-Brexit/ anti-EU.

7. Because I want there to be another layer of 'checks and balances' to Westminster and Whitehall (whatever the colour of the government of the day), including preventing the likes of Rupert Murdoch and big business having too much influence over them.

[ 23. June 2016, 10:35: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

The stock market is soaring away today, up almost 1.5% . Due to reporting rules on impartiality, the BBC are apparently unable to comment on why that might be...

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Plus, when one drills down into the whole 'take back control/ we want our country back' slogan of the Brexiteers, it seems that 'their country' is England c. 1952 (presumably complete with rickets, polio, slums, etc), and it all begins to sound a bit like that Harry Enfield sketch "When life was simpler" and his various Miles Chomondley-Warner sketches, or Enid Blyton with lashings of ginger beer and no black people or nasty gays, where "Women know their limits".

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Who is Pegida?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Herewith

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

It's a German acronym for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (Patriotische Europaer Gegen der Islamierung des Abendlandes. I think).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Last time I looked the bookies' odds were 1/8 Remain, 3/1 Leave. Latest polls were narrowly in favour of Remain. Drinking coffee in a Newbury coffee bar. Pretty sure most of the staff are European migrant workers FWIW. Efficient and charming to boot. Hope the polls and bookies have it right.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The stock market is soaring away today, up almost 1.5% . Due to reporting rules on impartiality, the BBC are apparently unable to comment on why that might be...

And gilts (Treasury bonds) and commodities (except oil) are down. Aren't they the traditional refuge when times are tough?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Remain, partly because I like working together. Farage often talks about how we have an NHS not an I(nter...)HS but imagine if we had just the American money with British outcome/$. That would already mean Europe's is already covered adequately before it's even put a penny in... (which leaves a heck of a lot of free cash for providing nearer French services and helping the wider world.

But also, I have to deal with H&S red tape, I don't want it doubled unnecessarily (or our customers to have to chose). If it commits to shadow Europe, then why bother. And if it's cut, most of it's there for a reason, it's not perfect and never will be.

And partly...

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Last time I looked the bookies' odds were 1/8 Remain, 3/1 Leave. Latest polls were narrowly in favour of Remain. Drinking coffee in a Newbury coffee bar. Pretty sure most of the staff are European migrant workers FWIW. Efficient and charming to boot. Hope the polls and bookies have it right.

I rather suspect it may all be eyewateringly close, and no one's going to be satisfied in the morning.

(Edited at poster's request - B62)

[ 23. June 2016, 16:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

(content deleted at poster's request)

Head. Desk.

[ 23. June 2016, 16:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

I rather suspect it may all be eyewateringly close, and no one's going to be satisfied in the morning.

I've already guessed at what I think will happen next; but it seems likely to me that there will be a lot of upset people tomorrow if the vote is close to 50:50.

Remainers have said to me that they're planning large protest rallies if things don't go their way, and I don't even want to think what might happen if Farage and his shower lose.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I’d like to start by thanking everyone here on the Ship for their conduct during the debate. This has been one of the most thoughtful and least reactionary discussions about the issue I’ve had, read or watched.

I'll echo that. Purgatory, our place for serious discussion, has lived up to it's billing once again.

And, I'll also like to join in the appreciation for the long post (which I read). Even though our basic principles are different, and there were points there I would disagree on, it was a very well written and thoughtful explanation of your position.

I agree entirely on your assessment of the campaigns. The official campaigns, on both sides, have been shite and a disgrace on the country. If, as a nation, we can't pick up the quality of political discourse then whichever way the count comes out we're screwed.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

It's been heated here which isn't surprising but compared to social media, the papers and performances by our alleged leaders it has been a model of decorum.

Purgatory has done its job, aided in no small measure by Hell.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Oh, I think it will be closish to 50/50 and I think there will be a lot of 'we wuz robbed' by whoever loses.

On Newbury High Street, my wife and I just tried to help a very nice Remain official supporter and leafleter who was being verbally attacked - with aggressive gestures - by a female Leaver. She was going on something alarming about how we were all being robbed blind by the EU.

Our attempts to calm her down were partially successful. She turned away from the official Remainer and we got the flak. We turned our backs and she pursued us, ranting on. Until I asked her, politely, to leave us alone and observed that her public display wasn't exactly helping her case.

I hope it was just an isolated example.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I know what it is Matt, you included it in your list of individuals.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have voted Remain

Me too

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
with some reservations, I will be voting remain.

Hooray!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I know what it is Matt, you included it in your list of individuals.

Yes, because it's composed of individuals.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Unlike the other individuals in your list of individuals.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

And Pegida UK is a thing, also composed of individuals. (I won't link, probably marginal NSFW and just generally fairly awful).

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I'm saying the individuals in Pegida are unsavoury. Why are you finding this difficult to understand, Martin?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I’d like to start by thanking everyone here on the Ship for their conduct during the debate. This has been one of the most thoughtful and least reactionary discussions about the issue I’ve had, read or watched.
I'll echo that. Purgatory, our place for serious discussion, has lived up to it's billing once again.

And, I'll also like to join in the appreciation for the long post (which I read). Even though our basic principles are different, and there were points there I would disagree on, it was a very well written and thoughtful explanation of your position.

I agree entirely on your assessment of the campaigns. The official campaigns, on both sides, have been shite and a disgrace on the country. If, as a nation, we can't pick up the quality of political discourse then whichever way the count comes out we're screwed.

Yes, I agree too. I've been telling people what a serious, sensible, very interesting thread this has been.

*******
It is difficult to understand how people can vote leave because of the way the campaign has been conducted - a view I have heard quite often expressed.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

It is difficult to understand how people can vote leave because of the way the campaign has been conducted - a view I have heard quite often expressed.

Most people I know personally have been remain supporters. The two or three leave supporters I know have found themselves supporting a leave vote despite the campaign, rather than because of it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Maybe I live a sheltered life but I don't lknow anyone (IRL) who isn't a remainer.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

It is difficult to understand how people can vote leave because of the way the campaign has been conducted - a view I have heard quite often expressed.
Most people I know personally have been remain supporters. The two or three leave supporters I know have found themselves supporting a leave vote despite the campaign, rather than because of it.

Ah, yes, I see my words were ambibuous! I meant to say they are voting to leave because of the manner in which the campaign has, in their opinion, been conducted. How they can think that that is a serious, considered reason to vote on such an important event, I just don't know. If people want to vote leave, at least do it having considered all the issues, including history, the future for the young, etc. etc.

[ 23. June 2016, 15:30: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I can also understand someone who considers both campaigns to have been awful not voting at all (though IMO the thought of anyone not voting is abhorrent, even more so than the campaigns have been).

I can understand someone who consider the Remain campaign to have worse than the Leave campaign voting Leave accordingly. Though it seems difficult for me to square that circle as IMO the Leave campaign have been the worst of the two.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've already guessed at what I think will happen next; but it seems likely to me that there will be a lot of upset people tomorrow if the vote is close to 50:50.

Regardless of the margin or the outcome, this will have served to cause unnecessary strife.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
with some reservations, I will be voting remain.
Hooray!

I dare you to cheer me, sir. It's a sacrifice of political principle on the altar of economic expediency and a condemnation of the small-minded leave campaign, not a change of opinion. All I'm saying is that at this time, after this campaign, I'm not convinced that leave is the best option. Were the question to be asked again and a more thoughtful and convincing leave campaign run then I would almost certainly vote for it.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I can also understand someone who considers both campaigns to have been awful not voting at all (though IMO the thought of anyone not voting is abhorrent, even more so than the campaigns have been).

I agree.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regardless of the margin or the outcome, this will have served to cause unnecessary strife.

Oh yes, absolutely. Of course the complicating factor here compared to a General Election is that the main players making arguments in the Leave camp are under no obligation to ensure that they're fulfilled. Unlike, to some extent, a government elected on a particular manifesto.

So all that bollocks about extra money for the NHS, sustaining payments for farmers and fishermen post-Brexit - is just aspirational electioneering. Nobody can hold Farage to it because he's not even an MP, never mind in government.

Now, it seems to me that there might be a decent argument in there for Brexit, and it might have been fair enough for a political party to develop a reasoned and reasonable argument over the years in the same way Plaid Cymru and the SNP have.

But the well has been totally shat in by the presence of UKIP and the Tory hard-line Brexiters who have pushed Cameron into making this rash promise to have a referendum and then have set the agenda - talking about migration, refugees and the NHS rather than (arguably more relevant) the EU spending, waste, corruption, etc.

I'm not saying I'd have voted Brexit if we'd had that kind of longer-term discussion, but it would at least have been relevant rather than racist.

As it is, the discussion has been dominated by different groups of Tories basically saying "trust me" vs "no no, trust me", and frankly I don't trust any of them.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

And nobody on the 'Remain' side dare be too enthusiastic about Europe - look what happened to the Lib Dems.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

It is difficult to understand how people can vote leave because of the way the campaign has been conducted - a view I have heard quite often expressed.
Most people I know personally have been remain supporters. The two or three leave supporters I know have found themselves supporting a leave vote despite the campaign, rather than because of it.
Ah, yes, I see my words were ambibuous! I meant to say they are voting to leave because of the manner in which the campaign has, in their opinion, been conducted. How they can think that that is a serious, considered reason to vote on such an important event, I just don't know. If people want to vote leave, at least do it having considered all the issues, including history, the future for the young, etc. etc.

I'm not a natural Guardian reader by any means, but I think John Harris has nailed that point in his article today. If people feel that they have been patronised and talked down to then after a while they stop listening to facts, don't trust the people speaking, and voting the way opposite to what they feel they're being force fed for their own good becomes not just a possibility, but an attractive option.

Leave's campaign has been ludicrously mishandled (honourable exception for last week's Spectator editorial, which IMO finally made the upbeat, positive case for a Leave vote on the basis of internationalism and turning away from "Little Europeanism"*), but too often Remain have been (again, IMO) supercilious, sneering, and treating the vote like something with only one obvious answer.

Which is an issue when, in certain parts of the country, you're trying to win people over to your view and aren't preaching to the converted.**

To that extent it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that's there's been two-way traffic between the camps.

*one might disagree with it, but *that* is the argument Leave should have been making from the
start!

**something both sides have been guilty of to be fair.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I dare you to cheer me, sir.

I'll see your cheer and add a [Overused]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I voted OUT. But, if the Brexit campaign wins, I will NOT be rejoicing. Either way we are in for a very long haul of change and uncertainty. My position is akin to the parable: " Three men were marooned on a desert island. Destiny came down and said; " What would you do if you knew the island would be overwhelmed by a tidal wave tomorrow?" One said; " I would call my friends together and eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die". The second said; " I would retire to a sacred grove and say prayers and prepare myself for eternity". The third said; " I would call my wisest men together and study how to live under water".
Thats my position.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Contrary to what others said above, the Guardian is saying the referendum is not legally binding and parliament could still not ratify the result.

Fun fun fun.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I think that is correct.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Contrary to what others said above, the Guardian is saying the referendum is not legally binding and parliament could still not ratify the result.

Fun fun fun.

Yeah! Yet another way this whole thing is fucked, regardless of outcome.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I am heading to the polling station in a moment to vote Leave, somewhat reluctantly.
Judging by the number of vote Remains on here and the fact that exit pollsters are already predicting a Remain win, at least I shan't be held responsible for WW3 [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Exit polls at the moment shouldn't be predicting anything (if there's a chance that letting the results of our wee poll here be known was illegal, actual polls conducted on representative samples of people exiting the polling station would certainly not be allowed).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think technically they're not exit polls because they ended before the poll began this morning. But I'd not hold out much truth in those, the difference between Leave and Remain seems to be within the margin of error for the most recent results.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course the complicating factor here compared to a General Election is that the main players making arguments in the Leave camp are under no obligation to ensure that they're fulfilled.

And they've generally been the ones behind the raping of the NHS, the widening of the wealth gap, etc. So why on earth would they strengthen them when there is less pressure?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And they've generally been the ones behind the raping of the NHS, the widening of the wealth gap, etc. So why on earth would they strengthen them when there is less pressure?

They wouldn't, of course. And this is also why this crocodile tears over Jo Cox is so insidious.

If Cameron and his cronies loved her so much in life, maybe they should have actually listened to her on refugees. Etc and so on.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Contrary to what others said above, the Guardian is saying the referendum is not legally binding and parliament could still not ratify the result.

Fun fun fun.

If that's the caee, maybe Cameron could get more concessions (let's face it, those made so far were pathetic - maybe the EU should stop being arrogant and reform iself) and we could stay in.

[ 23. June 2016, 18:26: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm saying the individuals in Pegida are unsavoury. Why are you finding this difficult to understand, Martin?

Where and how are you saying that here Matt?:

"6. Because I can't stand Farage, Gove, IDS, and Johnson. Yes, I know one shouldn't vote according to personalities, but I can't ignore the fact that some of the more odious (IMO) individuals in British politics (and those on the continent too - Le Pen, Wilders, Petry, Pegida, etc) are pro-Brexit/ anti-EU."

[ 23. June 2016, 18:29: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
with some reservations, I will be voting remain.
Hooray!
I dare you to cheer me, sir. It's a sacrifice of political principle on the altar of economic expediency and a condemnation of the small-minded leave campaign, not a change of opinion. All I'm saying is that at this time, after this campaign, I'm not convinced that leave is the best option. Were the question to be asked again and a more thoughtful and convincing leave campaign run then I would almost certainly vote for it.

I don't dare cheer - simply I admire your post where you spelt out your thinking.

I am by no means as pro-remain, and I wasn't last time I voted IN back in the 1970s, as those whose minds are made up without weighing things up.

You weighed things up - that is good.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What's to weigh up? Infinite facts on either side. Or disposition? Off to vote stay with me missus. The only 2 in the vill-edge.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
with some reservations, I will be voting remain.
Hooray!
I dare you to cheer me, sir. It's a sacrifice of political principle on the altar of economic expediency and a condemnation of the small-minded leave campaign, not a change of opinion. All I'm saying is that at this time, after this campaign, I'm not convinced that leave is the best option. Were the question to be asked again and a more thoughtful and convincing leave campaign run then I would almost certainly vote for it.
I don't dare cheer - simply I admire your post where you spelt out your thinking.

I am by no means as pro-remain, and I wasn't last time I voted IN back in the 1970s, as those whose minds are made up without weighing things up.

You weighed things up - that is good.

To elucidate - many of your posts annoy the hell out of me and I am sure that the feeling is mutual.

But I've met you - you come from a very different position - and it is interesting to see how people shift as a result of contacts with others.

[ 23. June 2016, 19:27: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Me, the missus, her sister & BIL and my mate Steve & his missus! We're on a roll!! He told his conservative evangelical Leave son that he'll be the first one he sacks if the pound drops 20%.

And he plays be Corleone rules.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

As an American I have nothing to contribute to this debate, but I do want to share this:

The Onion's take on Brexit

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Several sources reporting Farage as "conceding"...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

No official exit poll this time - reckoned not to be "safe". But I think there may have been a number of private exit polls and these may have influenced the strong market movement. Yougov's on the day poll is showing 52-48 Remain. A number of late polls were showing moves towards Remain. So the early signs are that Remain will get home.

But Farage's concession is premature. I guess he gut-feels, deep down, that that stupid fascist poster and Jo Cox's shocking death will have put sufficient people off to make a difference. I hope his gut feel is right but I'll believe it when I see it.

I remember an episode of "The West Wing" where Toby Zeigler banned any celebratory drinks until the votes were in. The reason? "Don't tempt fate"! Pretty much where I'm at tonight.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Turnout is looking very high, which was always thought to be what the Remain campaign needed. I am keeping everything crossed though - its still all rumour and speculation at this point.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Don't think Remain wanted 'very high'. Moderate would had done better. A high turnout from council estates could yet be mr. C's undoinging.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Several sources reporting Farage as "conceding"...

He's unconceded again.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I remember an episode of "The West Wing" where Toby Zeigler banned any celebratory drinks until the votes were in. The reason? "Don't tempt fate"! Pretty much where I'm at tonight.

One of my most entrenched political memories is of Neil Kinnock, a few days before the 1992 election, addressing a large, cheering crowd somewhere. Presumably having just mentioned the Labour-friendly polls, he was doing that victory-salute, popular at the time, where you hold your arm upside-down and extended away from your body, and then jerk it repeatedly toward yourself while making a fist. He was bellowing...

ALRIIIIGHT!!

ALRIIIIGHT!!

ALRIIIIGHT!!

I guess he figured the forthcoming electoral outcome would redeem his lapse into frantic goofiness. The news reports made a point of showing that clip after the votes were counted.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

The polls are predicting that Newcastle will predict the national vote.
The polls are predicting 60% to remain in Newcastle.
If they've got the second bit wrong, can we trust the first?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Newcastle and Sunderland gone against predictions in favour of Leave.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Newcastle voted to remain, just - 50.7% remain, 49.3% leave, according to the BBC.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Newcastle and Sunderland gone against predictions in favour of Leave.

Prediction in Newcastle based on university students voting there. Most students are already home for the holidays, so not surprising the predictions are wrong.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Looking very good for Leave right now.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There are muttering of a Leave victory. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

More than mutterings. The Leave vote has come in stronger than expected everywhere. If it continues it will be 55 Leave 45 Remain, despite Remain being ahead right now.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm not a currency speculator but the Cdn $ is up by 6% againg the UK £ just now.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Farage dares to dream, with leave half a million votes ahead. Sterling however, has a nightmare, going to lowest level since 2009.....

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

The thunderous crack is the sound of a resentful country shooting itself in the foot.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I've just woken up at 0430 and things aren't looking good for Remain.

Judging by the overnight markets, if Leave end up winning then sterling is going to drop through the floor on Friday.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

BBC now forecasting that Leave have won. And, far from traditional Labour areas following the party lead, it looks very much as though the old Labour heartlands have voted Leave.

Batten down the hatches. It's going to be a rough ride and not just in the markets. I think Thunderbunk has it right. And Cameron's luck has run out.

Part 1 of the Perfect Storm. It appears to be the year of the men with funny hair. God help the world if we get Part 2.

But I bet Vladimir Putin is laughing his socks off. Who stands to gain most from Europe becoming a pigs breakfast and the US going isolationist? He's got Part 1 for sure.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Just checked the market news. It looks as though 2008 might be a picnic by comparison. Not a surprise really.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Instant recession together with a constitutional crisis. Marvellous.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Looks like the casual xenophobia on which the Leave camp but more especially UKIP campaigned, has carried the day. I hope the deprived areas like the South Wales valleys which have all voted to Leave will get by OK without the EU funding, because they aren't going to get anything from Gove, Boris, IDS and co to make up for it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm still going with a Cameron resignation followed by a General Election. He can't survive a Black Friday, surely

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The thunderous crack is the sound of a resentful country shooting itself in the foot.

And not having the NHS to tend to it.
How can people be so stupid?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

To cap it all, some are now saying that Cameron can trigger the Article 50 process by Royal Prerogative.

Which isn't what they were saying yesterday.

What's the bets that nobody else knows what the hell the constitutional situation is?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Is it time to start the 2nd Scottish independence referendum thread yet?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

A shameful day.
A day motivated by fear of The Other.
A country riven.
A union torn.

We're going over the edge of the abyss, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

We should all hold hands and sing kumbya.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Welcome to Stupidland. We'd help you but we haven't really figured out how to navigate it ourselves.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

mr cheesy you have it in one. Both posts. The coming monster Bear market will throw an enormous X factor into all political and economic issues.

Independence Day? Don't make me laugh. The sovereignty myth is about to come home to roost. Where is my 'Don't blame me, I voted Remain' car sticker?

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

This is bad. This is so very bad, I can hardly believe it. Harder to believe in places like here, where the campaigning scarcely touched us, where no posters littered our streets, and so where and we could not really believe people would be so short sighted. Off to open the church for prayer.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

So the voting country disagreed with me. Ho hum; it's not the first time. Let's just get on with it and make sure that the disadvantaged aren't disadvantaged even more. But that's a separate topic for discussion.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
So the voting country disagreed with me. Ho hum; it's not the first time.

It isn't that they disagreed, it is that it was from ignorance and fear and those will not dissapate with these results.

quote:

Let's just get on with it and make sure that the disadvantaged aren't disadvantaged even more. But that's a separate topic for discussion.

Good luck with that. Those who will now feel they have a mandate have no interest in helping any disadvantaged.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Suggestions are that EU leaders will push the UK to leave quickly.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

Well, if I were in the UK right now it would be my birthday today. Last year on my birthday both my husband's grandparents died and I had the final appointment of a root canal done (and handed over nearly a thousand dollars for the pleasure). This is, obviously, worse.

So yeah, from the other side of the world, I am so, so, sorry. I'm also really conflicted and confused as to why I feel this way. One the one hand, I am technically a British citizen, despite not being born there or ever having resided there for longer than a few months at a stretch. On the other hand, I certainly don't consider myself a British citizen on a day-to-day basis. My place is here. So I'm feeling like I also need to say sorry to Mousethief and all his compatriots for the shitstorm going down in their country right now, about which I have been content to shake my head and say, 'Well, they're all as mad as a sack of badgers'*, without really feeling anything at all about the whole thing.

And what does it feel like? I've been pondering that one. Here's what it feels like - and it won't transfer across any ponds. It's like watching the minutes of the clock ebb away, as we lose. To France. At a Rugby World Cup. Again. But in this case there's no 'in four year's time' to turn our eyes toward.

*Trump supporters

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Suggestions are that EU leaders will push the UK to leave quickly.

The process will be one of uncertainty, and uncertainty is bad for everyone. If the EU gets the process to be as fast as possible that reaches a conclusion that would be good for the EU. And, the EU holds all the cards, they could easily state terms and say "take it or leave it". That deal will be the best possible for the EU (which is also going to be weakened by Brexit). The UK is screwed anyway.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

What happens if Nissan win their court case, and some of the Leave literature is judged to have illegally and misleadingly used the Nissan logo? There would presumably be cases that could be made that some of the other prominent Leave campaign material was deliberately misleading (that number on the side of the bus for a start). If the electoral commission rules that some of the Leave literature was misleading, could they call the result void?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
So the voting country disagreed with me. Ho hum; it's not the first time. Let's just get on with it and make sure that the disadvantaged aren't disadvantaged even more. But that's a separate topic for discussion.

Aye The Rogue.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

How soon could the Scots press for another go? The EU-UK discussions will be complicated enough on their own.

Surely a negotiation between all three where the UK is leaving the EU, while Scotland tries to leave the UK and simultaneously tries to rejoin the EU would be completely impossible. Nobody would know who was asking for and getting what.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm still going with a Cameron resignation followed by a General Election. He can't survive a Black Friday, surely

I don't believe any PM has failed to judge the mood of the Country so spectacularly since Churchill lost the Post War General Election.

This is a political earthquake. Only Ed Milliband has so far managed to analyse this outcome correctly. Half way through the night when it became obvious Leave were out performing expectations he said --- This thing has been building for a very long time.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

this is a sad day indeed. That ghastly Farrage and his triumphalism. Yuk. However, I'm going to try not to think about it while I'm away, although I think it's going to be difficult. *deep sighs*

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

“They are ringing their bells now, before long they will be wringing their hands.”
Robert Walpole

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Looking at the response from 'EU Leaders' I'm left gobsmacked that they still "Just don't get it", as the children would say.

Vote Remain lined up a seemingly endless parade of the international great-and-good to speak in their support on the subject of the UK being in or out: the trouble was (is?) that the Great British Public has two natural reactions to being lectured on what they perceive to be their own domestic concerns by outsiders: (1) Resentment, and (2) A bloody-minded determination to do the exact opposite of whatever it is they're being exhorted to do.

Now Frau Merkel, Mr Juncker et al (or at least the Eurocrats who speak in their names) are at it again, threatening the collapse of the UK economy, etc, etc, etc. It seems they don't realise that Joe Bloggs is likely to interpret this as a dog-in-the-manger exercise in foot-stamping and pique that their earlier pronouncements didn't bring them the "correct" result.

Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of the Referendum is irrelevant: the electorate has made its choice and the EU would be wise if they just shut up and got on with the negotiations, rather than giving us a fine display of those (to Brits) unattractive and undemocratic tendencies which were likely a factor in the Leave campaign winning in the first place.

The financial markets will recover: and while they take their time a lower UK pound makes our exports more attractive to the wider world beyond the EU - so hardly a downside.

The next POTUS won't talk to the UK? Well, if that POTUS is D Trump (as isn't beyond the realms of possibility) is that really going to be such a bad thing?

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

And already the promises start to break. They won't be spending an extra £350 million a week on the NHS after all. Quelle surprise!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Fear not SusanDoris. All glory is fleeting.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Having watched the coverage all day, I find myself genuinely gobsmacked by what I have seen and heard. I really didn't see this coming. I expected it to be close, but ultimately with a narrow win for Remain. It seemed inconceivable to me that the British would do this to themselves.

That said, from the little I saw while I was in London for a week during the campaign, the Remain camp underperformed significantly. It should've been relatively straightforward to counter the farrago of nonsense, bigotry and outright lies from Leave - and yet, Remain seemed to continually miss the trick.

An astonishing day - but not in any good way.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
How soon could the Scots press for another go?

In theory, the Scottish Government could put a bill to Holyrood almost immediately. But, that's not going to happen. The people of Scotland are voted out - we've had four elections in just over 18 months, that's the best part of 2 years of constant electioneering. It would also make sense to wait until the negotiating positions between the UK and the EU are defined (at present the Leave campaign have presented a bunch of mutually exclusive positions), at which point the markets will have settled a bit. Also, find out how long it will take for the exit negotiations to take - if it takes much more than 2 years then an Independence referendum prior to Brexit is possible, a two year process and it may be a case of a referendum after Brexit and then Scotland rejoining the EU.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of the Referendum is irrelevant: the electorate has made its choice and the EU would be wise if they just shut up and got on with the negotiations, rather than giving us a fine display of those (to Brits) unattractive and undemocratic tendencies which were likely a factor in the Leave campaign winning in the first place.

You are completely missing the point. Their comments are not directed at UK citizens; they don't want any other countries following suit.

It's the blithe disregard for how all this affects the rest of Europe that gets me the most.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Now Frau Merkel, Mr Juncker et al (or at least the Eurocrats who speak in their names) are at it again, threatening the collapse of the UK economy, etc, etc, etc. It seems they don't realise that Joe Bloggs is likely to interpret this as a dog-in-the-manger exercise in foot-stamping and pique that their earlier pronouncements didn't bring them the "correct" result.

The whole problem is that you can't negotiate or allow for stupid. Nobody thought that the British electorate was bloody-minded enough to vote in their own worst interests.

Anyway, I think the reality is that Juncker is not really talking to the British any more, his recent comments have been aimed at the leaders and people of the other EU countries. He can't afford to look weak and he doesn't want the contagion to spread.

quote:
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of the Referendum is irrelevant: the electorate has made its choice and the EU would be wise if they just shut up and got on with the negotiations, rather than giving us a fine display of those (to Brits) unattractive and undemocratic tendencies which were likely a factor in the Leave campaign winning in the first place.

I think they already have fired the starting gun on the "negotiations". Truth is: there will be no negotiating. The Brits will be shown the door by the EU and will be firmly told that they'll take what they're given. This whole notion that the UK can negotiate from a position of strength always looked like a lie, and in a situation with a sharp downturn cum instant recession that's even less ltrue.

quote:
The financial markets will recover: and while they take their time a lower UK pound makes our exports more attractive to the wider world beyond the EU - so hardly a downside.

The problem is volatility not the devaluing itself. Yes, British exports such as they are become cheaper - but then against that is the uncertainty, the political upheaval, the ongoing potential problems with the biggest export market and so on.

Saying that things will bounce quickly back is a statement of faith not fact. And one that looks to most experts I'm hearing as something that is impossible to predict.

quote:
The next POTUS won't talk to the UK? Well, if that POTUS is D Trump (as isn't beyond the realms of possibility) is that really going to be such a bad thing?

Lost for words..

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

The umpire raises his finger and the U.K. has to walk.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It's going to be a bloody process, I believe that leave won the vote on the immigration issue - it is difficult to see how the government can limit immigration without leaving the common market. I don't think the EU will let them stay without free movement of labour. But if we do that, then those voting leave on the basis of immigration will feel hugely betrayed.

If we leave the common market it is going to take some serious economic readjustment.

Also I am not clear how the fall in sterling is going to affect the cost of public debt.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It's going to be a bloody process, I believe that leave won the vote on the immigration issue - it is difficult to see how the government can limit immigration without leaving the common market. I don't think the EU will let them stay without free movement of labour. But if we do that, then those voting leave on the basis of immigration will feel hugely betrayed.

If we leave the common market it is going to take some serious economic readjustment.

Also I am not clear how the fall in sterling is going to affect the cost of public debt.

T'other side of it, is maybe the fish in the Westminster pond will wake up to the realities of life elsewhere in the country. I see people are blaming Corbyn for not being sufficiently pro-remain. Like we can't make up our minds without our politicians telling us what to think. They just don't get it....

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Terrible news.

The Boris, Nigels, Le Pens and Trumps are taking over the mad house [Frown]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Cameron has resigned - with effect from October.

Quite rightly - he caused this by calling the referendum.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Cameron to quit, but not before a new Tory leader is chosen. So that's going to be at least 3 months before the "negotiations" can even start.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Three months for the Leave campaign to destroy itself in a civil war over the competing and mutually exclusive promises they made. A lot of blood on the carpet before someone comes out in front as the defining vision for the UK outside the EU - and then many of those who voted to leave will feel betrayed because what they voted for won't be happening.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes, it seems an awfully long period of uncertainty to me, prior to invoking Article 50.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Anyone want to bet me now that there won't be a GE?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyone want to bet me now that there won't be a GE?

I still don't think so, based on my earlier view that it's spectacularly not in the interests of most Tory MPs, almost any Labour MPs, or the minority parties - and their votes will be needed to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

However, go on then, £10 (more) to ZANE (Zimbabwe - A National Emergency) if there's one this year.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I still don't think so, based on my earlier view that it's spectacularly not in the interests of most Tory MPs, almost any Labour MPs, or the minority parties - and their votes will be needed to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

As I said previously, I'm pretty sure repealing the Parliament Act isn't necessary.

To me the issue is that we now have a lame duck PM and this means negotiations simply cannot happen until there is a new Tory leader. Which can't be before October.

That's not going to be acceptable for many.

quote:
However, go on then, £10 (more) to ZANE (Zimbabwe - A National Emergency) if there's one this year.

OK well I don't bet money, so no. But it'll give me no pleasure if I'm right.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

So what actually happens now? What legitimate forum is there for hammering out how to translate the will of the people and approach Article 50 unless and until there is new political leadership in place?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

An appalling result.

As I've said before, the UK can't really expect much support from Commonwealth countries. Little consideration was given to them when the UK joined the EU. NZ in particular had severe problems after that, as did the Aust state of Tasmania. Since then the Commonwealth countries have realigned their economies as well as seek and retain other markets.

What Cameron should do is give the necessary notice to the EU, take whatever steps are now necessary to call an election, and announce that he will not be a candidate for any seat.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I go back to my earlier post: maybe now those people at the EU Commission and some prominent EU leaders will realise that there are some parts of the world - the UK one of them - where people like the notion of democracy being paid more than lip-service.

So they've been anxious not to bring about instability (in their eyes) in other EU countries, that is why they offered Cameron so little, that was why they then went on record saying that the little they were offering might not be given in any case, and that is why they were still talking tough this morning. Well, they've brought about Cameron's resignation...

My money is on Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart being put in charge of negotiations: neither is a pushover and Ms Stuart, in particular, won't be bamboozled.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So what actually happens now? What legitimate forum is there for hammering out how to translate the will of the people and approach Article 50 unless and until there is new political leadership in place?

Who knows.

One thing that crossed my mind is that when there were several constitutional crises in several different Commonwealth countries, the Crown - usually represented by the Governor General - stepped in.

That would be an amazing thing, but it wouldn't be totally unprecedented.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

What happens now is that 150,000 people elect our new PM (as an example of democracy in action [Roll Eyes]

) and the various positions within Brexit will try to manoeuvre their man into that position. Fortunately, not being a Tory MP, Farage is out of the running - which won't stop him yelling from the sidelines. The "forum" for defining the Brexit position will be that leadership campaign.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Oo-er, oo-er.
Looking on with amazement from the other side of the world.
[Eek!]

Does this mean another wall across the north?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well, they've brought about Cameron's resignation...

That is nonsense. As far as I can see the circumstances of his resignation are entirely self-inflicted.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The stock market is plunging and the S&P AAA is apparently unsustainable.

Surely we can't wait 3 months to sort this out.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, it seems an awfully long period of uncertainty to me, prior to invoking Article 50.

Not really mate. It will take about that long for the UK Govt to get it's negotiating positions sorted out, pick its negotiating team (which will include people from outside of Government) do some deals with Euro partners who will want to make sure this process doesn't overly disadvantage them. Three months is about right.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Mr Cheesy, Perhaps you think of here.

In 1932, the NSW State government under Jack Lang would not agree to a plan supported by the Federal Govt and those of other States to deal with the financial crisis. After Lang took steps to remove NSW funds from the reach of the Federal Govt, the State Governor - Sir Philip Game - dismissed Lang.

In 975, the Whitlam Labor Govt had been unable to have Supply passed by the Senate. Sir John Kerr, the Governor General, dismissed Whitlam.

The usual position here now is that both Game and Kerr acted improperly. Neither should have exercised the Crown's reserve powers. Both the Governor General and State Governors here are appointed by the Queen and are her viceroys.

[ 24. June 2016, 07:57: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

The usual position here now is that both Game and Kerr acted improperly. Neither should have exercised the Crown's reserve powers. Both the Governor General and State Governors here are appointed by the Queen and are her viceroys.

I knew there had been constitutional crises in Australia but couldn't remember the details.

Also IIRC Fiji, NZ (1984, can't remember the details), Canada 2008 etc

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by mr cheesy

quote:
The stock market is plunging and the S&P AAA is apparently unsustainable.

Of course it is! The algorithms used by all the automated dealing systems have been primed to see a Leave vote as catastrophe so they'll bring one about by selling. What it also means is that NOW is the time to top up your Stocks & Shares ISA on the cheap, if you have the cash...

As for the S&P rating, surely you don't need reminding that almost up to the last 24 hours before RBS had to be bailed out it enjoyed an excellent reputation; and nor did the geniuses at S&P issue any warnings about Iceland or Ireland until long after it was clear that their so-called economic booms were nothing of the sort.

quote:
Surely we can't wait 3 months to sort this out.

No, we can't - but we won't have to: sooner or later sanity will prevail because the intrinsic value of the companies hasn't altered significantly and it makes no sense to behave as if they have.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Three months for the Leave campaign to destroy itself in a civil war over the competing and mutually exclusive promises they made. A lot of blood on the carpet before someone comes out in front as the defining vision for the UK outside the EU - and then many of those who voted to leave will feel betrayed because what they voted for won't be happening.

(This is when we need a 'like' feature here!) Alan sums up the essentials. What a mess!

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
Oo-er, oo-er.
Looking on with amazement from the other side of the world.

Does this mean another wall across the north?

All 32 regions of Scotland voted to remain in the EU. Being pulled out of the EU against our will is a disaster for us.

I have no appetite for another referendum; I dread what will happen next.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

You're all in for a rough ride.
[Votive]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I go back to my earlier post: maybe now those people at the EU Commission and some prominent EU leaders

I suspect that history will not look kindly on the actions of both Schauble and Merkel, faced with multiple crisises they have in every instance adopted an approach that was all stick and no carrot.

Of course we have suffered less from this than the rest of the EU, and have our own political circumstances to thank for the situation we now find ourselves in.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

quote:
posted by NEQ:
All 32 regions of Scotland voted to remain in the EU. Being pulled out of the EU against our will is a disaster for us.

I have no appetite for another referendum; I dread what will happen next.

My first thought was "Oh God, what have we done".
The second was "Please God, not another indyref"

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Looking at the financial world, the FTSE 100 index is going back up, the pound is steadying.

Meanwhile, the DAX and other European stock markets are showing much larger falls than London.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Meanwhile, the DAX and other European stock markets are showing much larger falls than London.

Which just goes to show that not only has this ill-conceived referendum, with an undefined question and a meaningless result, screwed the UK economy it's also screwed the economies of the rest of the EU.

Posted by Celtic Knotweed (# 13008) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
My first thought was "Oh God, what have we done".
The second was "Please God, not another indyref"

My first thought was much the same.
My second was "What happens to my sister-in-law?" [Ultra confused]

She's Polish, married to an Anglo-Scot.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

TP is rubbing his hands and hourly checking the price of all the books in his on-line shopping basket. I suspect that because of your blasted referendum we will have to buy another bookcase.

Your hurricane is my butterfly.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Looking at the financial world, the FTSE 100 index is going back up, the pound is steadying.

Dead cat bounce?

quote:

Meanwhile, the DAX and other European stock markets are showing much larger falls than London.

You mention that as if it's a good thing [Disappointed]

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:

quote:
posted by NEQ:
All 32 regions of Scotland voted to remain in the EU. Being pulled out of the EU against our will is a disaster for us.

I have no appetite for another referendum; I dread what will happen next.
My first thought was "Oh God, what have we done".
The second was "Please God, not another indyref"

Indeed, what have you done.

The damage the Brexit-voters inflict on themselves is one thing, the damage they inflict on the rest of the EU is downright egotistical, irresponsible hooliganism. Above all it moves the world significantly closer to complete destabilization. Definitely not Britain's finest hour.

As for Scotland, after the next independence referendum, they will be warmly welcomed into the EU.

[ 24. June 2016, 10:31: Message edited by: opaWim ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Sturgeon says she expects to protect the position of Scotland in the EU, and has said that Saddiq Khan wants the same for London.

Preparing the legislation required for a second referendum if that's what it takes. Overall, repeatedly said she is determined that they will stay in the EU. But referendum highly likely....

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I see that Frank Field has said that Labour voters who voted Leave, are protesting against globalization. I would think also austerity and immigration. It's a moot point whether a Boris or Gove government will reduce these things, they may even increase.

Last night, I knew the game was up when Sheffield voted Leave, and before that, Sunderland. And then a whole string of towns across the North, Wigan, Oldham, Bury, Blackpool, and so on. Gordon Bennett.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

You know, the people who voted for an exit are actually people. A huge swath of them if you look at the map based on local results.

Somebody really should be asking them why, as against assuming the why is what the leaders of the exit were/are saying.

On another note, I've seen a few things out there indicating this is a generational split as well. I'd be a bit more cautious about this, given that the idea is based on exit polls that seemed to have gotten the whole thing wrong.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see that Frank Field has said that Labour voters who voted Leave, are protesting against globalization. I would think also austerity and immigration. It's a moot point whether a Boris or Gove government will reduce these things, they may even increase.

Last night, I knew the game was up when Sheffield voted Leave, and before that, Sunderland. And then a whole string of towns across the North, Wigan, Oldham, Bury, Blackpool, and so on. Gordon Bennett.

I thought Gordon Bennett was one of the few northern towns to vote remain? Are you confusing it with Royston Vasey?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

We stayed up til 4.30am. Didn't really intend to just got caught up in it.
It was the consistency and weight of the Leave vote coming in constituency after constituency that made me realise the People had spoken as it were.

It feels odd this morning. Personally I am no jubilant, others who have worked exceedingly hard at this have every right to be. Someone has said 'make the best of it'. That might make a good sig.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Og: The problem is that, as I recently heard in a conversation with a politician, the "no" vote covers a multitude of nos. There is no single Brexit policy. There are a whole load of reasons in favour of "no", some of which Marvin has eloquently summed up here, but some of them are conflicting and few of the good ones formed part of the Leave campaign.

By making its campaign a nasty one, Leave has legitimised the nastier and less sensible arguments. I am very doubtful whether it can deliver on all or any of its promises. Now all of us in Europe - and in that I include the UK - will reap the whirlwind.

[ 24. June 2016, 11:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

On a day of general political bitterness, one spot of good cheer. Donald Trump is in Scotland and as is being greeted by smiling Scots waving flags, and dancing to the merry sound of a mariachi band.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Hmmm - a no confidence vote in Jeremy Corbyn from among the parliamentary Labour party.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Og: The problem is that, as I recently heard in a conversation with a politician, the "no" vote covers a multitude of nos. There is no single Brexit policy. There are a whole load of reasons in favour of "no", some of which Marvin has eloquently summed up here, but some of them are conflicting and few of the good ones formed part of the Leave campaign.

By making its campaign a nasty one, Leave has legitimised the nastier and less sensible arguments. I am very doubtful whether it can deliver on all or any of its promises. Now all of us in Europe - and in that I include the UK - will reap the whirlwind.

Bits of the Leave campaign were nasty - some of it very reasonable. The Remain campaign was depressingly negative. At the end it was borderline hysteria. There's plenty of Greeks and out of work young people in Italy who reckon they''re reaping the (EU) whirlwind already.

The U K will come out of this OK - we've got longstanding economic and social relationships outside Europe. I'm with you on being concerned about the impact on the rest of Europe.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

OpaWim:

quote:
The damage the Brexit-voters inflict on themselves is one thing, the damage they inflict on the rest of the EU is downright egotistical, irresponsible hooliganism.

I think I'd have voted against Brexit were I a British voter. That said, I'm not convinced that it's the obligation of the UK to consider the well-being of other countries when making the decision about whether to stay or go. If a nation doesn't think that membership is serving its needs, they should be well within their rights to leave.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
On a day of general political bitterness, one spot of good cheer. Donald Trump is in Scotland and as is being greeted by smiling Scots waving flags, and dancing to the merry sound of a mariachi band.

LOL. You know...if you'd keep Trump over there, we'd have room for one of your political miscreants. They wouldn't be able to be president, so no serious danger to us. Perhaps both could be put to work picking up trash?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Trump has tweeted that the place (Scotland) is going wild over the (Brexit) vote.

The mariachi band isn't celebrating Brexit, Donald!

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Lord, have mercy upon them, for they know not what they have done.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sturgeon says she expects to protect the position of Scotland in the EU, and has said that Saddiq Khan wants the same for London.

The "Leave" position seems to be that leaving would allow the UK to avoid the parts of EU membership it didn't like but retain the bits it found convenient. I came across two bits of information highlighting this today.

First, Cornwall is seeking reassurance that it will still receive EU grants (or equivalent subsidies from the UK, the article isn't entirely clear).

The other fact was that Cornwall voted 57/43 in favor of "Leave".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sturgeon says she expects to protect the position of Scotland in the EU, and has said that Saddiq Khan wants the same for London.
The "Leave" position seems to be that leaving would allow the UK to avoid the parts of EU membership it didn't like but retain the bits it found convenient. I came across two bits of information highlighting this today.

First, Cornwall is seeking reassurance that it will still receive EU grants (or equivalent subsidies from the UK, the article isn't entirely clear).

The other fact was that Cornwall voted 57/43 in favor of "Leave".

This would be comical, if it wasn't so grim. Deprived areas seem to be in a schizoid position, saying fuck off to the EU, but also saying, please help us, as we are deprived. But who are they saying this to now? Ah yes, a right wing Tory government. Now that does make sense.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

I'm not quite sure whether London wants the bankers or not, but Morgan Stanley has started moving 2,000 of them out, to Dublin or Frankfurt.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, we can't - but we won't have to: sooner or later sanity will prevail because the intrinsic value of the companies hasn't altered significantly and it makes no sense to behave as if they have.

Except of course there is a very real chance that the EU will take the democratically expressed wish of the English and Welsh people at their word and tell them to get out of the Single Market like the English and Welsh people told them to.
The intrinsic value of a business that can't sell anything is little more than the office furniture.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

The positive bit of this unholy mess is that no-one is disputing fundamentally the legitmacy of the result or the obligation of the government to enact article 50. It was a clear,if close, vote on a high turnout.

I wanted to remain, but what I want more is not to have major civil unrest over this. Which is what would happen if Westminster tried to ignore the result.

I think Cameron is sensible both to resign and give a timeline for a new prime minister. If he hadn't resigned then when he was going to would have continued to be an absolutely massive distraction, and if he had resigned with immediate effect it would have destabilised the economic situation further.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I'm not quite sure whether London wants the bankers or not, but Morgan Stanley has started moving 2,000 of them out, to Dublin or Frankfurt.

Hmm - or maybe they haven't.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I'm not quite sure whether London wants the bankers or not, but Morgan Stanley has started moving 2,000 of them out, to Dublin or Frankfurt.
Hmm - or maybe they haven't.

Indeed, the problem with social media is the potential for needless scaremongering.

In a world where there are plenty of real things to be scared of, why are people starting false stories alongside the real ones (not you lowlands_boy)?

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
The U K will come out of this OK - we've got longstanding economic and social relationships outside Europe.

Maybe Great-Britain (minus Scotland) will come out of this O.K., but trade with one of the larger consumer markets will be harder and less profitable, and London will no longer be one of the major financial centers in the world.
In the end it all depends on the definition of "O.K.", of course.

quote:
I'm with you on being concerned about the impact on the rest of Europe.

Thank you.
We will most likely sustain substantially less damage than the U.K. itself.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Well, the BBC were citing "sources in the bank" - a quick google on it only really shows hits from mainstream media....

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sturgeon says she expects to protect the position of Scotland in the EU, and has said that Saddiq Khan wants the same for London.
The "Leave" position seems to be that leaving would allow the UK to avoid the parts of EU membership it didn't like but retain the bits it found convenient. ...

Ya'll need a clarity act. Not that this is really enforceable.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
London will no longer be one of the major financial centers in the world.
In the end it all depends on the definition of "O.K.", of course.

Do you really think London will be allowed to fail?

It could depend on what big businesses or financial institutions see as the future of the EU. If they feel that the EU is likely to crumble away within, say, 10 years, they might think it's better to have a head start in a fairly stable country, rather than heading to France or Germany where they could be facing another referendum, or the collapse of a government, in due course.

[ 24. June 2016, 14:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ya'll need a clarity act. Not that this is really enforceable.

I would suggest a Reality Act, but that would be rejected as too few would be able to grasp the concept.

[ 24. June 2016, 15:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
London will no longer be one of the major financial centers in the world.
In the end it all depends on the definition of "O.K.", of course.

Do you really think London will be allowed to fail?

Who's going to step in and save it?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Quite sad to see the voting by age figures. The young voting quite heavily for Remain, and older people for Leave. The young being sacrificed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
London will no longer be one of the major financial centers in the world.
In the end it all depends on the definition of "O.K.", of course.

Do you really think London will be allowed to fail?

It could depend on what big businesses or financial institutions see as the future of the EU. If they feel that the EU is likely to crumble away within, say, 10 years, they might think it's better to have a head start in a fairly stable country, rather than heading to France or Germany where they could be facing another referendum, or the collapse of a government, in due course.

Well, of course the EU minus Great-Britain might crumble as a result of the Brexit. I wouldn't count on it though. But if it does, who would still need London as a major financial center?
In that scenario London as a financial center would inevitably downsize to more provincial proportions.

And then again, it is not a matter of allowing London to fail. The question will be if it useful/profitable to keep it up. If the customers stay away, what's the use of maintaining the institutions that used to service these customers?

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Quite sad to see the voting by age figures. The young voting quite heavily for Remain, and older people for Leave. The young being sacrificed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Twitter is full of Gen X and Millennial rage about this today.

Mind you, Twitter is generally full of Gen X and Millennial rage every day. [Biased]

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Trump has tweeted that the place (Scotland) is going wild over the (Brexit) vote.

The mariachi band isn't celebrating Brexit, Donald!

WHERE IN SCOTLAND DID THEY FIND A MARIACHI BAND?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Quite sad to see the voting by age figures. The young voting quite heavily for Remain, and older people for Leave. The young being sacrificed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

Or, as this twitpic put it "those who must live with the result of the EU referendum the longest want to remain".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Meanwhile one of our national embarrassments has reported that the UK have voted to leave the United Nations.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
We will most likely sustain substantially less damage than the U.K. itself.

I'm really not so sure. Right now the FTSE is down 3 point something percent, and the CAC40 down by over 8. Plus the risk of contagion.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Meanwhile one of our national embarrassments has reported that the UK have voted to leave the United Nations.

Oh, for fuck's sake

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Quite sad to see the voting by age figures. The young voting quite heavily for Remain, and older people for Leave. The young being sacrificed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120
Or, as this twitpic put it "those who must live with the result of the EU referendum the longest want to remain".

Single biggest argument against the NHS. Damn old people

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it. [brick wall]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Cornwall is seeking reassurance that it will still receive EU grants (or equivalent subsidies from the UK, the article isn't entirely clear).

The other fact was that Cornwall voted 57/43 in favor of "Leave".

This ties in with what I posted here months ago about people simply not realising what the EU contributes financially to the UK (or should I say contributed?).

I have worked on an EU INTERREG project in which Cornwall was a participating region. The EU provided match funding (eg to match funding from local government or UK lottery money) for tourism-related infrastructure projects. That project is over now; I assume any ongoing projects will receive promised funding through to the end of the project, but the tap will undoubtedly be turned off after that.

I also find myself wondering about my interpreter colleagues in Brussels with only British nationality. They and many others working for EU institutions will doubtless be out of a job soon, by virtue of their nationality. Interpreters who are Irish nationals, however, will be having a field day, and I would think now would be a good time to invest in real estate suitable for financial services companies to lease in Dublin.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Trump has tweeted that the place (Scotland) is going wild over the (Brexit) vote.

The mariachi band isn't celebrating Brexit, Donald!
WHERE IN SCOTLAND DID THEY FIND A MARIACHI BAND?

I gather an appeal for Mexican musicians was put out on social media, and got a good response!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.

That's why we have a two-round presidential election in France. The idea is to get rid of all the spleen in the first round before getting round to the serious business of actually electing a president.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.
That's why we have a two-round presidential election in France. The idea is to get rid of all the spleen in the first round before getting round to the serious business of actually electing a president.

Sound method. Pity we didn't think of it a few months ago.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well it's not entirely failsafe.

That was the first-round election result that gave me the final kick to get French nationality.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This ties in with what I posted here months ago about people simply not realising what the EU contributes financially to the UK (or should I say contributed?).

But that can't be true. It is hard to go anywhere in Cornwall, South Wales and other parts where there is a lot of EU funding without seeing EU-funded logos everywhere and hearing about various EU funded projects in the media.

If anything the EU funding seems to have stimulated a form of EU disgust whereby the funding awakens British resentment. For example in Cornwall, no amount of EU funding seems able to take away the resentment people feel at the loss of their fishing and other traditional industries. These losses seem to be blamed on the EU and the fancy-pancy EU-funded white-elephant projects just seem to underline for people who out-of-touch it all is and how they're prepared to fund the "blue-painted naked nymph production of Hamlet" but not my-favourite-local-historical-project.

It is a strange quirk of British character that being given money by someone seems to bring out the "oh, I see, that's all you think I'm good for is it? Well you can take your wads of EU cash and park it where the sun don't shine matey-boy.." quasi-Monty Pythonesque thinking.

The absurd part is when they say "go on then, shove off with your filthy unwashed European fingers in our business" and then "but you can leave the money as you leave, thank you very much."

[ 24. June 2016, 17:07: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.

In other news, the British are frantically Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it (Washington Post). [Waterworks]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Trump has tweeted that the place (Scotland) is going wild over the (Brexit) vote.

The mariachi band isn't celebrating Brexit, Donald!
WHERE IN SCOTLAND DID THEY FIND A MARIACHI BAND?

Fucking immigrants.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But that can't be true. It is hard to go anywhere in Cornwall, South Wales and other parts where there is a lot of EU funding without seeing EU-funded logos everywhere

That always put me off. If the British government builds something, it builds something. If the EU builds something, it builds it, and plasters it with enormous signs with EU flags on. It's much too in-your-face, and comes over as a Euro-federalist publicity campaign.

I was a remain supporter despite this.

[ 24. June 2016, 17:47: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
That always put me off. If the British government builds something, it builds something. If the EU builds something, it builds it, and plasters it with enormous signs with EU flags on. It's much too in-your-face, and comes over as a Euro-federalist publicity campaign.

It is an intentional publicity campaign. I read somewhere a while ago about a farmer who received a particular EU grant, one condition of which was that he was required to display a large sign in one of his fields, the sign to be constructed at his own expense to certain specifications and clearly visible from the roadside. He wasn't happy about it but the alternative was not getting the grant.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I read somewhere a while ago about a farmer who received a particular EU grant, one condition of which was that he was required to display a large sign in one of his fields, the sign to be constructed at his own expense to certain specifications and clearly visible from the roadside. He wasn't happy about it but the alternative was not getting the grant.

This presumably being the same kind of person who rails about lack of financial transparency and money being hidden in offshore accounts...

Telling people where the money to fund a projet came from seems entirely reasonable to me, but perhaps this is just one of those areas where continental and British minds have never met.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I doubt any commercial undertaking would ever put a penny or cent into anything without its name being displayed. Why should public bodies be different?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I doubt any commercial undertaking would ever put a penny or cent into anything without its name being displayed. Why should public bodies be different?

The late GLC and most development corporations make similar displays.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I doubt any commercial undertaking would ever put a penny or cent into anything without its name being displayed. Why should public bodies be different?

Because public bodies are different? They are trustees of public funds.

And because if everywhere we went there was a bloody great sign saying "This street sanitized for your protection by the Anytown Municipal Department of Sanitation" and so on, we wouldn't be able to see either the wood or the trees, because they'd all be obscured by a forest of signs.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I doubt any commercial undertaking would ever put a penny or cent into anything without its name being displayed. Why should public bodies be different?
Because public bodies are different? They are trustees of public funds.

And because if everywhere we went there was a bloody great sign saying "This street sanitized for your protection by the Anytown Municipal Department of Sanitation" and so on, we wouldn't be able to see either the wood or the trees, because they'd all be obscured by a forest of signs.

Howsabout we retain a sense of proportion?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I doubt any commercial undertaking would ever put a penny or cent into anything without its name being displayed. Why should public bodies be different?
Because public bodies are different? They are trustees of public funds.

All the more reason to show people what their taxes are being used for.

quote:
And because if everywhere we went there was a bloody great sign saying "This street sanitized for your protection by the Anytown Municipal Department of Sanitation" and so on, we wouldn't be able to see either the wood or the trees, because they'd all be obscured by a forest of signs.

It is quite usual in France, and I think many other European countries, for infrastructure projects etc. to have signs saying who has put up what proportion of the money. Like I say, I think this is a cultural difference.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm not quite sure how you qualify the UK National Lottery, but they stipulate that

quote:
Grant holders must use our logo as widely as possible

You can download a nine-page booklet on just how they expect you to do that from that page too. Page 5 of it says

quote:
Site boards and hoardings
All building or ground work funded by us must feature our logo prominently on all sides visible to the public. We expect this to be done soon after the works have begun when hoardings go up. Your contractor may take responsibility for this as they will want to put signs up with their own name and contact details, so please ensure that you provide them with our logo and they include it.

Why should EU funds be different?

[ 24. June 2016, 19:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Just a post to share with fellow shipmates that I am so desolate about today's appalling news that I do not think I can any more about it for now. I feel deeply, and unshakeably ashamed of 51.9% of my fellow countrymen and women.

I have changed my sig.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I recall travelling along roads in North America which had prominent signs saying 'Your tax dollars are going towards [specific works] on Highway X'.

When I was last working, it was on projects which had multiple funding sources - and one of my jobs was ensuring the relevant sponsoring logos - European Union, commercial, industrial, university - appeared on our material.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Just a post to share with fellow shipmates that I am so desolate about today's appalling news that I do not think I can any more about it for now. I feel deeply, and unshakeably ashamed of 51.9% of my fellow countrymen and women.

I have changed my sig.

I feel like I have had a knife in my guts, and I hold a British passport. Despite that, with my Irish accent I consider that I am now potentially "the other" and not wanted now.

To twist the knife, living on the "wrong" side of the border because of caring for my ill father, has not mattered for years. Too soon it will.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The positive bit of this unholy mess is that no-one is disputing fundamentally the legitmacy of the result or the obligation of the government to enact article 50. It was a clear,if close, vote on a high turnout.

It's a clear result, in that 52% of voters chose some form of Brexit. I'm still far from certain that 52% of voters chose Brexit under all the variants of that. As I've said several times before on this thread, the referendum lacked a clearly defined question - no plan for Brexit put forward in detail by the government. We had a serious of different organisations produce mutually contradictory versions of Brexit, with barely any more details than could be written on a fag packet. None of whom were in a position to even attempt to negotiate for a Brexit on those terms.

So, while we now know that we're heading for a Brexit, we still have no idea what the plan for Brexit is, or even who is going to be captain of that ship.

How can an unclear question result in a clear answer?

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Ronald -

Given the size of the remain vote in NI, could you imagine NI forming a 'used to be part of the UK, now a small country of the EU'-bloc with Scotland? (On the basis that a 'leave UK to join Dublin in the EU' sentiment seems obviously and impossibly devisive.)

I'm married to a woman from Dublin and have several friends in or from NI. It's the potential destabilisation of NI which worries me about this thing the most.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The positive bit of this unholy mess is that no-one is disputing fundamentally the legitmacy of the result or the obligation of the government to enact article 50. It was a clear,if close, vote on a high turnout.
It's a clear result, in that 52% of voters chose some form of Brexit. I'm still far from certain that 52% of voters chose Brexit under all the variants of that. As I've said several times before on this thread, the referendum lacked a clearly defined question - no plan for Brexit put forward in detail by the government. We had a serious of different organisations produce mutually contradictory versions of Brexit, with barely any more details than could be written on a fag packet. None of whom were in a position to even attempt to negotiate for a Brexit on those terms.

So, while we now know that we're heading for a Brexit, we still have no idea what the plan for Brexit is, or even who is going to be captain of that ship.

How can an unclear question result in a clear answer?

No no no - 52% to 48% is nowhere near clear enough...

So said Farage

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

First, Cornwall is seeking reassurance that it will still receive EU grants (or equivalent subsidies from the UK, the article isn't entirely clear).

The other fact was that Cornwall voted 57/43 in favor of "Leave".

The combination of the two reminds me of that case a few months ago, of the woman on question time who had voted Tory, and had just had the dawning realisation that the tax credit cuts were about to hit her.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

One potential silver lining to this cloud might be that voters worldwide actually consider the implications of their vote before casting it...

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

One can only dream....

However, realism says it ain't going to happen.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

First, Cornwall is seeking reassurance that it will still receive EU grants (or equivalent subsidies from the UK, the article isn't entirely clear).

The other fact was that Cornwall voted 57/43 in favor of "Leave".
The combination of the two reminds me of that case a few months ago, of the woman on question time who had voted Tory, and had just had the dawning realisation that the tax credit cuts were about to hit her.

Yup.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Heyyyyyy! Turkeys. Happy Xmas.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One potential silver lining to this cloud might be that voters worldwide actually consider the implications of their vote before casting it...

I suggest you have your apparent head injury checked soon. Do not go to sleep before doing so and please do not drive or operate heavy machinery.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One potential silver lining to this cloud might be that voters worldwide actually consider the implications of their vote before casting it...

Eutychus, get fucking REAL mate. We've seen NOTHING yet.

There WILL be blood. Charlie Hebdo and Syria and Bataclan and Iraq and Brussels Airport and Libya and Egypt and Tunisia and Turkey and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Indonesia and Palestine and Nigeria and Cameroon and are nothing.

The beginning of sorrows.

But we thrashed Sri Lanka by 10 wickets.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
An appalling result.

As I've said before, the UK can't really expect much support from Commonwealth countries. Little consideration was given to them when the UK joined the EU. NZ in particular had severe problems after that, as did the Aust state of Tasmania. Since then the Commonwealth countries have realigned their economies as well as seek and retain other markets.

Yes.

Until the 1950s,most New Zealanders regarded themselves as more British than the British ("Greater Britain" was a phrase they used). And almost all their trade was with Britain (notably butter!) There was a huge sense of betrayal and outrage when the British Government started to negotiate about entry to the then European Common Market - taking Europe's butter mountain instead of NZ's "empire-made superior product".

It was similar in Australia , though less markedly so (except in some regions) , as trade diversification, a switch to the USA as our major defence ally and protector, and mass non-British migration were already underway since the 1940s.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Wah hoo. 12 hours ago restrained myself from saying London will break away like Singapore from Malaya. I shouldn't have.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Brexit dude on newsnight is now saying they want to keep free movement of labour.

So in less than 24 hours that is the money for the nhs and the migration cap that the Brexiteers are now saying they won't deliver. Meanwhile, Calais would like us to put our border back on the UK mainline like they said wouldn't happen - whilst Soctland are prepping for a referendum Brexit said wasn't a realistic possibility.

Is anyone who voted leave feeling lied to yet ?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Happy Xmas turkeys!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Brexit dude on newsnight is now saying they want to keep free movement of labour.

So in less than 24 hours that is the money for the nhs and the migration cap that the Brexiteers are now saying they won't deliver. Meanwhile, Calais would like us to put our border back on the UK mainline like they said wouldn't happen - whilst Soctland are prepping for a referendum Brexit said wasn't a realistic possibility.

Is anyone who voted leave feeling lied to yet ?

Was talking about this in Newbury High Street on the 23rd with an official Remain Rep. "Of course they (the Leave Campaign) are lying. That's a no-brainer. But it seems there are lots of folks around with no brains".

Some of the ignorance and naivety now being revealed is astonishing. Stupid has become the new zeitgeist.

[ 24. June 2016, 23:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's NOT their fault. We, as usual, the liberal, Christian 'intelligentsia' have FAILED the working class. Leave them the hell alone.

Sod it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Trouble is, Martin, I come from those roots. Born to working class parents in the NE. My dad left school at 14. That didn't make him a mug. Rather the reverse in fact. He learned a lot in the school of hard knocks. He didn't do Stupid.

We lived in a mining community - most of our male neighbours worked in the pits. They didn't do Stupid either. Like my dad, they could spot a lie or a contradiction a mile off. Or someone who was false. This regardless of the lack of advantage in their upbringing.

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One potential silver lining to this cloud might be that voters worldwide actually consider the implications of their vote before casting it...

There's a national election here in Australia next weekend. Here's hoping you're right.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.
That's why we have a two-round presidential election in France. The idea is to get rid of all the spleen in the first round before getting round to the serious business of actually electing a president.
Sound method. Pity we didn't think of it a few months ago.

Of course a vote like Brexit is binary, so you can't really have a runoff. Unless it's along the lines of "Are you sure?"

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.
In other news, the British are frantically Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it (Washington Post).

Well, in fairness, we don't really know which British people were googling that. It could have been a lot of people who hadn't voted at all, curious about what everyone was now talking about, in which case they're not open to the charge of uninformed voting.

Or, you probably have people who did vote, but want to get a more precise definition, because their kids asked them to explain it. Or any number of possibilities.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Don't know if this is the time yet for a cross-pond question, but:

Since other countries are evidently making noises about doing similarly, does the EU have any kind of emergency brake available?

I'm guessing they can't just say to the UK, "wrong decision, try again". But if they can act to slow down an EU break-up, maybe that would also help give the *UK* some time and breathing room??

FWIW, YMMV.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I'm guessing they can't just say to the UK, "wrong decision, try again". But if they can act to slow down an EU break-up, maybe that would also help give the *UK* some time and breathing room??

According to the headline in the Guardian, the EU doesn't seem much interested in giving the UK some time and breathing room.

"If the children want cake so bad, we should shove it down their throats until they choke"

Granted, who knows what the real agenda is, for either Schultz or the Guardian. Maybe they think there is an advantage in creating a sense of panic at this point, in order to somehow slam the brakes on the Brexit.

[ 25. June 2016, 02:51: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yeah, I was hoping that even if they don't want to stop the UK from leaving, they might want to prevent the others, so slow down everything. But who knows.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

According to the headline in the Guardian, the EU doesn't seem much interested in giving the UK some time and breathing room.

"If the children want cake so bad, we should shove it down their throats until they choke"

How charming [Roll Eyes]

. But perhaps Schultz should have spoken to his lawyers first.

Article 50 is triggered by a member state notifying the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the Union. A non-binding referendum (or even ratification of it) would not operate to do this - it requires notification from the UK government. Presumably this will take place in due course but one hopes at the time that is mutually most convenient.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Don't know if this is the time yet for a cross-pond question, but:

Since other countries are evidently making noises about doing similarly, does the EU have any kind of emergency brake available?

I'm guessing they can't just say to the UK, "wrong decision, try again". But if they can act to slow down an EU break-up, maybe that would also help give the *UK* some time and breathing room??

FWIW, YMMV.

I think Article 50 (see link above) is clear in its wording. There is a two-year long-stop period unless a withdrawal agreement is reached within that time. I suppose that if agreement is not reached then the UK would revert to being a country with no trade or other agreements with EU member states. The various directives and so on issued by Brussels would continue to have force in the UK unless the Westminster legislation giving them force was amended or repealed.

There is provision for extension of time but only by unanimous agreement.

There will be all manner of complications to work through and I hope that cool heads will prevail.

FWIW I felt I had been gone from the UK for too long to responsibly cast my vote, so for the first time in my life I abstained.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Brexit dude on newsnight is now saying they want to keep free movement of labour.

To me it's looking more and more as if no politician on any side of the debate seriously expected Leave to win and have to deal with the consequences (thinking again of Farage's early claim on the night that Remain had won). It was a party political game of chicken which the electorate has just turned into a very real nightmare.

Ironically it is the unelected technocrats (like the governor of the Bank of England) - the very people Brexiters resent in Europe - who have actually made and implemented contingency plans to mitigate at least the immediate consequences of that outcome.

I think the UK remaining a member of the EEA (i.e. akin to Norway) is the least bad realistic outcome of the vote, and the most likely one at this point. It will fulfil few of the hardline Brexiters' aspirations, but it will at least enable them to claim they've "broken free of Europe".

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Some of the ignorance and naivety now being revealed is astonishing. Stupid has become the new zeitgeist.

Prior to the vote, the Economist talked about "post-truth politics". As I've argued over in Hell, I don't think it's so much that people are stupid. I think it's that people don't see the truth as important and having actual consequences, because that is how much our society has devalued truth.

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Article 50 is triggered by a member state notifying the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the Union. A non-binding referendum (or even ratification of it) would not operate to do this - it requires notification from the UK government. Presumably this will take place in due course but one hopes at the time that is mutually most convenient.

The only politically feasible way of not going on to notify the European Council that I can see is if there were to be a General Election in the wake of a no confidence vote, within weeks or days, that elects a pro-Remain PM who basically pretends the referendum never happened.

I think that is both unlikely and with even more alarming potential results than Brexit: it would look like the political elite effectively ignoring the will of the people (no matter how bad I think this referendum was at determining it), i.e. more of the perception that got the UK into this mess in the first place.

I don't think the UK has all the time in the world to invoke article 50, because dragging out uncertainty is yet another even worse scenario than the present one.

Firstly, from the EU's point of view, the UK is now like those visitors in your front room past 10pm saying "well, we really must be going soon" - and not moving an inch. Pleasant conversation tends to pale quite fast in such circumstances.

Secondly, from an economic point of view, if the EU is a market that figures at all in a firm's business plans, there's going to be no way it will engage in anything more than minimal fresh capital investment in the UK until it has a clearer picture of what the final trade agreement will look like. Companies simply can't continue to operate effectively like that.

So there will be mounting pressure from all sides for the notification to happen fast.

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Ronald -

Given the size of the remain vote in NI, could you imagine NI forming a 'used to be part of the UK, now a small country of the EU'-bloc with Scotland? (On the basis that a 'leave UK to join Dublin in the EU' sentiment seems obviously and impossibly devisive.)

I'm married to a woman from Dublin and have several friends in or from NI. It's the potential destabilisation of NI which worries me about this thing the most.

I don't think any unionist in Northern Ireland would now become an Irish nationalist on foot of this. Some NI unionists may get an Irish passport for travel purposes - but this should not be confused with a desire for NI independence or a united Ireland.

[ 25. June 2016, 05:40: Message edited by: Ronald Binge ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It wouldn't take many, possibly under-25s, to switch sides - the population is a fairly even split isn't if ?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Some of the ignorance and naivety now being revealed is astonishing. Stupid has become the new zeitgeist.
Prior to the vote, the Economist talked about "post-truth politics". As I've argued over in Hell, I don't think it's so much that people are stupid. I think it's that people don't see the truth as important and having actual consequences, because that is how much our society has devalued truth.

How is one better than the other?
Nearly 20% of young people didn't vote, eliminating their voice from the process out of apathy and ignorance.
Nearly all the old people did, many out of fear, ignorance and misinformation.
And, apparently a sizable number of people voted Leave as a form of protest because they were too stupid to realise those votes counted for real.
Perhaps you Christians are correct and there is a Beast. But he isn't one person, he is everybody. We'll know for certain after November.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Leave voters on TV stating they'd changed their minds, people saying they voted because the council had closed the public toilets etc doesn't exactly inspire feelings of warmth and togetherness in the hearts of the #indecentminority.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Some of the ignorance and naivety now being revealed is astonishing. Stupid has become the new zeitgeist.
Prior to the vote, the Economist talked about "post-truth politics". As I've argued over in Hell, I don't think it's so much that people are stupid. I think it's that people don't see the truth as important and having actual consequences, because that is how much our society has devalued truth.

Yes, I like the phrase "post-truth politics". Spinning, relativising, maneuvering for advantage have become ubiquitous. I guess they have always been there; for example I'm thinking of Jane Austen's often brilliant evocations of maneuvering for advantage in her novels. She used different words of course, but was excellent at illustrating truth and actual consequences.

But what I do think is new is this pervasive loss of connection. Placing a high value on truth is an antidote to being deceived and an antidote to carelessness. I grew up knowing that. As did most of the people around me at the time.

"Stupid is the new Zeitgeist" is admittedly only a catchy phrase. But I think it catches something about what is going on.

I also like lilBuddha's pithy observations.

Perhaps we can agree on this old insight? "Sow the wind and you reap the whirlwind". A baleful wind seems to be blowing hard these days and I'm worried about what it will blow over.

Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.
In other news, the British are frantically Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it (Washington Post).
Well, in fairness, we don't really know which British people were googling that. It could have been a lot of people who hadn't voted at all, curious about what everyone was now talking about, in which case they're not open to the charge of uninformed voting.

Or, you probably have people who did vote, but want to get a more precise definition, because their kids asked them to explain it. Or any number of possibilities.

I'll 'fess up to being a Brit who googled EU yesterday. It was because it was bugging me that I didn't actually know the date of the UK joining the (then) Common Market, and therefore whether I had been an EU national my whole life (I haven't). Not particularly relevant to my own vote!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The Google anecdote is in and of itself an example of post-truth.

The "what is the EU" result did indeed rank second - but only among the rather tiny subset of searches relating to the EU.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Ronald -

Given the size of the remain vote in NI, could you imagine NI forming a 'used to be part of the UK, now a small country of the EU'-bloc with Scotland? (On the basis that a 'leave UK to join Dublin in the EU' sentiment seems obviously and impossibly devisive.)

I'm married to a woman from Dublin and have several friends in or from NI. It's the potential destabilisation of NI which worries me about this thing the most.

I say we create the United Federal Republic of Greater Dal Riata, with national parliaments in Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin with the federal parliament in Campbeltown (or Man if they want in).

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

We are now in the position of someone who has demolished his house, and signed up to a bricklaying course that starts in October.

The next few years will be painful and acrimonious, and will probably end with us in a similar position to Norway: in the single market, required to follow EU regs but having no say in them, required to contribute to the EU budget but getting no rebate, required to allow freedom of movement. No doubt the three stooges (Boris Gove & Nige) will portray this as a great victory for freedom & democracy.

Some good may come of it if we learn along the way that we are nothing special and the world does not owe us anything.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trouble is, Martin, I come from those roots. Born to working class parents in the NE. My dad left school at 14. That didn't make him a mug. Rather the reverse in fact. He learned a lot in the school of hard knocks. He didn't do Stupid.

We lived in a mining community - most of our male neighbours worked in the pits. They didn't do Stupid either. Like my dad, they could spot a lie or a contradiction a mile off. Or someone who was false. This regardless of the lack of advantage in their upbringing.

Aye Barnabas62. But the older, less educated have blighted their children's and grandchildren's lives. Because the elite ignored their fears.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The next few years will be painful and acrimonious, and will probably end with us in a similar position to Norway: in the single market, required to follow EU regs but having no say in them, required to contribute to the EU budget but getting no rebate, required to allow freedom of movement.

Possibly, possibly not. I was just wondering about the domino effect. Other disaffected nations holding referendums that result in their leaving the EU - and I do see the EU as fragmenting in the next few years - could possibly be interested in forming an alliance outside it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Martin

You've probably seen the "Builders, Baby-boomers, Busters" characterisation of generational differences. My mum and dad, and neighbours, belonged to the "Builders". I was born right at the end of that period and think of myself as a "Builder". We were pretty unimpressed with "you've never had it so good".

I'm not defending "Baby-boomer" attitudes and fears, nor that they exist. And I think they did influence the outcome, to the disadvantage of the present younger generation. Incidentally I talked to one of those on the train back from Newbury yesterday and he was both frustrated and sad about the result. We had a good conversation.

Martin, I think the essential difference between "Builder" and "Boomer" attitudes has little to do with education and more to do with a greater self-centredness. The folks I grew up with were not self-centred and that rubbed off on me. Something I'm very grateful for.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The next few years will be painful and acrimonious, and will probably end with us in a similar position to Norway: in the single market, required to follow EU regs but having no say in them, required to contribute to the EU budget but getting no rebate, required to allow freedom of movement.
Possibly, possibly not. I was just wondering about the domino effect. Other disaffected nations holding referendums that result in their leaving the EU - and I do see the EU as fragmenting in the next few years - could possibly be interested in forming an alliance outside it.

And I should therefore have added "if we're lucky" to the above post - alternatively, the EU may want to make an example of us to dissuade other countries from leaving, and so give us nothing at all. We're playing high-stakes poker and we're holding a pair of threes.

If the EU does break up, it'll be largely our fault. It will probably be replaced, after a period of instability/social unrest/conflict, with something...well, very like the EU.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
And I should therefore have added "if we're lucky" to the above post - alternatively, the EU may want to make an example of us to dissuade other countries from leaving, and so give us nothing at all.

There's no "may" about it. It will be punitive and likely mean-spirited to make an example of us. I don't think it will stop others from calling for referendums.

quote:
If the EU does break up, it'll be largely our fault. It will probably be replaced, after a period of instability/social unrest/conflict, with something...well, very like the EU.

Yes, and one that we may have a hand in shaping the basics of, instead of coming into later, into an already established setup.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I say we create the United Federal Republic of Greater Dal Riata, with national parliaments in Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin with the federal parliament in Campbeltown (or Man if they want in).

My preferred solution as well.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
And I should therefore have added "if we're lucky" to the above post - alternatively, the EU may want to make an example of us to dissuade other countries from leaving, and so give us nothing at all.
There's no "may" about it. It will be punitive and likely mean-spirited to make an example of us. I don't think it will stop others from calling for referendums.

quote:
If the EU does break up, it'll be largely our fault. It will probably be replaced, after a period of instability/social unrest/conflict, with something...well, very like the EU.
Yes, and one that we may have a hand in shaping the basics of, instead of coming into later, into an already established setup.

Given the history of our engagement with Europe, do you really think that's likely? We would probably be preoccupied with trying to suck up to the Americans, then realise too late where our real interests lie, as usual.

I agree that it would be mean spirited for the EU to treat us harshly, but given how we've treated the EU over the years - complaining about everything that doesn't exactly tally with our narrow national interest, mocking its democratic institutions (whilst, in the case of Farage, trousering huge wads of cash from said institutions), using the EU as a scapegoat for all our self-inflicted problems - I think they've been remarkably patient. That patience is now at an end.

We still haven't faced up to how weak our position is here. We haven't "taken back control" at all - our fate will be decided by the EU.

Break-up is unlikely, I think Merkel & Juncker will now make enough concessions to keep the waverers onside. I agree they should have done that last year when Cameron asked them to, but his inept "diplomacy" over the years had pissed them off so much that they weren't inclined to. Also that was before anyone realised just how gullible British voters were.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Yes, Australians go to the vote in a weeks time. One wag has suggested that if we vote to leave the AU we'll just become Stralia.

Sounds good to me.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I think the EU WILL treat us harshly. According to today's Independent, article 50 is vaguely worded but it never envisaged anyone would want to leave. They could make it difficult as a deterrent to other member states where there is a right wing rump wanting a copycat referendum.

[ 25. June 2016, 08:52: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I don't think they will let us wait till October to trigger article 50.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Any attempt to force a hasty trigger of Article 50 will simply demonstrate EU arrogance. That's different from an appeal by the 27 to the UK to act quickly because of the uncertainty. Besides, there is no clear exit negotiating strategy for the two years once the clock starts running. The Brexiteers were collectively incoherent. Without coherence on aims, we'll get an even worse deal than we're likely to get anyway.

The leaving country can choose its moment to pull the trigger. The rest are just going to have to be patient until the UK gets its ducks in a row. Tough, but there it is.

And a lot can happen over the next three months.

[ 25. June 2016, 09:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Doesn't mean it won't happen - also, I think there is a difference between pick your moment and wait six months.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Any attempt to force a hasty trigger of Article 50 will simply demonstrate EU arrogance. That's different from an appeal by the 27 to the UK to act quickly because of the uncertainty.

Yes, on the first sentence, and it could almost certainly be subject to legal challenge as the referendum itself isn't binding on the British government.

OTOH, EVEN ABSENT ARROGANCE I can see why the remaining 27 countries might want to strongly encourage the UK to move as fast as it can - the uncertainty affects and hurts them too, after all.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

In a lighter moment in this carcrash, a Tory Brexit MEP Daniel Hannel said last night on national news that he was relaxed about EU migration.

See Evan Davis showing the nation's frustration at this kind of shit.

I mean, really.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

If the UKIP/Tory Brexit campaign was not about reducing immigration, then what the hell was it about?

Unbelievable. 5 seconds after the result and they've u-turned.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

It is kind of amusing, except it isn't - we've just made a momentous decision based on a tissue of lies.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[crosspost replying to Mr cheesy]

Are you actually surprised ? Immigration was the ukip-closet-bnp issue, the mainstream leave was basically a push for deregulated trade + shifting leave mp's respective parties right.

[ 25. June 2016, 09:35: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

No, I'm really not surprised, see my posts here passim.

I am, however, livid.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.
That's why we have a two-round presidential election in France. The idea is to get rid of all the spleen in the first round before getting round to the serious business of actually electing a president.
Sound method. Pity we didn't think of it a few months ago.
Of course a vote like Brexit is binary, so you can't really have a runoff. Unless it's along the lines of "Are you sure?"

Since the question on Thursday was never defined, the obvious next step is to define what is meant by Brexit - ie: for the Government under it's new leader (undemocratically elected) to produce a White Paper defining what position they will be negotiating for. Then put that to the electorate - "Do you want Brexit on these terms?"

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've seen two news clips today of people who voted Leave, but who today are saying basically that it was a protest vote, they didn't expect Leave to win, and they're regretting it.
That's why we have a two-round presidential election in France. The idea is to get rid of all the spleen in the first round before getting round to the serious business of actually electing a president.
Sound method. Pity we didn't think of it a few months ago.
Of course a vote like Brexit is binary, so you can't really have a runoff. Unless it's along the lines of "Are you sure?"
Since the question on Thursday was never defined, the obvious next step is to define what is meant by Brexit - ie: for the Government under it's new leader (undemocratically elected) to produce a White Paper defining what position they will be negotiating for. Then put that to the electorate - "Do you want Brexit on these terms?"

Sounds very sensible to me. I just signed the petition:

petition for second referendum

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye Barnabas62. The working class don't want competition for resources. When did that change in Britain? When did even beggars become scared of Polish plumbers and cake shops and kids in infants schools? What happened to the Third Way? That we're all better, wealthier, more resourced together? That people are a blessing?

I'm a Corbynista but Jeremy failed to address that. This is pure, white, working class vengeance against ALL the elite.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think there may be a backlash, mr cheesy. Resentful people really don't like being conned. And the Brexiteers have perpetrated a collective con. It's coming out. As are the consequences of this piece of collective stupidity.

Will it make a difference? I really don't know. Three months is a long time.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
ince the question on Thursday was never defined, the obvious next step is to define what is meant by Brexit - ie: for the Government under it's new leader (undemocratically elected) to produce a White Paper defining what position they will be negotiating for. Then put that to the electorate - "Do you want Brexit on these terms?"

Sadly, it looks like this was always part of the plan - deliberately cause economic uncertainty as a backdrop for draconian changes that the Tories could never get through at any other time.

Shock Doctrine writ large.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

House of Cards wasn't fiction!

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the UKIP/Tory Brexit campaign was not about reducing immigration, then what the hell was it about?

Unbelievable. 5 seconds after the result and they've u-turned.

Which is why, now this juggernaut is rolling, there is every reason to believe it won't stop until farage is in No. 10.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Sounds very sensible to me. I just signed the petition:

petition for second referendum

I signed it last night. It may take a few hours for your "confirm signing" email to come through.

It's unlikely to change anything but it really is attracting a huge amount of signatures - I posted a link on FB and 10 minutes later the signature count had gone up by 30K.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm afraid I see all this wasted talk of a second referendum as being simply the "denial" stage of grief. Not going to happen.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think the EU WILL treat us harshly. According to today's Independent, article 50 is vaguely worded but it never envisaged anyone would want to leave. They could make it difficult as a deterrent to other member states where there is a right wing rump wanting a copycat referendum.

The harshest treatment the EU could mete out is a simple refusal to negotiate over exit terms. Once the two years had elapsed that would mean the UK and each EU member state would have no trade agreement, and any foreign residents would stay or leave depending on the domestic law of each country. That would be a monstrous hassle for both the UK and each EU member state. I very much doubt the European Commissioners would want to be responsible for that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think denial and anger are both in view.

mr cheesy, you're probably right. The size of the referendum majority, the prior promises, and the risk of civil unrest, would seem to put any attempt to somehow set this aside in the realm of cloud cuckoo land.

But I'm not sure how much of a game changer the Conservative Party leadership election may turn out to be. Presumably whoever stands, whether or not a previous Remainer of Leaver, is going to have to set out their stall for the negotiation? The majority of MPs will want someone with a moderate stance on that. They know that the ticking clock works in favour of the EU, not the country leaving.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Doublethink

quote:
I don't think they will let us wait till October to trigger article 50.

They have to: while there are some ambiguities about the process once a UK government has decided to invoke Article 50 there is no question about how the process starts - it can only be begun by a Government notifying the rest of the EU countries that they wish to leave.

In any case, Juncker, Merkel et al can't have it both ways: if they were honest about not wishing the UK to leave the EU, then why the rush to push us towards the exit now that the referendum result is in? Nothing at all to do with any spurious notions of stability because the EU was hardly stable before the result of the UK vote; no, this smacks of pique. They're cross that (as they see it) Mr Cameron wasn't able to deliver a pro-EU vote and even angrier that the (again, as at least some of them see it) the ungrateful citizens of the UK haven't done as they were told - sorry "asked".

Having badly miscalculated the effect of their interjections and pronouncements in the run-up to the vote, they're now showing the same lack of insight and understanding by trying to hustle the UK out.

If the UK decides to trigger Article 50 - and I still think there is reasonable doubt over that - then what the other EU leaders should be doing is urgently seeking to address the issues that were thrown up by the vote. Simply wheeling out more unelected officials to demand that the UK get out now is only going to confirm the view of those who voted leave.

They say they're worried about the UK starting a domino effect: the EU, its officials and national heads of government would be better employed asking themselves why it is that the desire to get out is most concentrated in those populations which have been members of the EU for the longest period of time.

I'd quote George Santayana Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. but replace the "cannot" with "will not".

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Brexit dude on newsnight is now saying they want to keep free movement of labour.
To me it's looking more and more as if no politician on any side of the debate seriously expected Leave to win and have to deal with the consequences (thinking again of Farage's early claim on the night that Remain had won). It was a party political game of chicken which the electorate has just turned into a very real nightmare.

If you are right not only the UK government but also the European Commission and various economists are even stupider than I thought. This vote to leave did not come out of a clear blue sky. There has been pressure for a referendum ever since Maastricht. Even in the early Blair years when the EU was briefly "in" (and those who wanted to keep out of the Euro were being talked of in much the same terms as Brexiteers now) there was a groundswell of discontent. Not to mention the continued success of UKIP, basically a single-issue party.

My own view is that the Gvt took the view that a referendum was a justified risk - wheel out the big guns and scare people into adopting the status quo, as with Indyref, and then simply let the opposition deflate.

I'm tempted to say that perhaps the Gvt thought that a close result would trigger a EU-wide debate about freedom of movement, ever closer union, and other matters that are contentious in the UK (and I point out here that even Scotland got close to a 40% leave vote). But perhaps that is unlikely given that Cameron appears to have been so timid in his negotiations on the subject of immigration.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

If the UK decides to trigger Article 50 - and I still think there is reasonable doubt over that - then what the other EU leaders should be doing is urgently seeking to address the issues that were thrown up by the vote.

I agree with the rest of what you say. The problem is that those who voted Leave did so for all manner of different reasons. There is nothing coherent for European leaders to address. All they know is the answer to the specific question as phrased on the ballot paper. The most that can be speculated is that repatriating legal control of immigration would probably result in the majority being pro-Remain. I honestly can't see the rEU cutting the UK a special deal just to keep them in. The contents of Pandora's box would be managable by comparison.

quote:
Simply wheeling out more unelected officials to demand that the UK get out now is only going to confirm the view of those who voted leave.

Absolutely. Although decades of being told to "get with the programme" has probably already confirmed most in their views.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

In any case, Juncker, Merkel et al can't have it both ways: if they were honest about not wishing the UK to leave the EU, then why the rush to push us towards the exit now that the referendum result is in?

I've already given my opinions of Merkel and Schauble above, so won't repeat them. However, if they are in the middle of the dealing with the european economy there are perfectly legitimate reasons for them to want to hurry up a process now that it has been signaled in order to lessen any period of uncertainty.

The question could equally be phrased the other way, if Gove, Johnson are serious about leaving the EU why the delay in triggering Article 50?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'd quote George Santayana Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. but replace the "cannot" with "will not".

I disagree. I think Cameron was deliberately trying to repeat history.

In 1975 Wilson called an EEC referendum, when the Liberals and Conservatives were pro EEC, and his party were divided on the issue.

Fast forward and we have Liberal Democrats and Labour mostly pro EU membership and the Conservatives divided.

Do as we did back then, call a referendum and quieten your anti EEC/EU people down.

This time history did not repeat.

How the Conservatives became so divided on Europe is another question altogether

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The question could equally be phrased the other way, if Gove, Johnson are serious about leaving the EU why the delay in triggering Article 50?

Exactly. The need for the delay is clearly necessary. Whether or not the Brexiteers expected to win, it's very doubtful that they had up their sleeve a clear exit negotiating strategy. They certainly couldn't talk about that without revealing the collective incoherence of the Brexiteer position.

In short, they had no clear worked out plans on how to handle victory.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

It is the Government's responsiblity to have a plan. The Government governs the country, not the Brexiteers, who were merely a campaign group.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It is the Government's responsiblity to have a plan. The Government governs the country, not the Brexiteers, who were merely a campaign group.

Which is what was so arse-about-face with this referendum. What was needed was for the Government to produce a proposal for a major constitutional change, with all the detail about what they would want (with the usual provisos that as it would need to be negotiated with other people these intentions may not actually work out), and then put that to the nation. Which wasn't what the Government wanted. Because the EU was not sufficiently important for people to vote in enough anti-EU MPs to form a Government willing to put forward such a White Paper.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I can't easily find the link, but Sir Bill Cash was explaining a way to unpick the EU legislation on R4's Today programme this morning. I would need to listen properly to know what he said, but he has been a leading anti-EU campaigner for decades.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It is the Government's responsiblity to have a plan. The Government governs the country, not the Brexiteers, who were merely a campaign group.
Which is what was so arse-about-face with this referendum. What was needed was for the Government to produce a proposal for a major constitutional change, with all the detail about what they would want (with the usual provisos that as it would need to be negotiated with other people these intentions may not actually work out), and then put that to the nation. Which wasn't what the Government wanted. Because the EU was not sufficiently important for people to vote in enough anti-EU MPs to form a Government willing to put forward such a White Paper.

I don't think it was at all necessary for the Gvt to put forward a White Paper. Obviously I do believe that the ramifications of Brexit should have been properly discussed, and I don't think they were. But I don't believe it would have been at all appropriate for the Govt to have published a paper stating what it would do in the event of a Leave vote - it would have have interfered with the campaigning and demonstrated partiality (and yes, I do have the Scottish Government in mind here).

What the Gvt did need to do was have a plan. It seems at least that the Bank of England did - or at least Carney has said so. After all, the point of a referendum is for the goverment to seek an answer from the public on a specific question and then act on it accordingly. Being able to act on it requires a plan for either eventuality. As "Remain" would have required pretty much no plan, they should have had plenty of time to think about "Leave".

As for the official Brexit campaign? As far as I'm concerned they had no responsiblity to the public for this at all. At most not spelling out what could happen would have lost them a campaigning advantage.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In any case, Juncker, Merkel et al can't have it both ways: if they were honest about not wishing the UK to leave the EU, then why the rush to push us towards the exit now that the referendum result is in?

You just don't get it do you?

The EU might rather the UK was in than out, but they'd rather out than the UK dithering about and doing the hokey-cokey on the doormat.

quote:
If the UK decides to trigger Article 50 - and I still think there is reasonable doubt over that -

The people of the UK just voted to trigger Article 50. That was the democratically expressed will of the people.

quote:
Simply wheeling out more unelected officials to demand that the UK get out now is only going to confirm the view of those who voted leave.

If the people who voted leave weren't confirmed in their views what then did they think they were doing voting leave?

The Leave Campaign seem to think they can act like a bunch of sulky teenagers. That if they yell that they're leaving this instant and never want to see their parents again, they can sidle downstairs the next morning as if nothing happened. That if they tell their boss that they resign and that he's a tinpot dictator, they can march in the next day and demand their job back with a salary hike, when they're lucky not to have their possessions thrown out the door after them.

Grow up and take some responsibility.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The people of the UK just voted to trigger Article 50. That was the democratically expressed will of the people.

The vote doesn't trigger it. Only the Gvt can do that.

quote:

The Leave Campaign seem to think they can act like a bunch of sulky teenagers. That if they yell that they're leaving this instant and never want to see their parents again, they can sidle downstairs the next morning as if nothing happened. That if they tell their boss that they resign and that he's a tinpot dictator, they can march in the next day and demand their job back with a salary hike, when they're lucky not to have their possessions thrown out the door after them.

Grow up and take some responsibility.

Jeepers. I hope you don't work in HR or in residential tenancies. There is this thing called "notice", and it is there for a very good reason.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... no, this smacks of pique. ...

They are entitled to feel that way. If I were them, I would. It was always obvious.

And us 48% who voted against this fiasco have to bear the consequences, for us, for our children and for our children's children.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the UKIP/Tory Brexit campaign was not about reducing immigration, then what the hell was it about?

Unbelievable. 5 seconds after the result and they've u-turned.
Which is why, now this juggernaut is rolling, there is every reason to believe it won't stop until farage is in No. 10.

That's silly.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

The brexiteers seem to think that we have won some sort of victory as a nation, and are therefore entitled to the spoils thereof.

The absolute reverse is true. We will be negotiating our exit from the EU from the weakest position possible - it will be as if we have lost a war and the EU is dictating terms.

"You can keep buying German cars and French cheese. But financial services? Forget it, we'll repatriate all those bankers in London. That was what you wanted anyway, wasn't it?"

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
=The absolute reverse is true. We will be negotiating our exit from the EU from the weakest position possible

How so? How could Britain negotiate her exit from the EU from a stronger position?

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It is the Government's responsiblity to have a plan. The Government governs the country, not the Brexiteers, who were merely a campaign group.

It is now, but given the official position of the Government (as I understand it) was to Remain, shouldn't the onus have been on the Leave campaigns to have plans for what would happen in the event of a leave vote? Why didn't they?

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The people of the UK just voted to trigger Article 50. That was the democratically expressed will of the people.
The vote doesn't trigger it. Only the Gvt can do that.

But the people have just voted effectively to ask the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50.

Look, I don't get all this talk suddenly from the Leave campaign of "if we trigger article 50", or complaining that the EU are asking us to get on with it quickly. This is what you wanted, isn't it, to get out of the EU. And if this was so important, so urgent as the Leave campaigns made out, then surely you'd be agreeing that it should be done as soon as possible. If not, why not? Why complain about the EU saying you shouldn't hold things up any longer and being exit negotiations ASAP when that's exactly what you wanted? I genuinely can't think of a reason for the Leave campaigns, the winners, to suddenly decide it's not that urgent - unless they didn't really mean all that stuff?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I genuinely can't think of a reason for the Leave campaigns, the winners, to suddenly decide it's not that urgent - unless they didn't really mean all that stuff?

That is apparently the problem.

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Totally agree, Stejjie. All Boris' "There's no rush" crap sounds very much like "Shit, I never thought we'd win, now what?"

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
=The absolute reverse is true. We will be negotiating our exit from the EU from the weakest position possible
How so? How could Britain negotiate her exit from the EU from a stronger position?

I'm not sure we could. When negotiations start, we have already committed ourselves to leaving. I'm not aware that article 50 includes any provision for calling off the negotiation and returning to membership, so we are in a position of having to take whatever we're given. And if nothing of substance is agreed after 2 years, nothing of substance is what we'll get.

The need for all members of the EU to ratify all trade agreements means that we will not be able to get anything that disadvantages any member state relative to us. The resulting treaties will be very one-sided.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Well, I've sobered up and won't trot out 'turkeys voted for Xmas' again.

Barnabas62, you know you have the moral authority to influence me, that I easily defer to you, BUT [Smile]

I don't like 'stupid' being applied to the insecure working class. The elite - including Corbyn and therefore me - did NOTHING to reassure them.

If they are 'stupid', turkeys, whose fault's that?

Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on :

Yes, they showed that clip on the news here, Ariel. Along with a Leaver saying she knew Winston Churchill would be looking down from Heaven in approval. Presumably a different Winston Churchill to the one that spoke in favour of a United States of Europe.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I genuinely can't think of a reason for the Leave campaigns, the winners, to suddenly decide it's not that urgent - unless they didn't really mean all that stuff?
That is apparently the problem.

Well, I did wonder...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Martin, I think the essential difference between "Builder" and "Boomer" attitudes has little to do with education and more to do with a greater self-centredness. The folks I grew up with were not self-centred and that rubbed off on me. Something I'm very grateful for.

And it is so much easier now to be informed. We, everybody, also have more free time to process that information. There is no excuse for willful ignorance.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If the EU does break up, it'll be largely our fault. It will probably be replaced, after a period of instability/social unrest/conflict, with something...well, very like the EU.
Yes, and one that we may have a hand in shaping the basics of, instead of coming into later, into an already established setup.

Sounds a bit like "We thought war was inevitable, so we launched missiles first".
Again, and with simple emphasis, the UK has no leverage in this.
Even if it did, first to establish terms with an entity you think will disappear is a rather ridiculous position. Rather like owning the most HMV stock or bargaining for a lower price for renting videos at Blockbuster.

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The harshest treatment the EU could mete out is a simple refusal to negotiate over exit terms.

There is considerable room between this and the fantasy peddled by the Brexiteers. The UK has no incentive to give a country with no leverage a sweetheart deal.

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

We still haven't faced up to how weak our position is here. We haven't "taken back control" at all - our fate will be decided by the EU.

This was obvious from the start to anyone who looked past fear.

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It is kind of amusing, except it isn't - we've just made a momentous decision based on a tissue of lies.

Amusing, yes. These are tears of laughter, sobs of joy. Anxiety is funny, right? Like Woody Allen. Of course, he also married his daughter, so...

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
House of Cards wasn't fiction!

As fictional as Network.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yep.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Random factoid of the day: my dad was one of the civil servants on the team who negotiated our entry to the common market in the 70s. I told him the bbc says the government is short of experienced trade negotiators - but he feels at 78 he's done his bit. (He also thinks brexit is a terrible decision, bucking his a demographic and geographical trend, but not any of the other trends.)

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

One thing I am not clear on - I seem to remember an EU official saying that the Cameron renegotiation was now "null and void".

Is this the case? And does that mean that the other members of the EU are now once more committed in principle to "ever closer union"??

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

They always were, Cameron had negotiated an opt out.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Is something being stitched up? Angela Merkel is sounding very conciliatory, saying the EU shouldn't be nasty to us or push for a speedy exit. Mind you, Frau Merkel's idea of not being nasty may differ somewhat from yours or mine...

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I suspect they've noticed financial crash, the potentional for the breakup of the UK, and the re-emergence of civil instability of N.I. - and decided that is probably offputting enough to others without them to have to play the bad guy and look anti-demorcratic.

Plus they may have notice the reluctance to trigger article 50 and think that if they sit on his hands brexit might die a death without further intervention.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
?....Along with a Leaver saying she knew Winston Churchill would be looking down from Heaven in approval..

Err, I think she meant Margaret Thatcher.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

Plus they may have notice the reluctance to trigger article 50 and think that if they sit on his hands brexit might die a death without further intervention.

My sense is that there is a bit of disagreement within the EU halls of power as to how to respond. I think they're all a bit surprised at the rippled effects of the referendum and some of the leaders are reacting against the harsh words from Juncker and the other EU top bods.

The fact is that a devalued sterling is going to be doing a lot of the Brexiteers job for them: as the UK becomes a lot less attractive then young people are not going to come here looking for work. Busting a gut on an East Anglian farm isn't going to be worth the returns because a few years of work will not pay for a house in Eastern Europe any more.

At the same time, even if there is no direct and immediate push against British retired migrants in Southern Europe by national governments, a devalued pound will suddenly and profoundly affect the wallet of pensioners who are paid in sterling. When this happened before, this caused a lot of people to return to blighty and a glut of property which reduced their value.

I think all of this is playing on the minds of the EU leaders. And they're asking themselves whether playing hardball with the UK is worth the damage it might cause to sterling and the knock-on effects. It might even be of benefit to kick the can down the street for a few months to allow the new reality to set in before getting out the thumbscrews.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I've said it before and I'll say it again, from this side of the Channel it appears entirely unrealistic to wait up to 4 months before invoking Article 50.

My reasons:

- that is simply far too long to keep businesses in uncertainty and they will let Cameron know that loudly

- the longer Cameron leaves it, the more disgruntled the EU will become (and justifiably so in my view)

- the longer Cameron leaves it, the bigger the legal, constitutional and economic vacuum grows in the UK, calling into question the democratic legitimacy of the vote, and into which more stupidity, such as the "second referendum", can emerge, and the greater the chance of unforeseen events. You would have thought he'd learned his lesson about committing to a course of action so far ahead of actually engaging it, apparently not. Did nobody ever tell him a week is a long time in politics?

All that said, I'm sure there's a degree of understanding on the EU side that the Brits need at least some time to get their ducks in order, and a certain amount of posturing is going on. But I really can't see this uncertainty lasting until October.

[ 25. June 2016, 21:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are setting out their stall as Brexit-breakers.

This could be interesting if there is a General Election called in the near future..

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

If Boris & Gove really wanted us to leave they would be banging on the table and mobilising demonstrations demanding that we push ahead as quickly as possible. The longer they let it ride, the more doubts will set in and the more chance the EU has to prepare its position for when the negotiations finally do start (wondering if this is actually Merkel's game).

I was never convinced by Boris as a Brexiteer and I am increasingly confirmed in that opinion. The only thing he believes in is Boris Johnson.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are setting out their stall as Brexit-breakers.

This could be interesting if there is a General Election called in the near future..

If the political parties back away from the referendum result, however unfairly it may seem to have been achieved, I think the UK is facing far bigger problems than whether or not it can manage to stay in the EU.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Hear hear what the sensible Eutychus has to say

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If the political parties back away from the referendum result, however unfairly it may seem to have been achieved, I think the UK is facing far bigger problems than whether or not it can manage to stay in the EU.

Eh, I don't think it is so bad. Plenty of other EU countries have repeated referenda when the first result was the wrong one. Looking at Ireland in particular.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are setting out their stall as Brexit-breakers.

I am intrigued by the notion that the results of a vote can be ignored if it's determined that the winning side lied during the campaign.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Eh, I don't think it is so bad. Plenty of other EU countries have repeated referenda when the first result was the wrong one. Looking at Ireland in particular.

The stakes were not so high. Backtracking on this one de-legitimises not only everyone on all sides in the original referendum, it throws open the huge question of just what makes any political decision legitimate, and the extent to which elected representatives should enact the will of the people.

While the EU-27 is waiting for an answer and not a single business with cross-border trade is going to want to make any investment decision until the question is resolved.

It may be that it's high time to tear up the way democracy has worked for the past few centuries in the UK, and I'm sure there are no shortage of ideas for replacing it, but don't expect it to be a peaceful process. A bold and adventurous decision indeed.

[ 25. June 2016, 21:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If the political parties back away from the referendum result, however unfairly it may seem to have been achieved, I think the UK is facing far bigger problems than whether or not it can manage to stay in the EU.
Eh, I don't think it is so bad. Plenty of other EU countries have repeated referenda when the first result was the wrong one. Looking at Ireland in particular.

And most unedifying that spectacle was - the sort of thing that contributed to many Brexiteers' fears about the EU, indeed.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Is something being stitched up? Angela Merkel is sounding very conciliatory, saying the EU shouldn't be nasty to us or push for a speedy exit. Mind you, Frau Merkel's idea of not being nasty may differ somewhat from yours or mine..

Disappointed as I was with the vote, I'm now hoping that Frau Merkel, as the most powerful voice in Europe, will be the voice listened to. Juncker and the six foreign ministers who met this morning would be all for "punishment" and "consequences" for a people who dared to challenge their vision of an integrated Europe. But the UK has always been a semi-detached member with several important opt outs, a position I was relatively comfortable with.

Perhaps she's listening to her car manufacturers who would regard it as dangerous to impose tariffs on British goods, which could cost their members jobs if they were reciprocal. But her view is that she still wants Britain as a strong political and trading ally, and perhaps when the others have stopped throwing their toys out of the pram, and they've had time to think, they'll let Mrs Merkel take the lead.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I suspect they've noticed financial crash, the potentional for the breakup of the UK, and the re-emergence of civil instability of N.I.

While I greatly admire the wily political instincts of both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, I'm not convinced they're being either realistic or fair here. Less than 2 years ago, Scotland voted, not by a huge margin, but by a respectable 10%, that it wanted to remain part of the UK. Now it's not news that Nicola doesn't and never will accept that verdict. And the question will undoubtedly come again. But it shouldn't happen after 2 years! Those sort of questions can be asked once in a generation. So Scotland voted, as part of the UK, by it's own democratic process. That it didn't like the result doesn't justify another referendum. Should London, with twice the population of Scotland become independent because it didn't vote for Brexit? It's quite likely that the European leaders won't deal separately with Scotland. There will be no mood among the Spanish, for example, to encourage regional breakaways.

The question of Northern Ireland needs to be dealt with in a way that keeps open the Irish border, and continues along the path of making that border irrelevant. In fact the Irish Republic needs to make it clear to other EU countries that whatever trade arrangements are eventually made between the EU and the UK, the historical and close economic and cultural ties between Britain and Ireland must be preserved. That's vitally important to the Irish economy, the Common Travel Area and the Northern Ireland peace process which needs an open border. An EU which couldn't recognise the special needs of Ireland would be irresponsible in the extreme.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The people of the UK just voted to trigger Article 50. That was the democratically expressed will of the people.
The vote doesn't trigger it. Only the Gvt can do that.

It is true that the Government could turn round and declare that it's going to ignore the referendum, yes. That would be interesting.

quote:

quote:
The Leave Campaign seem to think they can act like a bunch of sulky teenagers. That if they yell that they're leaving this instant and never want to see their parents again, they can sidle downstairs the next morning as if nothing happened. That if they tell their boss that they resign and that he's a tinpot dictator, they can march in the next day and demand their job back with a salary hike, when they're lucky not to have their possessions thrown out the door after them.
Jeepers. I hope you don't work in HR or in residential tenancies. There is this thing called "notice", and it is there for a very good reason.

Unless I'm missing something 'notice' is there to protect the interests of the party to whom the notice is given. If I have a 30-day notice period on my job, that means that if the company fires me they have to pay me for the next 30 days while I find some other job. As far as I'm aware it does not mean that if on day 29 they decide they need me after all they can tell me that my contract is back in place and I can't take up whatever other job I've found.

Yes - the EU has no power to make the Government trigger Article 50. However, I imagine that if we want to start off exit negotiations on as friendly a footing as possible, it would help the UK position if it hasn't been playing silly buggers to the detriment of the EU economy.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

It's beginning to look to me as if this whole effing thing was just a circus, a spleen venting exercise for the good o'l British public.
I think a law should be passed which prevents politicians using immigration for electioneering. Cameron did it twice to get into No.10, now it's been used on him and caused his resignation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sterling would have to fall 1000% to stop Eastern Europeans coming here. 5, 10, 25% is nowt. I met a young Polish bank manager in a Leicester A&E after taking one of his fellow countrymen, Patrick ... who'd managed to smash his own face in. The bank manager was doing warehouse work or some such. And happy to do so, with a wife and child. Patrick introduced me to a word for all occasions, which means every Anglo-Saxon word rolled in to one. These guys are tough, resourceful, cheap; a libertarian dream.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are setting out their stall as Brexit-breakers.

This could be interesting if there is a General Election called in the near future..
If the political parties back away from the referendum result, however unfairly it may seem to have been achieved, I think the UK is facing far bigger problems than whether or not it can manage to stay in the EU.

The LibDems were slaughtered for being seen as too close to the Tories. The next leader of the Conservatives will be a Eurosceptic, so by taking a very strong pro-EU position Fallon has in one swift move opened clear space between the LibDems and the Tories. Obviously he's hoping that some of the 48% will feel strongly enough to vote for a pro-EU party in a general election - he's going to be realistic enough to know that it will only be a small portion of the 48% (many will still vote along their normal party lines, many will accept that the result is what it is and look at other issues, many will probably not vote at all), he's hoping it's enough that the LibDems can at least reverse the loses in 2015 and maybe even get their largest number of MPs. But even in his wildest dreams, the combined LibDem and SNP (and any other party that comes out explicitly pro-EU, the Greens maybe) MPs are not going to be enough to form a pro-EU government that will prevent Brexit. He's looking long term - establish and build a foundation that will produce a pro-EU government to bring the UK back into the EU in 30 years.

Besides, I don't think there will be a general election in the autumn. The only way there will be one before Brexit is complete is if for some bizarre reason that's not complete by 2020. The political scene is so uncertain at present that there would be a good chance of the Conservatives not having a majority - the Conservatives won't want to risk that, and Labour aren't going to want to find themselves in government with Brexit hanging over their heads (Labour are going to want to be the first government post-Brexit, and several governments thereafter).

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The political scene is so uncertain at present that there would be a good chance of the Conservatives not having a majority - the Conservatives won't want to risk that, and Labour aren't going to want to find themselves in government with Brexit hanging over their heads

The new Tory leader and Prime Minister needs to be a Brexiteer in order to make realistic overtures and demands to our EU brethren. But any change of government may be problematic because parliament is strongly pro EU. How do pro EU MP's enforce the will of a (marginally) anti-EU electorate?

Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The political scene is so uncertain at present that there would be a good chance of the Conservatives not having a majority - the Conservatives won't want to risk that, and Labour aren't going to want to find themselves in government with Brexit hanging over their heads
The new Tory leader and Prime Minister needs to be a Brexiteer in order to make realistic overtures and demands to our EU brethren. But any change of government may be problematic because parliament is strongly pro EU. How do pro EU MP's enforce the will of a (marginally) anti-EU electorate?

Put themselves up for election. After all, Parliament is sovereign, as S. Charles King and Martyr discovered.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

In the short run, the Lib Dems could actually lose further votes, seeing as their support was traditionally strongest in traditionally Eurosceptic areas like southern England. Also it won't recover them votes in other areas of traditional strength like the Highlands as they have been utterly outflanked by the SNP. So I applaud Tim Farron for at least taking an honest position as opposed to a vote-maximising one.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Disappointed as I was with the vote, I'm now hoping that Frau Merkel, as the most powerful voice in Europe, will be the voice listened to. Juncker and the six foreign ministers who met this morning would be all for "punishment" and "consequences" for a people who dared to challenge their vision of an integrated Europe. But the UK has always been a semi-detached member with several important opt outs, a position I was relatively comfortable with.

Perhaps she's listening to her car manufacturers who would regard it as dangerous to impose tariffs on British goods, which could cost their members jobs if they were reciprocal. But her view is that she still wants Britain as a strong political and trading ally, and perhaps when the others have stopped throwing their toys out of the pram, and they've had time to think, they'll let Mrs Merkel take the lead.

It's not, and never has been about tariffs. It's about regulations. When you make a product anywhere. In order to be able to sell it anywhere it has to meet the various legal regulations about such a product. As do it's components. Now cars are a good example as they have a long and complex supply chain.

Over the past 40 odd years the free-trade rules across Europe, agreed by all the governments mean that a car manufactured to be sold in any of the EU countries can be sold in any/all of them. The same rules apply across the countries. The absence of this harmonization is what creates cost for business and reduces productivity: you don't want to be making a different specification car for each market. And more to the point, the cost of ensuring that you meet all the regulations is not insignificant when you have to do it repeatedly.

One of the interesting aspects of how the EU works is that it has not gone for the lowest common denominator but sought to provide sensible consumer protection - like NCAP safety ratings, emission regulations etc.

Now, let's say you make cars in Britain. You, presumably still want to sell them in Europe (Can't remember the figure but big chunk of UK-made cars are sold into the EU. And currently Britain is a big manufacturer of cars). So you'll have to make them to the EU-wide standards and regulations.

In the short term it will be easy as the UK regulations will (to begin with) be the same. Overtime however there may be some divergence. Either way, any UK manufacturer will have to conform to the EU rules that the UK has no part in deciding on. We now have less control than we did before.

This could be formalised by the so-called 'Norway option' whereby we pay a fee and accept free movement of people in return for access the the free-market. I can't see that happening - any kind of deal we end up with will be less power and influence than we have now.

Over the longer term, if you're a big car maker and you really want to sell to the EU, where are you going to make your investment? The UK or somewhere on mainland Europe?

I think Airbus are going to have an interesting time as well.

But it's ok because we have taken back control. Forgetting that no major decisions happened in the EU without the UK, France and Germany all agreeing to it.
[brick wall]

And investment is going to go up because Boris said so.
[brick wall]

It is all a mess. I wouldn't mind if there was some actual advantage to leaving the EU. No-one has yet actually managed to explain to me one actual advantage.

So, I am going to suggest one. The Common Agricultural Policy is a disaster. Leaving the EU will free us to do what we like. Unfortunately current policy of the Leave leaders is to match the farming subsidies...

Want to convince me that leaving the EU was a good idea try this:
1) Scrap the agricultural subsidies in the current format and subsidize the planting of trees etc. - you know basically policy that is good for the environment and reduces flooding.
2) Guarantee that Britain will never join TTIP unless the regulations of food safety and consumer protections are up to current European standards and that there will be no arbitration tribunals.
3) Removal of VAT on fuel and sanitary products
4) The UK leaving makes the EU realise it has major issues, especially with respect to its approach to Greece and stops its idiotic and self-defeating approach.

I am not holding my breath.

AFZ

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Unless I'm missing something 'notice' is there to protect the interests of the party to whom the notice is given. If I have a 30-day notice period on my job, that means that if the company fires me they have to pay me for the next 30 days while I find some other job. As far as I'm aware it does not mean that if on day 29 they decide they need me after all they can tell me that my contract is back in place and I can't take up whatever other job I've found.

It's there to protect both parties by allowing them both a fixed time to rearrange their affairs. You will notice that Article 50 allows a 2 year period of notice, so clearly it was not envisaged that everything would be lined up before the notice was given.

If the EU don't like that - tough - it's there in the treaty that each EU state agreed to. While I think it astonishingly negligent of the UK government not to have made any contingency planning for a Leave vote (if this is indeed true) it seems that the European Commissioners and other leaders were asleep on. the job too. The fact that they're only consulting their lawyers now about a rather basic question is not encouraging. It really does seem that they thought it absolutely unthinkable that an EU state would ever decide to leave, something which frightens me for a number of reasons.

[ 26. June 2016, 00:18: Message edited by: Cod ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are setting out their stall as Brexit-breakers.

This could be interesting if there is a General Election called in the near future..
If the political parties back away from the referendum result, however unfairly it may seem to have been achieved, I think the UK is facing far bigger problems than whether or not it can manage to stay in the EU.
The LibDems were slaughtered for being seen as too close to the Tories. The next leader of the Conservatives will be a Eurosceptic, so by taking a very strong pro-EU position Fallon has in one swift move opened clear space between the LibDems and the Tories. Obviously he's hoping that some of the 48% will feel strongly enough to vote for a pro-EU party in a general election - he's going to be realistic enough to know that it will only be a small portion of the 48% (many will still vote along their normal party lines, many will accept that the result is what it is and look at other issues, many will probably not vote at all), he's hoping it's enough that the LibDems can at least reverse the loses in 2015 and maybe even get their largest number of MPs. But even in his wildest dreams, the combined LibDem and SNP (and any other party that comes out explicitly pro-EU, the Greens maybe) MPs are not going to be enough to form a pro-EU government that will prevent Brexit. He's looking long term - establish and build a foundation that will produce a pro-EU government to bring the UK back into the EU in 30 years.

Besides, I don't think there will be a general election in the autumn. The only way there will be one before Brexit is complete is if for some bizarre reason that's not complete by 2020. The political scene is so uncertain at present that there would be a good chance of the Conservatives not having a majority - the Conservatives won't want to risk that, and Labour aren't going to want to find themselves in government with Brexit hanging over their heads (Labour are going to want to be the first government post-Brexit, and several governments thereafter).

You are perhaps forgetting that ongoing investigations of electoral fraud by the conservative party potentially effect upto 25 mps - if fraud is proved then the government may lose its majority, difficult to see how a general election is avoided in those circumstances.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Hilary Benn has been sacked from the shadow cabinet, for trying to get colleagues to agree to resign from the shadow cabinet.

So I think we know who the leadership challenger to Corbyn will be. He was probably the only plausible candidate.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

What a bugger's muddle this is!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

alienfromzog, the 'advantage' is that Estonian cabbage pickers have less right to be here despite the fact that no English people want to pick cabbages. Worth it at ANY price. Even tripling the price of OUR cabbage.

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
alienfromzog, the 'advantage' is that Estonian cabbage pickers have less right to be here despite the fact that no English people want to pick cabbages. Worth it at ANY price. Even tripling the price of OUR cabbage.

That's just it. The "they" are taking our jobs that the "we" don't want to do.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Paul TH:

quote:

Juncker and the six foreign ministers who met this morning would be all for "punishment" and "consequences" for a people who dared to challenge their vision of an integrated Europe.

This is exactly the same old horseshit that got the result you so longed for. It somehow is all the EU's fault that you can no longer have all the benefits after leaving it that you had when you were in it? Britain has spun this bullshit for decades. Everything that is in any way difficult that has been put in place by your own elected government you blame on the big old boogeyman, Europe. But you see, you can't do that anymore. Europe has no interest in punishing you. It just wants you to take responsibility for the decision you have now made and leave before the wreckage you've made starts to have a bigger effect than it should on everyone else around you. I know Britain's track record of taking responsibility for your actions isn't exactly stellar, but you could at least try it once without throwing accusations at everyone else in the room for dirtying your suit when you were the one rolling in your own shit.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Hilary Benn has been sacked from the shadow cabinet, for trying to get colleagues to agree to resign from the shadow cabinet.

So I think we know who the leadership challenger to Corbyn will be. He was probably the only plausible candidate.

And now he's said he won'tt actually stand for the leadership - that is possibly even less helpful. I think he would probably have lost - but he could have launched a challenge then put his case and maybe je would have convinced the membership. Niw he's just destablised the shadow cabinet with no apparent further plan (to be clear, yes I know Corbyn sacked him he didn't resign - but he was trying organise a mass resignation in which je would participate.)

What rally pisses me off, is that a) Corbyn deliver 70% of the labour vote for remain, which is comparable to the proportion their vote the SNP were able to deliver b) Corbyn has been consistently talking about the problems of poor communities hit by austerity, crap working conditions and shit housing since he took the leadership - and it is these problems that underly the brexit vote c) a large chunk of criticism about his campaign is that he actually told the electorate the truth, when they felt he should have spun to pretend we could get immigration rates down by by tens of thousand even with free movement c) the plp have been briefing against him since he was elected including *throughout* the remain campaign d) the actual leaders of the remain campaign itself (lord somebody or other - yes lord - nice appeal to the working man or woman there) and the labour remain campaign - Alan Johnson - have been nowhere to be bloody seen.

I saw much online coverage of corbyn doing stuff for remain - can anyone here rember Alan Johnson actually giving a remain speech, or Hilary Benn ? Iam sure it must have happened.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I have the mischievous thoughts that Corbyn actually wanted "Leave", and that it would have been much better had he campaigned hard for that, since large chunks of the right might then have gone over to "Remain".

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I saw much online coverage of corbyn doing stuff for remain - can anyone here rember Alan Johnson actually giving a remain speech, or Hilary Benn ? Iam sure it must have happened.

I actually heard Johnson doing a phone-in on Radio 4 and he was very good, giving factual and constructive answers to even the most hostile callers in his usual matey style.

I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
alienfromzog, the 'advantage' is that Estonian cabbage pickers have less right to be here despite the fact that no English people want to pick cabbages. Worth it at ANY price. Even tripling the price of OUR cabbage.

At first I thought this was a typo and you meant Etonian cabbage pickers, but then I thought about it and it made no sense.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I saw much online coverage of corbyn doing stuff for remain - can anyone here rember Alan Johnson actually giving a remain speech, or Hilary Benn ? Iam sure it must have happened.
I actually heard Johnson doing a phone-in on Radio 4 and he was very good, giving factual and constructive answers to even the most hostile callers in his usual matey style.

I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.

There is now a claim he wasn't at the campaign launch circulating on twitter, supposedly sourced from someone working in labour communciations. Presumambly, they'd for gotten this photograph of the launch is findable through google:

http://labourlist.org/2016/05/a-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-is-essential-for-jobs-and-workers-rights-says-alan-johnson/

I believe it is also ion the daily mirror site. Meanwhile Huffpost have a piece claiming he sabotaged the campaign consisting of:

He didn't focus on the referendum campaign till after the local elections - this seems to me unsurprising given that the plp were screaming that the labour vote was going to tank, he wasn't doing enough etc (it didn't and the party won the byelections)
Claims refused to meet with Alan Johnson - this has been debiunked, his office point out they met two days after Johnson asked to book a meeting and had fixed fortnightly meetings in his diary
. They ddin't like the issues he choose to focus on and felt he didn't talk enough about immigration - choosing instead to blame these problems on austerity (also noting oroblems with the EU in his speeches whilst arguing for remain). Or to put it another way, he told the truth.
He wouldn't put a specifc set phrase at the end of every speech - this of a man who was elected partly because people were sick of 'soundbite' politics
They felt he should have done more specific labour in events, instead of talking about it at other political and canvassing events
He didn't share a platfotm with Browb, Blair or Lord Mandleson - I struggle to see who this would have helped, frankly I am amazed anyone thinks having Tony Blair backing your cause is helpful
[*2]He didn't trail soundbites of his Andrew Marr interview to the press ahead of time
There was one particular speech they thought was going to be about the EU but wasn't

This is very clearly co-ordinated with the cabinet resignations - none of it comes anywhere near an *honest* strategy that would have changed the vote.

The campaign would have functioned better if the plp were not also v obviously manourvering to oust him during the campaign.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.

Which also meant that no matter how well Corbyn (or anyone else) made the case for the EU based on the rights of workers etc, arguments that should appeal to the traditional Labour voter, those arguments were never going to be heard by the Labour voters he was appealing too. Which may be a result of poor press officers in his office, but it's also possible that the obsession in the press with the issues of the right and the Tory infighting would have made even the worlds greatest press team struggle to get his message reported.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
... Plus they may have noticed the reluctance to trigger article 50 and think that if they sit on his hands brexit might die a death without further intervention.

Please God, and if only - and I mean that. [Votive]

Alas, it's a long shot, but I would never have expected the Iron Curtain to come down

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Also he did deliver 70% of the labour vote, realistically how much higher could that really be - if 70% of the entire country had voted either remain or leave we'd have been astonished.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Do we think it would have been different if Cameron had not allowed the cabinet to campaign for out ?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
]I actually heard Johnson doing a phone-in on Radio 4 and he was very good, giving factual and constructive answers to even the most hostile callers in his usual matey style.

I don't think we can blame any of the Labour remain campaigners for their lack of exposure, the media were all obsessed with the blue-on-blue feuding between Cameron, and Boris & Dave.

I meant of course, Boris & Gove.
[Hot and Hormonal]

I think people got that.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Do we think it would have been different if Cameron had not allowed the cabinet to campaign for out ?

Boris is a member of the cabinet, isn't he? If he had been forced to resign in order to campaign for out, it might have given him pause. He took an age over the decision as it was.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

1. Seen on last night's BBC News: Elderly lady, in Romford, Essex, asked for reaction to result: 'Wonderful! I've got my country back! and it'll just be like it was before!' Before what, one wonders.
2. I see there is a suggestion that the 'Second Referendum' petition was started by a 'Leave' supporter when it looked as if 'Remain' might win.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I've set up a new thread to discuss the possible fall of Jeremy Corbyn.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Please God - let Brexit die and us stay in... and for Labour or Libs to undo the damage to disability protection laws...

[Votive]

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

From where I sit on the other side of the pond, it seems to me there are some legitimate constitutional concerns being expressed as well as more emotional ones. To what extent was the vote a protest against the practical effect of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels making unpopular laws and regulations, as opposed to a protest in principle against co-ordinated political collaboration of any sort whatsoever?

When the US was in its political adolescence (as the EU is now), our Articles of Confederation weren't working properly either. However, rather than the several states seceding and going their separate ways, they drew up a new federal constitution that corrected some of the original flaws.

Given that some of the other European nations seem to be similarly chafing under the EU yoke, what are the chances that the ultimate outcome might be, not secession, but a revised constitution for the EU with more democratic parliamentary power and less unelected bureaucratic power?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It's there to protect both parties by allowing them both a fixed time to rearrange their affairs. You will notice that Article 50 allows a 2 year period of notice, so clearly it was not envisaged that everything would be lined up before the notice was given.

It is true that legally, as I understand it, the rest of the EU has no power to force Article 50.
That doesn't mean that the EU is being unreasonable or high-handed when it asks the UK to just get on with it. Two years is supposed to be the time the UK needs to sort its affairs out. It shouldn't need an extra three months to sort itself out to the point it can sort its affairs out, while leaving its former partners twiddling their thumbs thinking they have better things to do.

quote:
The fact that they're only consulting their lawyers now about a rather basic question is not encouraging.

Not so much evidence of the EU finding it unthinkable that anyone would leave, as evidence that the EU never thought anyone would leave in such a numpty-ish fashion.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
as I understand it, the rest of the EU has no power to force Article 50.

Article 50

quote:

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention....

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2...

Which could be interpreted to mean that the moment DC tells the Council about the referendum result, the UK has triggered the 2 year time-bomb...

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I have the mischievous thoughts that Corbyn actually wanted "Leave", and that it would have been much better had he campaigned hard for that, since large chunks of the right might then have gone over to "Remain".

Don't! Had Labour decided to make the leftist case for leaving the neoliberal club called the EU, which forced the socialists out of power in Greece, did a despicable deal with Turkey on immigration, and wants to negotiate a stitch-up TTIP with the USA; had they made that case, they could now be riding a wave of populism, demanding an immediate general election and installing PM Corbyn by Christmas. As it is, they chose a different path.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Mathew Holehouse - Torygraph europe correspondent has tweeted this linking to a longer piece:

quote:

EU sources say UK can delay Art 50 as it faces "very significant" crisis with lack of government and break up of UK

So they may not push, but not for shiny happy reasons.

[ 26. June 2016, 19:59: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Don't! Had Labour decided to make the leftist case for leaving the neoliberal club called the EU, which forced the socialists out of power in Greece, did a despicable deal with Turkey on immigration, and wants to negotiate a stitch-up TTIP with the USA; had they made that case, they could now be riding a wave of populism, demanding an immediate general election and installing PM Corbyn by Christmas. As it is, they chose a different path.

Well, when the rubber hits the road on the economic consequences (probably sometime in the next fortnight), "Brexiteer" will begin to mean something like "Piper of Hamlet" or worse. Corbyn will be glad to not have number among them.

Meanwhile, the EU is going to put a lot of pressure on the UK to evoke Article 50 starting tomorrow. The UK has used more than its share of political bandwidth over the last decade, and I think the EU want to get this Brexit thing over and done with so they can move on to more pressing projects.

And I don't think Brexit will lead to the end of the EU. The example of economic mayhem awaiting the UK will not be lost on the populations of wavering members.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Meanwhile, the EU is going to put a lot of pressure on the UK to evoke Article 50 starting tomorrow.

Not necessarily. Angela Merkel doesn't appear to be in a hurry.

quote:
She added that she was seeking an "objective, good" climate in the talks with Britain, which "must be conducted properly". --BBC News

I'm curious about what folks here think of the ideas raised in a comment comment on the Guardian site discussed here in the Washington Post. It argues that Cameron has "effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters...." The bases for this claim are that the referendum is not binding, the sole question in the Conservative party election will be whether or not the next leader will invoke Article 50, and both Johnson and Gove know that they would have to do so if elected and that the whole thing will be a disaster.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think there would be a very strong possibility that the country would go into meltdown if Art 50 isn't enacted. You can't ask people to vote for something having told them you will act on it and then expect them to sit on their hands and play nice when its completely ignored and undone. It would be like lighting the touch paper.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

[crosspost]

Just ignoring the free vote of over the half the of the eligible electorate who chose to vote would be *very* dangerous.

We have already had far right terrorism in this country intermittently for years, but most recently this month - we *do not* want another 30 year conflict with the death of thousands. That is a real risk if the vote is simply ignored. Likewise, refusing a second referendum to the Scots if the devolved government asks for one would be insane.

[ 26. June 2016, 21:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

WHAT? This is ENGLAND we're talking about. It will be finessed, blurred, fumbled, compromised, everybody will think they won.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

No, its the United Kingdom we are talking about. Failure to consider that is part of the problem.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

I think the vote must carry (as much as I hate it). Angela Merkel might be civil, but she and 27 other leaders in Europe will be keen to get clarity on the UK's position. And I think they will be firm. The UK can expect no favours, and will get deals only where it is in the EU's favour.

Switzerland is another one of those countries. It recently suicidally decided by referendum to introduce a cap on immigration, which are clearly in breach of the country's bilateral agreements with the EU. So CH is keen to renegotiate these deals Not surprisingly, the EU is not really very interested, as there is little to be gained from it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm curious about what folks here think of the ideas raised in a comment comment on the Guardian site discussed here in the Washington Post. It argues that Cameron has "effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters...."

I'm not sure I buy the whole thing. Cameron may be clever enough to have thought of that in the early hours as the vote became clear, but I doubt it.

The Tory leadership is, however, a poison chalice. Whoever takes up that role has to take the country through Brexit, lead the UK side of the negotiations and produce some form of arrangement that will be different from anything promised by the Leave campaign. He (or she, as I see Theresa May is likely to stand) will be remembered as the PM who lead the UK out of the EU, and will be considered a traitor to those who voted for Brexit under different terms than what is finally achieved. Fail to get a free trade deal, and the more traditional economics-minded Tories will have a fit. Fail to get any sort of control on immigration and the racists will riot. Find that there budget doesn't add up and even without paying any money to the EU (and, the government may end up doing so for access to the single market) there simply isn't enough to continue the farm subsidies, scientific research, regional development payments, and hire a large number of diplomats to start trying to negotiate trade deals (which we would need, since we'll no longer be paying for the EU to do that), and pay some extra to the NHS ... and that will piss off even more people.

They'll be a PM with one job to do, and when that's done and the UK is out of the EU then there political career will be over - they'll have made too many political enemies, necessity meaning too many people didn't get what they wanted.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It will be finessed, blurred, fumbled, compromised, everybody will think they won.

I just found Johnson's newest Telegraph column. I think you're right.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

X-posted with Alan. And on second thought, I agree that it will all be finessed, compromised, etc, but I don't think everyone will think they won. Most people will think they've lost, though some may not understand in what way that is the case.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

There has been some talk of a government of national unity, that does make some sense. It would mean all parties have to sign up to a negotiating position, and make it less toxic for any one party.

However, I don't think anyone will go for it having seen what happened to the liberals.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Technically its all upto the Queen, but if she actually does anything political - such as dismissing the government or refusing to sign legislation - we'd have a constitutional crisis. However, if Holyrood or Stormont refuse to brexit we'll have a constitutional crisis.

The Queen is known to be a unionist, and to have higher approval ratings than any of our elected politicians. Her most likely intervention would be behind the scenes or in a public address. And it would be oblique.

It is not impossible for the government to try to use the Queen to give them a get out clause. For example, Holyrood refuse to co-operate on brexit. The Queen is briefed to give a speech stating she is concerned that people may have voted to triggered article 50 without reallising the risk of a break-up of the UK. Perhaps the question should have somehow covered the possible post-leave scenarios in the interests of a demorcratic mandate. The government then react to the speech with pantomimed public head scratching and "reluctantly" decide ona a second referendum with somewhat different questions. A substantial proportion of UKIPs base are full on royalists, and it would put a dent in their support. (Also Jeremy Corbyn may die of cognitive dissonance.)

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Just ignoring the free vote of over the half the of the eligible electorate who chose to vote would be *very* dangerous.

The only way to manage it would be to go for another referendum, or a general election, having first made sure that they're certain it will get the result they want more clearly than the first referendum.
That means I think getting a critical mass of the anti-European press to switch sides.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Boris sets out his stall as leader of the "Norway Brexit" option.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

From Johnson's article:

"The stock market is way above its level of last autumn; the pound remains higher than it was in 2013 and 2014."

I want some of whatever he's been smoking.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Clearly still smoking the same stuff that let him believe there would be £350m a week available to spend on something post-Brexit.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I note politicians going on about not connecting with working people. Perhaps they have forgotten that unemployed people have a vote too. Possibly forcing 500,000 people to use foodbanks in one of the richest countries on earth makes them less likely to support anything you say.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Clearly still smoking the same stuff that let him believe there would be £350m a week available to spend on something post-Brexit.

One of the traps ipeople were encouraged to fall into, is the belief that there is a fixed amount of money in the economy.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Osborne has said no new budget till after we have a new prime minister.

Basically, said have talked to all his counterparts etc so chill. Looks like markets are having slightly less of a meltdown.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't understand - and I'd really like to - how the underclass of people who leave school with no qualifications, who struggle to find anything beyond minimum wage and zero hours contracts, who rely on food banks and so on, how those people think their condition is improved by Brexit or voting Tory. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I can't decide if this group of people are so demoralised that they're primarily the group who didn't vote at all, that they've somehow been overcome with latent racism or that the Tories have been pandering to them by dog whistling about immigration whilst never actually doing anything about it (nor really doing anything about any other issue that would significantly affect their lives).

I can kind-of understand the reaction of the older, retired UKIP voter. They're alright, they own a house, they're worried about how to pay for their care in older age, and basically they've got little to lose by voting for the Tories (who offer them continued incentives) and for Brexit.

It just seems to me that a significant number of people here seem to have voted against their own interests. Is that because Labour has shifted the focus off them and so ignored their plight in favour of the crowd who swig champagne? Is it because Brexit was somehow sold to them as a protest vote cynically and deliberately by UKIP/Tories who knew that it would never give the apparent benefits that the poorest thought they were voting for? Something else?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

People have been encouraged to blame every structural problem on Europe and immigration - and there are a lot of structural problems.

The tories effectively tell the poor, that they are poor because others have taken their stuff.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Because they think "Nasty immigrants taking the job I deserve, driving down wages, taking all the decent houses and all benefits scroungers; they're what's left me without a job / in this state." I have spent a lot of time trying to change that viewpoint and get some young people to self-reflect on how their own lack of engagement in education will do more to affect their employability than anybody else.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
No, its the United Kingdom we are talking about. Failure to consider that is part of the problem.

The English aren't going to terrorize themselves or anyone else over this chaos. Neither are the Welsh, Irish, Scots, Cornish, whoever. Despite NOBODY'S expectations being met. As usual. Watch us go out to Iceland tonight.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

A leave worker was telling me jist before the vote, that people working on the land used to get a decent wage (which is bollocks, agricultural unskilled laboir has been poorly paid for 100s of years) and could keep a family on it with a roof over their head. Well, accomodation ised to be tied, tenant famrers etc and housing used to be a lot cheaper. But I think it also negates the roles of industrialisation of farming. Yes, tractors have been around for ages, but the machines that process the crop at speed, milk the cows etc are newer.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
WHAT? This is ENGLAND we're talking about. It will be finessed, blurred, fumbled, compromised, everybody will think they won.

oh, no, it'll be finessed, blurred... and everyone will think they've lost. Cameron was wily enough to resign, whoever will try to lead the country into Brexit will widely be seen has having committed an act of treachery, one way or the other. My bet is: Brexit, we will not like it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A leave worker was telling me jist before the vote, that people working on the land used to get a decent wage (which is bollocks, agricultural unskilled laboir has been poorly paid for 100s of years) and could keep a family on it with a roof over their head.

And, there have always been seasonal labour shortages in agriculture. Times when everyone dropped their normal job to help out with the harvest. A few generations ago and it would be normal for inner city families to take a few weeks "holiday" in the country helping with the harvest, the only way they could afford to get out of the city for a short time. How many people today would consider using a couple of weeks of their annual leave to do another job, much less something physically hard work?

Of course, as our economy collapses to the point where we look with envy at the prosperity of the Greeks it may well be that a holiday harvesting crops will once again be all that many people can afford.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It will be finessed, blurred, fumbled, compromised, everybody will think they won.
I just found Johnson's newest Telegraph column. I think you're right.

I read it too: panic not, nothing will change, rally, except our ability to pass laws in Westminster and get rid of those 'opaque' directives and pieces of European legislation. He read it all in his crystal ball. If nothing much will change and those laws were not that bad, really, except for their strangling British jobs, why leave? Why take control?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Johnson is in expectations management mode now. (Management of Brexiteers' expectiations, that is.) He is desperately trying to find a way out of this mess, expect Farage to start screaming "betrayal!" soon.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
The tories effectively tell the poor, that they are poor because others have taken their stuff.

"...but it wasn't us, it was them over there wot took it..."

I wonder how many votes in the North were lost to Leave by the pictures of Maggie Thatcher campaigning for the EU in the 70s. There's still a lot of (understandable) bitterness over the miners' strike.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Some people are now saying they now realise they really just wanted to register a protest vote, and didn't expect to leave.
Shakespeare was familiar with this attitude. See Coriolanus, Act IV, Scene VI:
3rd Citizen: That we did, we did for the best; and though we willingly consented to his banishmant, yet 'twas against our will.
The English don't change.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
I don't understand - and I'd really like to - how the underclass of people who leave school with no qualifications, who struggle to find anything beyond minimum wage and zero hours contracts, who rely on food banks and so on, how those people think their condition is improved by Brexit or voting Tory. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I volunteer with a group of older (50s, 60s) white men who are in that group - though they are all on benefits and have been for years, which is not perhaps quite the 'white van man' demographic you are thinking of. Some of them had OK jobs 20 years ago, and nothing (for some mental illness, alcoholism) since.

All of them (7 at last week's 'music class' - generally we're a wonky kind of Stones tribute band) were strongly 'remain'; all were clear on what they thought Boris might do to people on benefits.

But my guys are bright, I guess, and pretty independent thinkers.

M.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Boris seems to be telling Torygraph readers not to worry, it'll be fine, nothing much is going to change. But there is the minor detail that we won't have any influence or veto on the formation of a European superstate next door - and, yes it could have its own army. Oh, and we've managed to upset some influential people mightily.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I see the FTSE 250 (which is a better barometer of the health of the UK economy than the FTSE 100) is down over 10% since the Brexit vote and so far today a further 3%.

Overall the market is pretty volatile, despite George Osborne's soothing words. The Bears are picking targets. Early days, but it really doesn't look very good.

The market movements seem to be going the way the "so-called experts" were predicting. They will calm down somewhere of course, but it would be a very wise man who could predict when, and at what level, now.

[ 27. June 2016, 09:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
People have been encouraged to blame every structural problem on Europe and immigration - and there are a lot of structural problems.

The tories effectively tell the poor, that they are poor because others have taken their stuff.

The tories are right. Others have taken their stuff, but it's been due to the tory government's own policies, cutting benefits to fund hand-outs to business (HS2 etc), not migrant workers.

btw, I heard over the weekend that one of the major Crossrail contractors has "contingency plans" if the pound continues to fall against the USD and EUR.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Hearing that the Heathrow 3rd Runway and Hinckley Point are off the table. So that's an estimated £40 billion gone.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Hearing that the Heathrow 3rd Runway and Hinckley Point are off the table. So that's an estimated £40 billion gone.

It's hard to believe that Cameron is going to have the chutzpah to announce his own resignation, and then allow Heathrow's 3rd runway. Assuming Boris wins a Conservative leadership contest, then Heathrow 3 is definitely dead, because he's so opposed. Then again, in February he thought it would be a dreadful idea to quit the EU, so who knows.

I could imagine that Brexit could provide EDF with an excuse to pull out of Hinkley Point. It deosn't seem to have had anything near the requisite level of support within the company and in France, and I think they could easily say that Brexit changes the situation so significantly that it's a killer.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
Well, when the rubber hits the road on the economic consequences (probably sometime in the next fortnight), "Brexiteer" will begin to mean something like "Piper of Hamlet" or worse. Corbyn will be glad to not have number among them.

I think you mean "Piper of Hamelin", unless there's some colloquialism unknown to me relating to Shakespeare's Dane. Maybe this bit from Act III, scene 2?

quote:
HAMLET: O, the recorders! let me see one. To withdraw with you:-- why do you go about to recover the wind of me, as if you would drive me into a toil?

GUILDENSTERN: O, my lord, if my duty be too bold, my love is too unmannerly.

HAMLET: I do not well understand that. Will you play upon this pipe?

GUILDENSTERN: My lord, I cannot.

HAMLET: I pray you.

GUILDENSTERN: Believe me, I cannot.

HAMLET: I do beseech you.

GUILDENSTERN: I know no touch of it, my lord.

HAMLET: 'Tis as easy as lying: govern these ventages with your lingers and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most eloquent music. Look you, these are the stops.

GUILDENSTERN: But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony; I have not the skill.

HAMLET: Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass: and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me.

That's kind of appropriate too, though in a different way.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

If the ex-mayor becomes Prime Minister, do we get Boris Island? Or is that the new name for former UK?

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Interesting possible new name, but in all seriousness, I think it will be a long time before Britain is considered stable enough for outside parties to be willing to get involved in projects as big as Boris Island.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Hinckley Point are off the table.

Citation needed. French news reported EDF standing behind the project as of last Friday.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Hinckley Point are off the table.
Citation needed. French news reported EDF standing behind the project as of last Friday.

Citation.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Hinckley Point are off the table.
Citation needed. French news reported EDF standing behind the project as of last Friday.
Citation.

From your citation, emphasis mine

quote:
The Brexit decision could also affect the £18bn nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Here's Reuters on June 24:

quote:
PARIS (Reuters) – French utility EDF on Friday confirmed its commitment to build a nuclear plant at Hinkley Point following Britain’s vote to leave the European Union.

Bear in mind it just got a lot cheaper for them [Two face]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

And if they want paying in Euros for the electric we've agreed to pay stupendously over the odds for, it just get an even worse proposition for us.

Since the strike price appeared to be announced in £ sterling, perhaps they just got a big loss on that.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

On reflection, I think the message from the ex-industrial wastelands and other depressed areas is: 'So we're all in it together, are we? Well, see how you like it, then!' Which is, I suppose, fair enough - except that they've made their own position worse.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Yes, their belief that, somehow, Whitehall is going to replace their EU grants with its own funds is 'a fond thing vainly imagined'.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, their belief that, somehow, Whitehall is going to replace their EU grants with its own funds is 'a fond thing vainly imagined'.

Bearing in mind that the UK is a net contributor to the EU, if Brexit goes ahead, it would be irresponsible in the extreme if Whitehall didn't make good EU grants to agriculture and poorer regions. They couldn't afford it if they were really to give £350 million a week to the NHS, but we all know what crap that was. But any money repatriated needs to be used to make good current commitments from the EU. We shouldn't tolerate less.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The problem you've got is that the damage to the economy from Brexit far exceeds that returning revenue, so the money isn't going to be there to pay out. Plus any attempt to keep us in the EEA is going to involve continuing to at least as much (Norway pays the same per capita as we do). That money was a mirage from the start and anyone who was paying attention knew that.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Nevertheless it might be a good idea for whatever government emerges from this mess to make good the EU funding - even if the money is not there, they ought to borrow it or make cuts elsewhere.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well, Osborne had already said there will need to be tax and other changes post-Brexit, based on Treasury advice and calculation. Oh, I forgot. That's just the "so-called experts" playing with your heads.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Looks like a bit of consolidation in the market, but I should think confidence will remain brittle for some time to come.

Nigel Farage was shameful in the European Parliament today. The riposte I enjoyed, and which he so richly deserved, was this one

quote:
Belgian ex-Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who leads the liberal group in the European parliament, said Mr Farage had used "Nazi propaganda" in the referendum campaign, referring to a poster showing lines of refugees."Finally we are going to get rid of the biggest waste in the EU budget, which we have paid for 17 years, your salary!" he told Mr Farage.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem you've got is that the damage to the economy from Brexit far exceeds that returning revenue, so the money isn't going to be there to pay out. Plus any attempt to keep us in the EEA is going to involve continuing to at least as much (Norway pays the same per capita as we do). That money was a mirage from the start and anyone who was paying attention knew that.

Probably. UK GDP was £1,864.64 billion in 2015. Net contributions to the EU (money paid in minus money received back) was about £8.47 billion in 2015, or approximately 0.45% of GDP. All the realistic projections I've come across expect UK GDP to be depressed by significantly more than 0.45% after leaving the EU.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Cheap at the price for the Anglo-Welsh working class wasteland. Things couldn't have got worse for them in their mind and now they just got better. They WON.

We can't beat Johnny foreign as Iceland showed and so we won't play any more. And now they'd better fuck off if they know what's good for them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, Martin, the working class wastelands are going to be in clover now. They will find new investments pouring in, new building projects, new hospitals, with reduced waiting times, and also a new Persil white environment, with no fuzzy-wuzzies. Boris is a demi-god.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

OUR fuzzy-wuzzies are all right, they voted fuck off too.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OUR fuzzy-wuzzies are all right, they voted fuck off too.

I'm surrounded by the fuzzies. It's some of the white fuckers who are a drag. Can we deport them?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Precedent says, when you're up, lynch the fuckers.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

This is not funny. The organisation I work for had to send an email out to all its staff today to reassure our eu/immigrant staff - after people had been contacting management worried about dealing with harassment in the local community.

[ 28. June 2016, 17:27: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You're right Doublethink. No excuse. Graveyard if not trench humour. But no excuse.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
Well, Martin, the working class wastelands are going to be in clover now.

Folks - the post-industrial north is largely mixed-race. Yes, there are some white pockets - but not like 20 years ago. Just one example near me - inner Salford - a white Beirut in 1990, now mixed and a lot calmer. The post-industrial bits are urban, and, in the main, the urban vote was 'remain'.

Look at the map again for leave bits - geographically, it's most of the country by area. This is semi-rural, like England is - inhabited by bypass man. These are white commuters, well off, Mail-reading. Those near me now in Cheshire probably think they're different from those I grew up around in Romford, but they're not - it's the same white commuter scene. These are not grumpy white lads who wish they could be doing what granddad (yes granddad - it's that long ago) used to do in't factory. Yes, some of those lads are driving a fork-lift and are pissed-off that their hourly rates are undercut by a seemingly unlimited supply of Poles. But in the main, I reckon it was not Paul Calf, but instead - to use a ship short-hand - Deano.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
The fact that they're only consulting their lawyers now about a rather basic question is not encouraging.
Not so much evidence of the EU finding it unthinkable that anyone would leave, as evidence that the EU never thought anyone would leave in such a numpty-ish fashion.

I think there is mass delusion about this, to be honest. There has been widespread dissatisfaction in the UK with the EU's direction for decades. The country I left over a decade ago was pretty firmly Eurosceptic. I genuinely don't understand how this Leave vote seems by some to have come out of nowhere. Furthermore, I lived in on the most pro-EU bits before I left.

If the institutions of the EU took no account of this then they are the numpties, and if there is something improper about a member state democratically deciding to leave, then there is something very wrong with the EU.

On another subject, yesterday there was a very interesting article on the Guardian website by John Harris about how the EU had basically failed in its role of containing big business. I would link to it but I can't find it.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I think there is mass delusion about this, to be honest. There has been widespread dissatisfaction in the UK with the EU's direction for decades. The country I left over a decade ago was pretty firmly Eurosceptic.

We shouldn't overlook this. Every government in the last 35 years has been at times isolated in the EU, because there has never been any enthusiasm here for ever closer political union. It started with Thatcher's confrontational approach, for which her party finally ousted her. But John Major and Tony Blair also had their share of disagreements. Major had to fight hard for Britain's opt out from the Euro. The other member states have always seen Britain as a malcontent that always wants more and wants exemptions, and often, after much bad feeling, they've been granted. Now that the southern flank of Europe's countries have lost their ability to devalue their currencies against the richer north, they have stagnant economies and 50% youth unemployment.

In general, the British have never wanted this. In 1975, in a world in which trade tariffs were huge, we voted to join a free trade area. Globalisation has changed the world a lot since then. WTO rules limit EU tariffs to a maximum of 6%, a figure it would be much better if we didn't have to pay, but it's debatable if that would cost more than we could save in our EU budget contributions. This is assuming that Mrs Merkel is willing to defy her business class who want her to maintain free trade with the UK. I am still saddened by the vote, and somewhat fearful for the future. I think successive British governments have successfully protected us from the worst excesses of Euro-Federalism and I felt no compelling reason to leave. But there's a lot wrong with the EU which is in need of serious reform.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If the institutions of the EU took no account of this then they are the numpties, and if there is something improper about a member state democratically deciding to leave, then there is something very wrong with the EU.

But has the member state democratically decided to leave the EU? Or has it democratically decided to sit about twiddling its thumbs? Who knows? The EU doesn't know; it would like to find out. David Cameron doesn't know. If Bloody Stupid Johnson knows he's doing his best to hide it.

[ 28. June 2016, 19:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
But in the main, I reckon it was not Paul Calf, but instead - to use a ship short-hand - Deano.

No personal attacks or caricatures outside Hell, please.

/hosting

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

But has the member state democratically decided to leave the EU? Or has it democratically decided to sit about twiddling its thumbs? Who knows? The EU doesn't know; it would like to find out.

And so, they have resolved to find out:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0294+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

"5. Warns that in order to prevent damaging uncertainty for everyone and to protect the Union’s integrity, the notification stipulated in Article 50 TEU must take place as soon as possible; expects the UK Prime Minister to notify the outcome of the referendum to the European Council of 28-29 June 2016; this notification will launch the withdrawal procedure;"

"7. Recalls that any new relationship between the UK and the EU may not be agreed before the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement;"

One wonders if they were influenced at all by Farage's performance earlier, where he clearly was trying to be deliberately insulting as he would be best served by a failed deal - he can than crow about how they let down 'decent' people before starting to ramp up his fascist rhetoric.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... If the institutions of the EU took no account of this then they are the numpties, and if there is something improper about a member state democratically deciding to leave, then there is something very wrong with the EU. ...

It is not the EU's job to do that. That is saying that you don't want it to be a superstate but that it has failed to be one.

No. All - and I mean all - the guilt lies firmly with our own politicians. They have used 'blame Europe for it' as an excuse for not doing what they had power to do themselves but didn't want to. I'd accept that if they said 'we'd like to but we can't afford to'. That's often true. But not 'we'd love to help but we're not allowed to', when that is not true.

The EU has contributed to this by not openly giving more acknowledgement to subsidiarity. But our government has resisted that good idea within the UK.

The ultimate failing lies with our governments, and that none of us had noticed they were getting away with it.

Somebody told me recently that they had voted leave because the EU had failed the poor and marginalised. But the EU doesn't stop governments helping the poor and marginalised. I've tried to explain that, but they neither want to hear nor are willing to explain why they say that.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
And so, they have resolved to find out

Resolved non-bindingly, it should be specified.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Has there been discussion in here about the 1 out of 3 visible minorities voters going for Brexit?

Seems an inconvenient truth when it comes to the narrative.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Has there been discussion in here about the 1 out of 3 visible minorities voters going for Brexit?

Seems an inconvenient truth when it comes to the narrative.

Because black people can't be worried about large numbers of Eastern European migrants?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Has there been discussion in here about the 1 out of 3 visible minorities voters going for Brexit?

Seems an inconvenient truth when it comes to the narrative.

Look at US history. The Irish migrated in their droves particularly from the 1850's on; given their treatment in Ireland, who can blame them. They were then the underclass in the US. 50 years or so later, there was a wave from Eastern Europe, and in their turn, the Irish-Americans did their best to oppress them. And the cycle went on. Much the same here, but delayed a bit and with much smaller numbers. In both instances continuing to the present day.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Yes. The usual US thing, for that kind of prejudice, is to hate the most recent group of people.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The old version of this is that those who have been oppressed, and are now emancipated, look around for someone to oppress. Rather a cynical view, I suppose, the example often given is Israel.

In psychological terms, one faces this with abused people - some of them deal with it by abusing the helper.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

And hazing rituals, such as at fraternities. People keep passing the hurt on, rather than making things easier for the next round of people. (Broad brush--sometimes, things do get better.)

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Aaa....so the reason some people of colour (or whatever the term is in the UK) voted remain is they were previously oppressed?

I raised this point because the narrative was "Leave people are stupid and possibly racist". Demonising people is always easier then dealing with the actual reasons why people didn't do what you prefer.
Have any of you bothered to actually listen face to face to somebody who voted leave?

We saw that here in Toronto with Rob Ford - the racist mayor of Toronto who's true base was largely non-white living in poverty in the inner suburbs. When you went out and talked to people in the inner suburbs, they voted for that guy because he said he was going to change their currently crappy lives.

Could it just be possible the Remain campaign didn't provide enough hope? Its not that simple of course because the large inner city areas voted Remain (although it would be interesting to look at who in the inner cities voted exit rather then assuming First Past the Post means everybody else's views don't matter)

On another note, the same unwillingness to look towards root causes in Brexit are being seen in English football. Consistency is good I suppose.

[ 29. June 2016, 11:30: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Aaa....so the reason some people of colour (or whatever the term is in the UK) voted remain is they were previously oppressed?

I raised this point because the narrative was "Leave people are stupid and possibly racist". Demonising people is always easier then dealing with the actual reasons why people didn't do what you prefer.
Have any of you bothered to actually listen face to face to somebody who voted leave?

We saw that here in Toronto with Rob Ford - the racist mayor of Toronto who's true base was largely non-white living in poverty in the inner suburbs. When you went out and talked to people in the inner suburbs, they voted for that guy because he said he was going to change their currently crappy lives.

Could it just be possible the Remain campaign didn't provide enough hope? Its not that simple of course because the large inner city areas voted Remain (although it would be interesting to look at who in the inner cities voted exit rather then assuming First Past the Post means everybody else's views don't matter)

On another note, the same unwillingness to look towards root causes in Brexit are being seen in English football. Consistency is good I suppose.

I'm not sure who you are speaking to, but I certainly don't think there are simple reasons for people voting Leave. I come from Oldham, which had a decent Labour majority in a recent by-election, yet voted Leave. One factor is probably racism, as there were quite bad riots several years ago, white and Asian youths mainly.

But I suspect that also some Labour voters wanted to say fuck off to Cameron, and I can sort of get alongside that. However, the idea of cutting off your nose to spite your face, comes to mind.

Most obvious perhaps, is that areas such as that were deindustrialized, and since the 70s have been neglected really. Well, many people feel unheard.

Quite a cocktail really, which would be difficult for Labour to combat.

Nonetheless, I think the idea of projected oppression has some credence - for example, why do white youths say, 'they get the best jobs and houses?' The poor often fight the poor, unkindly called by Freud the narcissism of small differences.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, their belief that, somehow, Whitehall is going to replace their EU grants with its own funds is 'a fond thing vainly imagined'.
Bearing in mind that the UK is a net contributor to the EU, if Brexit goes ahead, it would be irresponsible in the extreme if Whitehall didn't make good EU grants to agriculture and poorer regions. They couldn't afford it if they were really to give £350 million a week to the NHS, but we all know what crap that was. But any money repatriated needs to be used to make good current commitments from the EU. We shouldn't tolerate less.

The trouble is that it assumes the economy is a static thing with a given pot of money. Even if we get our 180m back it might have to be spend on making up the gaps from the fall in growth caused by Brexit. And, let's face it, nothing in the previous history of anyone on the Leave side indicates that lobbing money at depressed working class areas is much of a priority for them.

Unrelatedly, I gather that one option on the table is what is called EEA-, proposed by the French. The deal would be a cap on migration access to the single market, and no passport for banks based in the UK. The passport is what allows banks in the EU to trade in all other member countries of the EU. This would lead to massive capital flight to the EU whilst allowing Boris to come back in triumph claiming that he had squared the circle of banning free movement and getting access to the single market whilst screwing over our financial services sector. In the short term it means he gets hailed as a genius whilst, in the longer term, making us much poorer. Granted, the UK ought not to be as dependent upon the financial sector as it actually is but doing over the financial sector without first identifying an adequate replacement strikes me as being, erm, bold of not entirely prudent.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose there is also a resentment which is non-rational. For example, you may get an area voting Leave, which has had big grants from the EU, and now has to ask the British government for similar subventions.

But this could be partly rational for other reasons, of course. But resentment tips over into ressentiment, and even the desire to smash things up. In psychoanalytic jargon: destructive envy.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In general, the British have never wanted this. In 1975, in a world in which trade tariffs were huge, we voted to join a free trade area. Globalisation has changed the world a lot since then. WTO rules limit EU tariffs to a maximum of 6%, a figure it would be much better if we didn't have to pay, but it's debatable if that would cost more than we could save in our EU budget contributions. This is assuming that Mrs Merkel is willing to defy her business class who want her to maintain free trade with the UK.

It's not about tariffs.

Tariffs are not particularly important. Yes it's better not to have them but that's easy to deal with. It's about trade regulation and harmonization. In any number of areas, the rules and regulations with govern things are agreed on an EU-wide basis.

So if you make a car in the UK (Still one of the biggest car manufacturers - anyone who says we don't make anything anymore is lying to you or doesn't know what they are talking about) you can sell it anywhere in the EU without further certification or checks. This means that all of the safety rules are met, the consumer protections, all of the components and supply chain are certified and the emissions are within limits.*

Let us imagine that you want to make cars in a country outside the EU but sell to the EU. You then have to make sure that what you produce meets the regulations for both - the country you're making them in (assuming you want to sell there too) and the EU.

One of two things will happen - either the UK and EU regulations will diverge over time and the costs to manufacturers will increase or the UK will simply copy the EU rules for simplicity.

Economies of scale mean that is is much cheaper to do safety tests on a European-wide basis that for each member country to do it themselves. However the big cost is in manufacturing to different standards.

Contrary to what you might have heard, almost nothing gets agreed in Europe without the consent of the big-3 (UK, France, Germany), so the notion that the rules were forced on us is ridiculous.

If the UK simply mimics EU regulations (What I expect to happen) then we will have no say in writing the regulations we then have to abide by - regulations that we could veto until 6 days ago! If we do become part of the EEA (which I don't expect) this will be formalised.

Alternatively over time the UK will set up all its own regulatory constructs creating more costs for business and decreasing productivity.

A lot of inward investment to the UK was predicated on access the the EU markets - this will now go elsewhere. I have a nagging feeling that Ireland will end up benefiting as much of the world want an English-speaking route to the EU.

Many businesses will move their bases to be in the EU and surely this is even more likely for services?

Of course the UK will still trade with the EU but that's not the point, it will be reduced and that ultimately makes us worse off.

There are only 2 ways that we can be better off:
1) If our trade with the rest of the world is somehow accelerated by being outside the EU to a large enough extent that it compensates for this loss - that is most unlikely as we have given away our best bargaining chip (access to the EU).
2) The EU is about the collapse in on itself and we have saved ourselves by getting out when we can. (A friend of mine voted leave on this basis).

Anyway, whilst it is entirely possible that I am wrong, this is not just a gut-feeling or an emotional reaction, it is that if you look at the facts and not the propaganda and you think about for more than say 20s, it really is clear cut that leaving is a bad idea.

And I don't really like the EU and think it desperately needs reform.

AFZ

*Stop sniggering!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Aaa....so the reason some people of colour (or whatever the term is in the UK) voted remain is they were previously oppressed?

No. When one is at the bottom, the easiest way up is to stand on top of someone else.

quote:

I raised this point because the narrative was "Leave people are stupid and possibly racist". Demonising people is always easier then dealing with the actual reasons why people didn't do what you prefer.

But those are the actual reasons many voted Leave. Racists voted to Leave. Calling the remainder of the Leavers stupid is a fair cop because the electorate entire votes less on reason than emotion.

quote:

Have any of you bothered to actually listen face to face to somebody who voted leave?

Yes. And my interpretation stands.

quote:

We saw that here in Toronto with Rob Ford - the racist mayor of Toronto who's true base was largely non-white living in poverty in the inner suburbs. When you went out and talked to people in the inner suburbs, they voted for that guy because he said he was going to change their currently crappy lives.

Same reason poor people vote Tory and Republican. And it is stupid as well.

quote:

Could it just be possible the Remain campaign didn't provide enough hope?

Possible. But one reason Leave won is that they did provide enough fear.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

Have any of you bothered to actually listen face to face to somebody who voted leave?

Yes, I had a couple of conversations with Christians who had voted Leave, were shocked at various reports of racism in the news, but had been posting various 'The Turks are coming!' scare stories on Facebook in the weeks leading up to the vote.

They didn't see the connection, and claimed that things had turned racist because of the main-stream-media who were pro-Remain. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

Have any of you bothered to actually listen face to face to somebody who voted leave?
Yes, I had a couple of conversations with Christians who had voted Leave, were shocked at various reports of racism in the news, but had been posting various 'The Turks are coming!' scare stories on Facebook in the weeks leading up to the vote.

They didn't see the connection, and claimed that things had turned racist because of the main-stream-media who were pro-Remain.

I heard an alternative comment from a Christian, on hearing that the Turks were coming. "Goodness" she said "76 million people who need to hear the Gospel".

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I heard an alternative comment from a Christian, on hearing that the Turks were coming. "Goodness" she said "76 million people who need to hear the Gospel".

That made me smile.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
had been posting various 'The Turks are coming!' scare stories on Facebook in the weeks leading up to the vote.

Is being worried about Turkish migrants when Turkey joins the EU necessarily racist?

It could be, of course, but I'm not sure that it is (unless any and every national interest argument is automatically racist, in which case everyone who's not campaigning hard for one world government it a racist...)

Turkey is a large country with a young, rapidly growing population that is poor by EU standards. In other words, a prime source of economic migrants. When Turkey gets free movement, there are going to be lots of young Turks on the move. This is indisputable.

So here's the question: Is a large influx of economic migrants good for the people that we currently have? If it is, we don't need to wait for Turkey to join the EU. We can go out and attract migrant workers from Turkey or elsewhere, and offer them work visas and a pathway to citizenship. But we're not doing that.

It's clear that large EU companies benefit from Turkey joining the EU: it gives them free access to Turkey's markets, so they can go in and buy it all while it's still cheap.

It's equally clear that, whether you're the man on the Clapham omnibus or the Paris metro, you're not going to be moving to Turkey in search of work.

Why are people in the UK complaining about immigrants from Eastern Europe, but not immigrants from France or Germany? It's not because they like the French any better - it's because there's little net migration. A few of ours go over there, a few of theirs come over here - fair play, everyone's happy.

What benefit do they get from Poland? If you're an employer of labour, then having a ready supply of skilled Polish labour is good for you. If you are the labour, what's in it for you?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Is being worried about Turkish migrants when Turkey joins the EU necessarily racist?

Not necessarily racist. It's going to depend upon the reasons for the worries.

If the issue is one of pressure on local amenities (schools, housing, hospitals...) then the issue is simply the number of people arriving in the area, and it doesn't matter where they come from. The same with people coming in to take up low paid, poor condition jobs while there are local people unemployed (but, presumably, not willing to take those jobs). If someone suggests that someone from elsewhere in the UK is OK, but that someone from outside the UK is a problem then it's racist/xenophobic.

I would say that anyone who is worried because of differences in culture, who doesn't want to see a Polish bakery on the High Street, etc is very likely to be displaying racist or xenophobic views.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If someone suggests that someone from elsewhere in the UK is OK, but that someone from outside the UK is a problem then it's racist/xenophobic.

Not sure I quite agree.

Partly, it's the net migration thing. If we shuffle people around in the UK, and the balance is roughly even, nobody cares.

If you're seeing a large net migration from other parts of the UK, then there certainly are racist cultural objections (cf. Welsh and Scottish objections to incomers), there are objections based on incomers not integrating with the community (cf. Cornish folk objecting to rich London weekenders, especially those who don't even shop in their weekend home, but stop at Waitrose in London on the way).

But if I say that I prefer to employ the UK resident, on the grounds that I pay for the UK resident anyway, but don't need to pay for a foreigner when he's in his own country, that's neither a racist nor a xenophobic objection.

It's a simple national interest objection.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Is being worried about Turkish migrants when Turkey joins the EU necessarily racist?

Apart from the fact that they aren't going to do so in the forseeable future, and that the UK will get a veto when they apply to join, you mean?

quote:

When Turkey gets free movement

The only thing on the cards at the minute is visa free travel to the Schengen area (which doesn't include UK&I). What was being posted were links to articles on visa free travel, wrapped in the implication that 76 million Turks were arriving imminently.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Ok, thanks for all that.

I'll go back to this then - has anybody listened to a non-white person who voted Leave(I'm not sure if Facebook counts as listening but I suppose it might)?

I'm obviously not there but as I said I've learned through experience that populism can be quite successful among parties the easy narrative would assume would not be susceptible.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If we shuffle people around in the UK, and the balance is roughly even, nobody cares.

It depends on what you mean by "shuffle". If the number of people moving from one town to other towns is approximately equal as those moving in, then you're right no one should care. If there's a large net influx of people into a town then, yes, people often care because government policy usually results in there being a lack of amenities for them - so, more pressure on schools, doctors etc. But, in both cases if the reaction of people to this migration, net or otherwise, is different depending on whether people have moved from elsewhere in the UK or from elsewhere in the EU (directly or via somewhere else in the UK) then there is an issue over and above the simple issue of migration. That is the point at which migration comes racism and xenophobia attached. And, you're right, it's not any better if that is directed at English people moving to Scotland.

quote:
But if I say that I prefer to employ the UK resident, on the grounds that I pay for the UK resident anyway, but don't need to pay for a foreigner when he's in his own country, that's neither a racist nor a xenophobic objection.

It's a simple national interest objection.

I'm not sure I follow. If you employ someone then you pay the same regardless of where they are from (all other things such as qualifications and experience being equal). It is illegal to do anything else. By definition, if you're employing someone then they are no longer in a foreign country because they have moved to do the job. Unless you're talking about out-sourcing work to suppliers in other countries, but that's not related to immigration as far as I can tell.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Is being worried about Turkish migrants when Turkey joins the EU necessarily racist?
Apart from the fact that they aren't going to do so in the forseeable future, and that the UK will get a veto when they apply to join, you mean?

I think you mean "the UK would have got a veto when they apply to join". Unless the UK rejoins the EU before Turkey apply there will now not be a UK vote on that decision, as a non-member we don't get a say on who is allowed to join.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I think you mean "the UK would have got a veto when they apply to join".

Yes of course - at the time we hadn't pulled the trigger.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

I read a comment somewhere else that Scotland "holds veto power" over the UK's decision to invoke Article 50. Is that actually true as a matter of law? Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50? Or is it more of an indirect thing -- that the prospect of provoking another referendum on Scottish independence would effectively inhibit Whitehall from invoking Article 50 if it seemed likely to result in Scottish secession from the UK?

Either way, it is increasingly looking as though the vote last week was probably only the start of the game, not the finish.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

The Turkey thing was entirely a red herring. Not only would the UK have had a veto on Turkish accession but so would Greece and so would Cyprus. For those of you not paying attention for the last 40 odd years Turkey occupied Northern Cyprus in 1974 and some kind of resolution to the issue would be necessary for Turkish accession to be a reality. Cameron was unwilling to state during the Referendum campaign that he would veto Turkish accession because relations with Turkey are rather important to British foreign policy in the Middle East and flipping the bird to a NATO ally with land borders with Syria and Iraq would have been somewhat imprudent. The Leave side, of course, cynically exploited this. In an irresponsible, mendacious and racist campaign it would be rash to say that this was the most morally disgusting thing they did but it was certainly there or thereabouts.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

I'll go back to this then - has anybody listened to a non-white person who voted Leave(I'm not sure if Facebook counts as listening but I suppose it might)?

One, so far. He is racist and a bit of a nutter. But too small a sample to determine for everyone of colour.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50?

Alex Salmond has now acknowledged that Scotland has no legal veto on invoking Article 50. When Nicola Sturgeon visited Brussels today and met Juncker and others, she was warmly received, but politely shown the door. Scotland is not an independent country, especially as the words on the 2014 ballot paper were, "Should Scotland be an independent country?" and it was voted down. But the SNP were never going to accept that democratic verdict. They were always going to bide their time until the opportunity arose to make more mischief for the union. The Brexit vote is manna from heaven for them.

But they don't have a case. Should London be able to negotiate with the EU alone? it has double the population of Scotland. Should Ceredigion seek independence from Wales because it voted Remain? But like all ideological positions, rather than pragmatic views the SNP see this as an opportunity even though they trade far more with the rest of the UK than they do with the rest of the EU. Trade barriers between England and Scotland would be economic insanity for Scotland, but it could encourage friction with the auld enemy.

It remains to be seen if, as Brexit negotiations gather pace, Scotland can cut some sort of deal. Whether, if it seeks and gets independence, it can carry on as a EU member, or if it would need to reapply, wait years and make a commitment to taking the euro. Everything is to play for.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But the SNP were never going to accept that democratic verdict.

The way you phrase this could lead to an inaccurate conclusion and is a bit insulting. If you were to say the SNP is not content with the result, you'd be on the road to a better understanding.

quote:

They were always going to bide their time until the opportunity arose to make more mischief for the union.

Again, your phrasing does not indicate a desire for accurate representation.

quote:

The Brexit vote is manna from heaven for them.

Several countries in the EU who face their own potential schisms let their reluctance to admit Scotland to the EU as a separate entity. Not sure what has changed about that.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I can't help thinking that there might be an EU case against Scottish membership. The problem with most British thinking about the EU is that it assumes the only question worth answering is: "what's in it for Britain?" But the EU thinks "What's in it for the EU" and more specifically "What's in it for France, Germany, Spain et. al. und so weiter..." So from an EU point of view there are demerits to encouraging Scottish Nationalism. First of all it will probably mean losing a net giver - the UK - and getting a net receiver - Scotland. Secondly, it would encourage other separatist movements - the Spanish, for example, are hostile because they don't want the Catalans to get ideas. Thirdly, from an EU point of view they don't want to get saddled with small states that may not be viable in themselves but might well be with EU funding - imagine, for example an independent Brittany or Corsica or Sicily or the Northern Italians uncoupling themselves from the South and letting the EU pick up the tab for regional development in southern Italy. And, generally, the EU is a polity whose leaders tend to feel rather strongly that nationalism is a bad idea.

I rather feel for the Scots, particularly those Scots who voted for the Union and now, justifiably, feel betrayed by the English (and Welsh) for the mess we are in. But I am not sure that the EU will feel that it is in their interest to encourage Scottish Nationalism unless they do so for short term tactical reasons in their negotiations with the UK - like funding a guerrilla army against a regime and then cutting off supplies when you come to an accommodation with them.

One of the reasons I was against Brexit was, to put it simply, there are 27 of them and all of them will put their interests before ours if we leave. Leavers are all in favour of hard headed assertion of the national interest and it is a major weakness of their case to say that the UK can do this and not expect the other 27 states to respond in kind. The Scots should put their interests first and not be swayed by calls to loyalty towards England and Wales given the shabbiness of their behaviour but I would caution them to remember that the EU and its member states will do the same.

(That said, Nicola Sturgeon is probably quite hip to all this and will doubtless end up playing the EU off against the rUK. If she does, more power to her elbow!)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course a political party which was founded on attempting to gain independence from Scotland is never going to be satisfied until that is achieved. That's no different from the fact that I'm not going to be satisfied until the UK regains admission to the EU - even if I have to wait for 30 years before we've had a succession of governments who work towards that.

Which is a whole lot different from rejecting the democratic choice made by the electorate in a referendum.

If there had been no EU in/out referendum then Scottish independence would be nowhere on the horizon, 2014 had kicked it into the long grass for probably 30 years. But, a week is a long time in politics, 18 months even more so. The Scottish Government went to the country in 2014 with a White Paper for independence (making the vote much more legitimate than the question-less in/out one we just had) that included the desire of the Scottish government for independence from Westminster, maintaining membership of the EU - since Scotland depends on EU membership, not just for trade but vitally for access to European labour and migrants. At the time Better Together questioned whether that was possible, and told us that the only way Scotland could guarantee being in the EU was if we voted to stay in the UK. It's little wonder that the people of Scotland feel especially sore at the moment - not only yet another example of the democratic will of the people of Scotland being trampled on by Westminster or the people who elect the majority of MPs, but another broken promise made by Better Together.

Having said that, I don't think we're heading for another Independence referendum. That would be the last resort for the Scottish government and they will try every option possible first. That includes the various "Denmark" schemes, though they're possibly far-fetched. It certainly includes holding the prospect of a referendum to force the hand of whoever leads the Brexit negotiations to make sure the deal cooked up is as good for Scotland as possible - unrestricted migration to Scotland, for example. The same as the NI administration will be seeking what they can salvage from this mess - ensuring there are no border controls will probably be their top desire. And, the same for London too - though I'm not as sure what London would want out of the deal.

Basically, those regions that clearly expressed a desire to stay in the EU will be seeking a deal that is as close to membership of the EU as possible while still being out. With the chaos of a Scottish independence referendum, demands for greater devolution for NI and London, as leverage.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

Has anybody listened to a non-white person who voted Leave(I'm not sure if Facebook counts as listening but I suppose it might)?

I'm obviously not there but as I said I've learned through experience that populism can be quite successful among parties the easy narrative would assume would not be susceptible.

I'm such a person, although I make no claim to be representative of 'non-white' voters.

I wouldn't say my vote was driven by 'populism', though it had more to do with popular concerns and lived experience than with the requirements of big business, or with the middle class and London focus of the Remain campaign.

Neither was it down to racism or 'Little Englander' disease. I've spent much of my life studying European languages and cultures, and teaching the same. I don't expect or hope that immigration will to come to an end, and certainly didn't vote for citizens of the EU to be thrown out of the country.

Not a Tory or a Kipper. Horrified at what's happening to Jeremy Corbyn, who obviously isn't all that keen on the EU himself.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

What were you hoping for ? Specifically ?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I'm not sure I follow. If you employ someone then you pay the same regardless of where they are from (all other things such as qualifications and experience being equal).

What I meant was if I employ a foreigner, then at the margin there's one more unemployed UK resident that I have to support through taxation.

From the point of view of the UK benefit bill, it doesn't matter whether the people are in your area or the other end of the country - you still pay for them, so in that sense you're in the same boat.

If they're in a different country, you don't pay for them.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

What makes you think that, that migrant needs to buy goods and services - his consumer demand may create work for another UK person.

[ 29. June 2016, 21:49: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

force the hand of whoever leads the Brexit negotiations to make sure the deal cooked up is as good for Scotland as possible - unrestricted migration to Scotland, for example.

Of course, the UK is free to allow unrestricted immigration at any point, to anyone it takes a fancy to. It doesn't require agreements to do this - it can just do it.

If it's not subject to the EU freedom of movement rules, it could also allow immigration conditional on the migrants residing in Scotland for five years or something.

It doesn't have to agree this with anyone else (although it could offer it up as a bargaining chip in principle).

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course a political party which was founded on attempting to gain independence from Scotland is never going to be satisfied until that is achieved.

This is certainly true, but it's all ideology rather than practical reality. The same could be said of Brexit. The desire to get back control of borders, fisheries, and regulations is an ideology which could cost us billions. I've never had much time for Gordon Brown, but he's certainly an alpha brain. In this article he writes of Scotland:

"Exports to rest of UK are worth £48.5 billion compared with £11.6 billion to EU while 250,000 jobs are linked to the single market compared with one million linked to the UK market, he said."

If Scotland had to choose economically between tariff free access to the UK market and access to the EU, it's a no brainer which is more important. Perhaps to the SNP independence is more important than prosperity, just as it may be to some Brexiteers. But I call it ideology over common sense.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What makes you think that, that migrant needs to buy goods and services - his consumer demand may create work for another UK person.

Somebody is buying goods and services with the hypothetical wage I'm paying him in either case - either a local resident or an immigrant. I'm paying the same wage, so each is probably buying about the same amount of stuff (sure, the migrant might be sending money home to his family, but I don't think that's a very important effect.)

The extra person is the extra unemployed person I have in the migrant case. He's not buying nearly so much, because benefits don't pay much, but he's certainly engaging in some economic activity - he's not a complete zero.

But I can get the same economic effect that I have from having one extra unemployed person on benefits by paying a little more in unemployment benefits to the existing unemployed people.

This isn't an argument for economic stimulus via immigration, it's an argument for stimulus by increased government spending.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In an irresponsible, mendacious and racist campaign it would be rash to say that this was the most morally disgusting thing they did but it was certainly there or thereabouts.

Wow, that would be a very long list.

AFZ

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Doublethink

The Remain campaign gave no indication that there was going to be any new focus on helping (white, black or brown) working class people feel more European, or feel engaged in the EU as a cultural or practical project. The campaign was hopeless inadequate to me.

There's less and less take-up of foreign languages studies, fewer practical opportunities for non-elites to work on the Continent (not least because there are very few jobs for them on the Continent), and neither the EU nor our nation state has taken the arrival of over 1 mill East Europeans as a 'teachable moment'. For a country that supposedly 'belongs' in the EU it's a joke!

Moreover, I live in a highly multicultural region, where there's clearly an issue with the indigenous white population. The middle class category have moved further and further out, while I've sensed for some time that the white working classes feel ever more anxious and insecure regarding their own cultural and economic status and value.

'Remain' would've been the right-on response in this context, but I've begun to feel that hiding the long-term fractures and dislocations is becoming increasingly unhelpful. Now the wound is out in the open, unpleasant though it is, perhaps something can be done about it.

I'm not worried about the long-term. Deals will be made with the EU and other countries, a way forward will be found - which will surely be imperfect. But there won't be the same level of pretence about the country, from either within or without. Thank goodness.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Where you concerned about the potential break up of the U.K. ? Or the EU ? Or did you think that a price worth paying ?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm not particularly concerned, no.

Scotland is not going to disappear, and neither will its connections with England. And the Continent of Europe will still be across the Channel, waiting for visitors who want to go on holiday, seal a deal or study something interesting, etc. And it looks as though Europeans will still be keen to come here, which means it won't be all that bad!

Our politicians have a lot of work to do, but that's what we pay them for.

[ 29. June 2016, 22:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Presumably then you simply don't believe that either of these unions has had a substantial role,in keeping the peace. It's also a very anglocentric view. This was supposed to be about the country as a whole, not just England - what about the fate of Gibraltar or the risk of destabilising the Good Friday agreement in Northen Ireland ?

[ 29. June 2016, 23:45: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Somebody is buying goods and services with the hypothetical wage I'm paying him in either case - either a local resident or an immigrant. I'm paying the same wage, so each is probably buying about the same amount of stuff (sure, the migrant might be sending money home to his family, but I don't think that's a very important effect.)

The extra person is the extra unemployed person I have in the migrant case. He's not buying nearly so much, because benefits don't pay much, but he's certainly engaging in some economic activity - he's not a complete zero.

But I can get the same economic effect that I have from having one extra unemployed person on benefits by paying a little more in unemployment benefits to the existing unemployed people.

This isn't an argument for economic stimulus via immigration, it's an argument for stimulus by increased government spending.

Doesn't necessarily have to be immigration, the same flawed economic analysis would apply to any sort of population growth. The flaw comes in positing constant numerical employment in a growing economy. An economy with one worker and one employed person (whether that employed person is a native or an immigrant) will be larger than an economy with one worker because, as you pointed out, the unemployed person still has economic demands to be met. The assumption that you can increase population and economic demand and not increase employment seems a dubious one. Sure, it can be true in special cases (e.g. a negative demand shock) but it's more often false.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The flaw comes in positing constant numerical employment in a growing economy.

True - this is unlikely to be true.

I suppose the question is then how much new employment you get per new person.

Think about it this way: Suppose I import a foreign worker, who displaces a local resident. The presence of the extra person causes extra economic activity, increases demand, and so generates some fraction of a job.

What if I was to just import a foreigner and pay him unemployment benefit instead. That's mathematically equivalent. In both cases, the immediate result is one extra unemployed person in my area, and whatever extra economic activity is the result of that.

So you argue that we can become richer by importing a load of people and giving them money. I'm no economist, but I would find that surprising.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Doublethink

The Remain campaign gave no indication that there was going to be any new focus on helping (white, black or brown) working class people feel more European, or feel engaged in the EU as a cultural or practical project. The campaign was hopeless inadequate to me.

Ok, that is an issue. However, the pols behind Leave are the same bastards who've been eroding support for the working class and now they have even less pressure to change.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The flaw comes in positing constant numerical employment in a growing economy.
True - this is unlikely to be true.

I suppose the question is then how much new employment you get per new person.

Think about it this way: Suppose I import a foreign worker, who displaces a local resident. The presence of the extra person causes extra economic activity, increases demand, and so generates some fraction of a job.

What if I was to just import a foreigner and pay him unemployment benefit instead. That's mathematically equivalent. In both cases, the immediate result is one extra unemployed person in my area, and whatever extra economic activity is the result of that.

So you argue that we can become richer by importing a load of people and giving them money. I'm no economist, but I would find that surprising.

I think that historically, certainly in the UK, and I would guess even more so in the US, immigration has led to an increase in economic activity much greater than that which could be expected from your scenario, presumably because those with the drive and commitment to leave their own country in search of economic advancement are precisely those people most likely to create new businesses. Thus. An immigrant might, very plausibly, start a new venture which employs, say, half a dozen of the indigenous unemployed. Something of this sort seems to have been what happened in the retail sector in the UK following the influx of Ugandan refugees in the 70s.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ok, that is an issue. However, the pols behind Leave are the same bastards who've been eroding support for the working class and now they have even less pressure to change.

and not just eroding the support for the working class, but actively cutting it whilst blaming sections of the working class for the economic problems the country is in.

As someone 'of colour' who voted Remain, this was my argument to a number of friends of mine who were wavering (along with; do not think 'we' may not be scapegoated next).

[ 30. June 2016, 08:29: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

One more thing Nicola Sturgeon should consider is that an economic report earlier this year concluded that Scotland would have had a £10 billion hole in its finances if it had become independent in 2014. For someone like Nicola who goes on so much about her opposition to austerity, she would have needed bucket load of it to pay for that. The same report concluded that Scotland would be poorer for years to come. I can't see the EU being overjoyed about having Scotland as a new member if the first thing they see is a begging bowl!

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye Jolly Jape. People are a blessing. America and Canada and Australia and Israel and most recently Germany all know that. At times. Until those that got off the boat first feel squeezed.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... If the institutions of the EU took no account of this then they are the numpties, and if there is something improper about a member state democratically deciding to leave, then there is something very wrong with the EU. ...
It is not the EU's job to do that. That is saying that you don't want it to be a superstate but that it has failed to be one.

I think good administration dictates that at least some account be made for contingencies. I agree, however, that the British government deserves more blame though, but there is nothing inconsistant about blaming both.

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I read a comment somewhere else that Scotland "holds veto power" over the UK's decision to invoke Article 50. Is that actually true as a matter of law?

Certainly not. In brief, the Westminster Parliament has inherent power to make any law it chooses (although of course judges get the final say in interpreting the law), and the law it makes is supreme. The Scottish Parliament's powers to make law for Scotland, and the Scottish Government's powers to govern Scotland are entirely derived by legislation passed by Westminster - the Scotland Act. The Scotland Act did not grant the Scottish Government or Parliament (or anyone else) any power to hold a veto over anything Westminster might choose to do.

The UK government has to govern according to the laws. That means it can't ignore Scottish Parliament legislation any more than Westminster legislation. However, there is no Scottish Parliament legislation providing for a veto. If the Scottish Parliament tried to pass such legislation, it would be ruled ineffective by the courts.

quote:
Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50?

No - although the point has been made that if the UK left the EU, Westminster would have to amend the Scotland Act to remove the requirement that the Scottish Parliament take note of EU law. There is a constitutional convention (ie, gentleman's agreement) that Westminster will ask permission from the Scottish Parliament before it does anything like that.

Westminster would be unable to make that change until the UK actually left the EU - possibly years away.

quote:
Or is it more of an indirect thing -- that the prospect of provoking another referendum on Scottish independence would effectively inhibit Whitehall from invoking Article 50 if it seemed likely to result in Scottish secession from the UK?

Yes, although Scotland has no right to hold a referendum or declare independence. Both things are in Westminster's gift as a matter of strict law. And while the law tends to be fixed, politics changes.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's all about standing. The EU has made it clear that it will negotiate with the UK as a single entity since that is the basis of our current membership. I can't see any referendum before the EU negotations are completed. And whether there is one afterwards will depend entirely on how well those negotiations have looked after Scottish interests.

I've a lot of sympathy for the Scots. But I'm pretty that's how this will play out.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I can't help thinking that there might be an EU case against Scottish membership. The problem with most British thinking about the EU is that it assumes the only question worth answering is: "what's in it for Britain?" But the EU thinks "What's in it for the EU" and more specifically "What's in it for France, Germany, Spain et. al. und so weiter..." So from an EU point of view there are demerits to encouraging Scottish Nationalism. First of all it will probably mean losing a net giver - the UK - and getting a net receiver - Scotland. Secondly, it would encourage other separatist movements - the Spanish, for example, are hostile because they don't want the Catalans to get ideas. Thirdly, from an EU point of view they don't want to get saddled with small states that may not be viable in themselves but might well be with EU funding - imagine, for example an independent Brittany or Corsica or Sicily or the Northern Italians uncoupling themselves from the South and letting the EU pick up the tab for regional development in southern Italy. And, generally, the EU is a polity whose leaders tend to feel rather strongly that nationalism is a bad idea.

I have been reflecting on this because some of my Scottish friends are determined to keep Scotland in the EU and if possible out of the UK.

As it stands today, it seems that Scotland cannot avoid being dragged out of the EU because it is not a national country member and thus cannot negotiate terms with the various bodies.

So the only choice (at the momment?!) appears to be to leave the UK and apply for membership afterwards.

It seems to me that being as rational about this as possible, there are some good reasons why the EU would not accept - or possibly would not accept for a very long time - EU accession by Scotland. Some of which you've outlined above.

Without rehashing it all, joining the EU may well put Scotland at a disadvantage with respect to trade with England (almost impossible to imagine it being at 70 mph as today) and so potentially would lose trade for the sake of potential trade from the rest of the EU. From the EU's perspective, Scotland and NI don't look like great options for new EU states due to the locality and their economy. If nothing else, it seems that an Indie Scotland would need to be devalued against a future English currency and may possibly face Irish (or worse) style painful austerity to balance the books. Hard to even imagine what NI would look like, but it must surely have to think that it would be on the same level as the Republic.

Incidentally, I do find all this talk about getting Irish passports and/or moving to Ireland pretty weird. The Irish state budget has been decimated, I honestly cannot see any great advantage in terms of austerity, services or connections in moving to the Republic. It is a lovely place, but don't go thinking it is better over there than in the UK, because I cannot see much evidence that it is.

For those reasons, I'm thinking an Indie EU Scottish state next to Brexit England is probably a far-off dream, and very possibly practically impossible.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50?
No - although the point has been made that if the UK left the EU, Westminster would have to amend the Scotland Act to remove the requirement that the Scottish Parliament take note of EU law.

As you say, this will only be an issue once the UK is out of the EU.

Though the amendment of the Scotland Act is a Westminster decision, there's no requirement for the Scottish Parliament to accept the particular change in question. The Scottish Parliament can, if they wish, pass their own act that Scottish law (which is a different system from the rest of the UK anyway) will continue to enact EU law (or, conform to EU law). There would be nothing Westminster could do about that, providing those laws all fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Government. And, Westminster is unlikely to make an issue of what Scotland choses to do, as each time Westminster imposes something on Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish government then the pressure for independence grows, and the Westminster government will want to try and hold the UK together.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re AFZ's car manufacturing example:

I found this article helpful about that, and some other Brexit and EU basics. It's written and formatted pretty simply. And the cartoons are basically LEGO people.

"Brexit: why Britain left the EU, explained with a simple cartoon" (Vox).

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Scottish Parliament can, if they wish, pass their own act that Scottish law (which is a different system from the rest of the UK anyway) will continue to enact EU law (or, conform to EU law). There would be nothing Westminster could do about that, providing those laws all fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.

This isn't right. Westminster can overrule (or even suspend) the Scottish Parliament and of course Scottish law precedes the existence of Holyrood.

The Scottish gov exists due to the accommodation by Westminster which devolved some powers. It can overrule any decisions it doesn't like - because Scotland is not an independent country and Westminster is still sovereign.

Of course, it is a different question as to whether Westminster would want to cause the total constitutional shitstorm involved with crossing the SP.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Westminster can overrule (or even suspend) the Scottish Parliament and of course Scottish law precedes the existence of Holyrood.

Yes, technically Westminster can do that. It would be a legal shitstorm. Of course, any referendum on independence after that would be a foregone conclusion. If there was a referendum called (which would be back in the hands of Westminster to decide, with 60 or so MPs howling for it at every opportunity, unless the Scottish Government manage to sneak the legislation through before they're dissolved).

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

The same person in the other conversation who first said that Scotland has a veto has since tried to explain it this way:

"They [Holyrood] can veto, but the veto can be overturned [presumably by Westminster] with enough votes, which they wouldnt get. But [the Westminster] parliament could vote to revoke the veto rule before the veto takes place."

Is she right, or is it a clumsy oversimplification with some substance, or is it just plain wrong?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
fewer practical opportunities for non-elites to work on the Continent (not least because there are very few jobs for them on the Continent)

Not sure what you mean by “non-elite”. If (and I grant it’s a fairly big if these days) one has studied the local language to a reasonable level, native speakers of English can have excellent employment prospects in mainland Europe. The magic words “English mother tongue” are gold-dust on many CVs.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... And it looks as though Europeans will still be keen to come here, which means it won't be all that bad!

Why should they when 52% of the electorate have said they don't want to have anything to do with them?

At the moment, I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain. But they don't know that unless I tell them - which I've taken to doing. Who knows how ashamed I'd feel if I'd actually voted Leave.

quote:

Our politicians have a lot of work to do, but that's what we pay them for.

No. That is what we elect them for.

We pay them, so they have time to represent us rather than have to support themselves with other jobs.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
The same person in the other conversation who first said that Scotland has a veto has since tried to explain it this way:

"They [Holyrood] can veto, but the veto can be overturned [presumably by Westminster] with enough votes, which they wouldnt get. But [the Westminster] parliament could vote to revoke the veto rule before the veto takes place."

Is she right, or is it a clumsy oversimplification with some substance, or is it just plain wrong?

I'm pretty sure it's just plain wrong. AIUI, any "veto" the Scottish government might have been granted by Westminster would only apply to parts of the legislative restructuring of the UK after the UK has exited from the EU.

Even if there was a Scottish veto on Brexit, if the Scots were to attempt to use it then Westminster would immediately revise Devolution to remove that power.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

At the moment, I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain. But they don't know that unless I tell them - which I've taken to doing.

As a Yank who lived in Germany in the early 1970's when Nixon was bombing Cambodia and Laos, I can say, welcome to the club.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I saw my French neighbour on our allotments yesterday, and I waved at him enthusiastically, and nearly shouted, I love foreigners. But well, I'm English, shy, and all that.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

If and when a vote is taken to revoke the 1972 Act under which we signed the Lisbon Treaty, would sufficient MPs refuse to vote to do that? After all, the majority of MPs weere in the Remain camp. Moreover, any number of the selling points of the Brexiteers have been exposed as, at best, terminological inexactitudes.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
fewer practical opportunities for non-elites to work on the Continent (not least because there are very few jobs for them on the Continent)
Not sure what you mean by “non-elite”. If (and I grant it’s a fairly big if these days) one has studied the local language to a reasonable level, native speakers of English can have excellent employment prospects in mainland Europe. The magic words “English mother tongue” are gold-dust on many CVs.

MLF is becoming an elite area of study. As I said in my previous post, fewer and fewer British people are studying foreign languages, and there's little encouragement for them to do so. So they're not benefiting from these wonderful opportunities.

I suspect that many of the jobs available are now going to non-native speakers whose English is excellent.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... And it looks as though Europeans will still be keen to come here, which means it won't be all that bad!

quote:
Why should they when 52% of the electorate have said they don't want to have anything to do with them?

At the moment, I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain. But they don't know that unless I tell them - which I've taken to doing.

You're assuming that anyone who voted to leave hates foreigners. But as I said in my earlier post, that's not necessarily true.

However, if the Leave vote in your area was dominated by known racists then it makes sense for you to distance yourself from that.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

If and when a vote is taken to revoke the 1972 Act under which we signed the Lisbon Treaty, would sufficient MPs refuse to vote to do that? After all, the majority of MPs weere in the Remain camp. Moreover, any number of the selling points of the Brexiteers have been exposed as, at best, terminological inexactitudes.

That would actually be a way of getting around the fact of the Leave vote, without having to enagage in the logical contradiction of a Second Referendum. MPs who vote against revocation could say "The referendum was advisory, we listened to the advice, but we decided to do something else."

However, two points...

How would public opinion take this? Would the vast majority of the 52% just calmly say "Oh yeah, man, we were just giving our opinion, it's up to parliament to do what it wants now"?

And...

How would the EU regard this? They're already making it pretty clear that they want the UK to get cracking pretty soon on withdrawal, but if they realize that there's a parliamentary escape-hatch, will they maybe accept that as a face-saving device to keep Britain from going?

[ 30. June 2016, 16:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

While technically true that the referendum is just advisory, no one has been treating it as such. There doesn't seem to be any option to suddenly do so that doesn't piss off just about everybody. The electorate who turned out in (relative) droves to vote thinking their vote counted for something will be pissed off. The campaigners on both sides who fought so hard to convince people to vote will be pissed off. The other nations in the EU will be pissed off because they're already working on a post-UK-exit structure.

Farage will be right royally pissed off, but I don't care.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50?
No - although the point has been made that if the UK left the EU, Westminster would have to amend the Scotland Act to remove the requirement that the Scottish Parliament take note of EU law.
As you say, this will only be an issue once the UK is out of the EU.

Though the amendment of the Scotland Act is a Westminster decision, there's no requirement for the Scottish Parliament to accept the particular change in question.

Legally, yes there is (politically, it would be a shitstorm) because the Scottish Parliament's powers entirely derive from Westminster under the Scotland Act, which is Westminster legislation. Westminster did not surrender any of its powers to legislate for Scotland under the Scotland Act. As I noted above, there is a convention that it won't.

quote:
The Scottish Parliament can, if they wish, pass their own act that Scottish law (which is a different system from the rest of the UK anyway) will continue to enact EU law (or, conform to EU law). There would be nothing Westminster could do about that, providing those laws all fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.

The 1707 treaty and acts of Union provided that the crowns and parliaments of England and Scotland would be united into one. Accordingly, Westminster has had sovereignty over Scotland ever since and ultimate legislative power. It has been enacting Scots law ever since that date. If you go through, for example, the Companies Act, you will see one chapter that deals with Eng, Wal and NI and a separate one for Scotland because of course Scots law requires slightly different treatment.

Accordingly, if the Scottish Parliament continued to enact EU law in excess of its powers, those enactments would inevitably be struck down by the courts - including the Scottish ones.

quote:
And, Westminster is unlikely to make an issue of what Scotland choses to do, as each time Westminster imposes something on Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish government then the pressure for independence grows, and the Westminster government will want to try and hold the UK together.

I'd say Westminster is bound to choose a course someone doesn't like. The harsh truth is that Scotland is <5m out of a >60m population.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.

I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.

[ 30. June 2016, 19:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The EU trade commissioner's remarks make me think it isn't going to be easier for whoever conducts any exit talks.

Ms Malmstrom asserts that the exit talks have to be completed before any trading agreement can be discussed.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.

It might be easier to understand if you consider it in terms of the exercise of prerogative power, and what may over-rule that.

I participate on another discussion board elsewhere on matters different to here. Several of the contributors are QC's and there are other senior lawyers there. The general concensus on reading that article, plus all the alternatives in the comments, was that "it's not all that clear". i.e. it's a bit murky.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU trade commissioner's remarks make me think it isn't going to be easier for whoever conducts any exit talks.

Ms Malmstrom asserts that the exit talks have to be completed before any trading agreement can be discussed.

Yes. There may be a big difference between what sort of Brexit we want and what we actually get.

The post-exit prospect of trading for some significant period of time under WTO rules (while we settle a trade deal with the E.U.) is very real.

One of the Brexiteers argued something like this. "When it comes to trade negotiations, the 27 countries working together couldn't even agree on which curry to order". Good for a laugh of course, but that could really rebound. The slowness of reaching agreement amongst the 27 may be exactly the difficulty the UK faces in trying to get a new trade deal. It'll take a while to get the ducks in a row, meanwhile we'll be under WTO rules.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.

Funny that. Farmers want free movement of labour so they can continue paying poverty wages to strawberry pickers.

Utterly shameful. A plague on all their houses.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Not sure whether this reply belongs here on either of the leadership threads. But there were several references here to a video of Prof. Michael Dougan talking about all the crap the different sides spewed out.

He's posted a follow up video here in which he expands on a few themes. Worth taking 20 minutes for.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.

Had they consulted their leader on that? Because, given the considerable amount of time Corbyn spent on the campaign trail expounding the virtues of the EU in safeguarding and promoting workers rights it's very strange that that hasn't made it into the policy.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.

Funny that. Farmers want free movement of labour so they can continue paying poverty wages to strawberry pickers.

Utterly shameful. A plague on all their houses.

Worth remembering when strawberries are cheap.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

[...]

It's an interesting argument. If you would like to know more, I recommend reading the argument by Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King which started this debate - as well as the opposing arguments here and here by Mark Elliott.

Barber, Hickman and King seem to be saying that:-

1. Triggering the Article 50 process involves using prerogative powers.
2. Prerogative powers cannot be used to frustrate the will of Parliament, expressed in an Act.
3. The will of Parliament, expressed in the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), was that the UK should be an EU member and that EU law applies here. Triggering Article 50 without repealing the ECA 1972 would make that Act a dead letter.
4. Therefore, the Prime Minister cannot trigger the Article 50 process without authorisation from Parliament (e.g. by repealing the ECA 1972)

At the moment, I prefer Elliot's view that:-

(a) Triggering Art 50 does not make the ECA 1972 a dead letter. We do not know what the outcome of the Article 50 negotiation process will be. The UK might agree to still apply some EU laws, in exchange for free trade with the EU.
(b) Starting the Art 50 process does not frustrate the will of Parliament in the ECA 1972. The purpose of that Act was to enable EU law to apply in the UK, as required by EU treaties. This leaves open the possibility that EU treaties might not require EU law to apply here, because the UK would no longer be a party to EU treaties.
(c) Repealing the ECA 1972 at the start of the negotiation process would cause legal chaos. Some EU laws would stop applying in the UK and the UK would be in breach of our obligations under international treaties. The UK is bound by EU treaties until the end of the negotiation process, not the beginning.

[ 01. July 2016, 11:44: Message edited by: Alwyn ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The extraordinary thing is that there are different versions of Brexit. There is soft Brexit and hard Brexit, but there are degrees of softness and hardness. I suppose the Norway version is fairly soft.

So we bought a pig in a poke, but nobody has a clue what the pig looks like, or maybe it's a goat.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Farage wouldn't be pissed off if Parliament refused to implement Brexit. It would keep him in business, and he could continue to draw his salary as an MEP.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Well, John McDonald has set out the current labour leadership position on what they want out of brexit.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

By gum, he's been burning the midnight oil. Maybe he's mounting a leadership challenge!

John McDonnell, by the way. (Irish, not Scottish).

[ 01. July 2016, 17:02: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU trade commissioner's remarks make me think it isn't going to be easier for whoever conducts any exit talks.

In the interests if democracy, I don't see how any British Prime Minister or negotiator can go into talks in Europe, without maintaining our red line on control of our borders. From the unequivocal response of Merkel, Juncker and others, the four freedoms are their red line, so it's difficult to envisage any meaningful talks. But is EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom is to be believed, and I'm sure she knows her stuff, it may all be irrelevant for the time being.

She says that no trade negotiations can even begin until the Brexit process is complete, and after that they could take several years, during which time Britain could only trade as a third country under WTO rules. This is a disaster which could cost jobs, but it isn't a meltdown. WTO tariffs between friendly countries are no more than 2-3 per cent, less than a day's fluctuation in the currency markets. So while the economy could contract a few percentage points, the UK won't become a Third World country.

Yet I still hold out hope that people will see sense. One estimate says that 750,000 jobs in Germany depend on trade with the UK because Germany exports double to us what we do to them. At present, as the consequences of Brexit sink in, people are angry and feel rebuffed. They want to set out their toughest bargaining stance. They want to punish a people who have dared to question the European Federalist project and prevent contagion. But when the dust settles, trade barriers are in the interests of no country. The EU sells far more to the UK than vice versa and nobody wants to see their economy stifled by tariffs.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
WTO tariffs between friendly countries are no more than 2-3 per cent, less than a day's fluctuation in the currency markets. So while the economy could contract a few percentage points, the UK won't become a Third World country.

Yet I still hold out hope that people will see sense. One estimate says that 750,000 jobs in Germany depend on trade with the UK because Germany exports double to us what we do to them.

There's an obvious inconsistency in your argument (apart from the reliance on dubious figures from the express). If their costs are also in the the few percentage why would they care so much about doing a deal?

After all, if this issue of 'sovereignty' is so important that you are willing for the economy to take a hit, why wouldn't they be equally willing to take a hit for some principle that was dear to them?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

PaulTH*

People work on smaller margins these days. A 2-3% tariff barrier would have a pretty significant effect. Also I wasn't quite sure what you meant by contagion.

The real risk of a WTO tariff also shows Andrea Leadsom to be extremely optimistic. Here's the quote, pre-vote, from her website.

quote:
Conservative minister Andrea Leadsom is adamant that there is absolutely no economic shock in store for Britain if it leaves the European Union. The energy minister, who worked in finance for over two decades before entering politics, is furious with "scaremongering" from her pro-Remain Tory colleagues, especially the chancellor, and wants to set the record straight.

Well, I suppose Real Life might set her straight. [BTW, she's now second favourite with the bookies for Conservative Leader. Makes me feel all warm and cosy - not]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain.

Nothing to feel ashamed about.

There are at least four groups of people who are against the EU in its current form:
- the xenophobic right who have a big issue about immigration
- the libertarian right who don't want a supra-national government
- the anti-austerity left who object to EU rules on fiscal prudence
- the people-power communitarians who believe that the only legitimate authority is the directly-elected sort

You may not agree with any of them, but the world would be a poorer place without diversity of opinion.

I think most people believe on the European ideal of peace, prosperity through trade, and international co-operation on international issues. The question is whether such an ideal requires something very like the current EU. For years, anyone suggesting that the EU is going down the wrong path has been told "this may not be ideal, but it's what there is, like it or lump it. And the vote was for lumping it...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

There are at least four groups of people who are against the EU in its current form:

I think you missed the protectionists who want to throw up trade and immigration barriers to "protect British jobs". This is, for example, the Bernie Sanders objection to free trade.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

So, question. What are we hearing from the pro-Brexit people themselves? Because, so far, we've had quite a few Remain supporters saying that the Leave voters are all regreting their votes, didn't understand the issues etc. And we've had at least one Leave titan, Boris, pretty much admit through his words and actions that he actually is a little taken aback by the results.

So, besides Farage, have their been any Leave people publically celebrating their victory, confirming that "Yes, yes, this is indeed what we really wanted"?

My curiousity was prompted partly by the case of Pat Condell, that UKIP You Tube warrior whose last video, pre-vote, was a rousing call for BREXIT. He hasn't posted anything since the referendum, and I'm wondering if he's cowering in fear the Franenstein's monster he helped create.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think it's the vagueness of Brexit that is becoming apparent. The ballot paper had a simple Remain or Leave question, and didn't mention immigration, trade deals, relations with the EU, including payments, and so on.

Boris seems to have quailed at what he had created, or possibly, the non-specific nature of it. Others are putting their interpretation on it, of course, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, and so on. All rather shambolic. It's a kind of Rorschach inkblot.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
So, besides Farage, have their been any Leave people publically celebrating their victory, confirming that "Yes, yes, this is indeed what we really wanted"?

My curiousity was prompted partly by the case of Pat Condell, that UKIP You Tube warrior whose last video, pre-vote, was a rousing call for BREXIT. He hasn't posted anything since the referendum, and I'm wondering if he's cowering in fear the Franenstein's monster he helped create.

The time for euphoria was on the morning of 24 June.

Now we have to see what our political leaders, most of whom are anti-Brexit, are actually going to do about the whole thing. It's not clear that they're going to work hard to create the exact outcome that many Brexiters wanted.

As we speak, the main political parties are noisily trying to choose new leaders so they can knuckle down to work. Deals are being made behind closed doors, and being able to win a GE is probably even more of a priority than pursuing a Brexit agenda.

Farage himself is now concerned about 'backsliding', as well he might.

[ 03. July 2016, 16:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Although it was Farage who had said that a 52/48 result was not the end, of course, meaning for Remain.

It was a pig in a poke. Or maybe a goat?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's an inevitable result of the lack of a manifesto for leaving the EU produced months ahead of the referendum. No one knew if what they were voting for corresponded to the plan for an exit, because it didn't exist. And, thus when the plan comes through many will feel it isn't what they voted for.

The chaos in the Leave camp is a simple case of chickens coming home to roost. And, most of those chickens seem to have lost their heads.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

At the same time, I guess that many politicians dare not argue against Leave, as it might produce riots or whatever, and even an increase in racist and fascist violence.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's an inevitable result of the lack of a manifesto for leaving the EU produced months ahead of the referendum. No one knew if what they were voting for corresponded to the plan for an exit, because it didn't exist. And, thus when the plan comes through many will feel it isn't what they voted for.

The chaos in the Leave camp is a simple case of chickens coming home to roost. And, most of those chickens seem to have lost their heads.

I don't think there's chaos in Farage's camp so much. The chaos is in the Tory Party, where Brexit was mingled with individual ambitions for power. In Boris's case, such ambitions were visible for a long time, well before his Euro-skepticism appeared.

As for the country at large, we all need the politicians to sort themselves out and start taking some decisions. You could say that the current situation leaves us all in chaos, Brexiters or otherwise.

For most people, though, I imagine our lives are just continuing as normal.

[ 03. July 2016, 19:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's an inevitable result of the lack of a manifesto for leaving the EU produced months ahead of the referendum. No one knew if what they were voting for corresponded to the plan for an exit, because it didn't exist. And, thus when the plan comes through many will feel it isn't what they voted for.

The chaos in the Leave camp is a simple case of chickens coming home to roost. And, most of those chickens seem to have lost their heads.

Yep, as I suggested over here (to some criticism) no one will get what they voted for...

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I don't think a second referendum is a realistic possibility but the democratic problem is no one is going to get what they voted for.

48% of us voted to stay. They won't get that.
Of the 52% they voted for lots of reasons such as
- A reduction in immigration (unlikely to actually happen)
- More money for the NHS (Not going to happen)
- A stronger economy (No)
- More control (Not likely)

I could go on, but basically a campaign of lies has won. I see nothing to celebrate there.

I think this will lead to a massive sense of disillusionment.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Yep, as I suggested over here (to some criticism) no one will get what they voted for...

As I've been saying the same, you'll get no criticism from me.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
At the same time, I guess that many politicians dare not argue against Leave, as it might produce riots or whatever, and even an increase in racist and fascist violence.

That is a lousy pretext to not campaign against remaining in the EU especially when constitutional means exist to enable Britain to do so.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Unfortunately, I have missed out on pages of posts on discussions to do with the referendum because I was with friends in Australia. However, there was quite a bit of political discussion as they were interested in what was happening here and had their own elections on Saturday (2 July) for the Canberra Government.

I shall read as much as I can during the coming week, but have already sent an e-mail to my local MP, an 'out' voter, to ask what actions he is going to take to avoid the situation becoming a shambles ... if it isn't already.

(P.S. It was a bit chilly out there, but very pleasant to maintain a friendship that started 30 years ago when I did the exchange teaching.)

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

I honestly don't think Barber, Hickman and King put forward a strong argument. It just sounds like the best argument there is to force Parliament into acting, and by doing so create a more informed debate that might result in Parliament refusing to pass the necessary legislation. Possibly a judge might buy the argument but I don't think so.

I don't mean to cast aspersions on UK lawyers with an interest in constitutional law, but the prerogative isn't that mysterious, and the authors' description of prerogative as powers that "since medieval times, that exist unsupported by statute" is derogatory. It is a collection of powers inherent in the Crown by virtue of its position as Crown. The ability to pardon offences, dissolve parliament, grant charters of incorporation - and enter international treaties - are all prerogative powers. There is nothing illegitimate about them: they are useful tools that allow the government to function.

Because Parliament is the supreme source of legal authority (having been firmly established as such in the seventeenth century) the prerogative must give way to Acts of Parliament. So the Crown can't use prerogative to suspend or dispense with Acts of Parliament (something James II was very keen on). By extension, the Crown can't use prerogative to do something that an Act of Parliament already provides for (and by doing so get round certain restrictions in the Act). To argue, like the authors do, that the prerogative also can't be used if the effect is to make a statute a dead letter might seem like a logical extension of this principle, but the point remains that nothing in UK domestic law actually changes if Article 50 is invoked - the ECA 1972 remains in force. The authors gloss over this - but it is an important point - when Article 50 is invoked, no law is suspended, although it might be doomed. Its repeal is a matter for Parliament in due course.

I thought their point about European elections was an interesting one: in brief once article 50 is invoked there is no right to participate in EU elections, and this right exists in domestic law under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. But once again, the article has to assume that Parliament won't get around to doing anything about it before an election is called.

Governments govern. Parliament passes legislation. The law doesn't allow the prerogative to be used as back-door legislation, but equally it's against principle for Parliament to usurp the Gvt's ability to act in international matters (which is basically what the EU is).

An alternative argument is that the right to invoke article 50 is conferred by the treaty itself, so any discussion of prerogative is beside the point.

NB: I didn't understand the authors to argue that the ECA 1972 should be repealed up front, but that Parliament would have to legislate to allow the Gvt to invoke Article 50.

Perhaps we will see the argument tested in court.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.

I'm just looking at the argument itself, rather than who has made it.

I have heard a number of bum arguments in the last few days, made by people who I imagine are very keen to nullify the referendum result. I can't blame them for that. I have heard a QC argue that Scots can veto Brexit, and others argue that the EU can force the UK to invoke article 50, or that the article 50 process can be reversed. Some of these arguments seem designed to force a re-run of the debate, and some appear to be from desperation.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

(just stepping back a short way)

PaulTH wrote:

quote:
WTO tariffs between friendly countries are no more than 2-3 per cent, less than a day's fluctuation in the currency markets. So while the economy could contract a few percentage points, the UK won't become a Third World country.

Can we clarify this?

Tariffs between friendly countries may average 2-3%, but that's after a negotiated trade deal. For everyone else (i.e. us), the figures are given as locked maxima. There is a specific term for it which I have forgotten, without looking it up. Quite a bit of WTO negotiation goes into securing these figures. On that basis, the tariff for cars is 9.8% (we are a major car exporter as well as a major importer of German cars). The tariff for wine is 32%. Wheat products are 12.8%. etc.

One phrase I have heard used is that even if we leave without an agreement, we could make up the difference of these tariffs from what we save in EU contributions. But WTO deals are predicated on eliminating state subsidies that skew the market, so that's irrelevant.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.
I'm just looking at the argument itself, rather than who has made it.

I have heard a number of bum arguments in the last few days, made by people who I imagine are very keen to nullify the referendum result. I can't blame them for that. I have heard a QC argue that Scots can veto Brexit, and others argue that the EU can force the UK to invoke article 50, or that the article 50 process can be reversed. Some of these arguments seem designed to force a re-run of the debate, and some appear to be from desperation.

I thought that the whole point of the Leave campaign was that The Crown-In-Parliament was supposed to be sovereign and that the EU was some sort of unhallowed adulteration of this principle. It would be odd, to put it politely, if the move to Leave the EU were to bypass Parliament entirely. If nothing else repealing all that EU legislation and replacing it with Local Laws for Local People is going to require an Act of Parliament, or several.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.

I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.
I'm just looking at the argument itself, rather than who has made it.

No, you are looking at the premise. You cannot be looking at the argument until you have read it.
And who is making the claim matters. These are people who study the relevant processes, not Barry down at the pub.
They might still be incorrect, but dismissing the whole thing prior to reading it is farcical.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I thought that the whole point of the Leave campaign was that The Crown-In-Parliament was supposed to be sovereign and that the EU was some sort of unhallowed adulteration of this principle. It would be odd, to put it politely, if the move to Leave the EU were to bypass Parliament entirely. If nothing else repealing all that EU legislation and replacing it with Local Laws for Local People is going to require an Act of Parliament, or several.

I'm not a Leave cheerleader. But yes, a key plank of its campaign was that Parliament should make the laws. I don't think that it was that Parliament should usurp the role of government, whose role it is to apply the laws in place.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, you are looking at the premise. You cannot be looking at the argument until you have read it.
And who is making the claim matters. These are people who study the relevant processes, not Barry down at the pub.
They might still be incorrect, but dismissing the whole thing prior to reading it is farcical.

Actually I did read it through briefly, and it struck me, to put it politely, as a novel point. I read it more carefully later and it struck me as even more novel. But don't take the word of Barry down the pub for this.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If the government does invoke Article 50 without repealing the 1972 Act (or at least a nod in that direction) I expect they will end up in court. Home Secretaries, especially David Blunkett, have been there regularly.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Actually I did read it through briefly, and it struck me, to put it politely, as a novel point. I read it more carefully later and it struck me as even more novel. But don't take the word of Barry down the pub for this.

Lawyers will, as ever, disagree with each other. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know who is correct.
However, I think Sioni makes a safe bet that this will end up in court regardless.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Actually I did read it through briefly, and it struck me, to put it politely, as a novel point. I read it more carefully later and it struck me as even more novel. But don't take the word of Barry down the pub for this.
Lawyers will, as ever, disagree with each other. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know who is correct.
However, I think Sioni makes a safe bet that this will end up in court regardless.

FWIW IANAL nor a bookmaker. Nothing handicaps a horse like five pounds of my money.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

It's hardly "novel", Cod. Quite a good exposition, ehich you'd expect fom the likes of Tom Hickman et al.

I think they're right.

The PM can do certain things using the royal prerogative. So, unlike in the United States, he or she can agree treaties with other countries without needing parliamentary approval. If the treaties creating the European Union had been agreed at a government level only, then the Prime Minister could initiate article 50, no problem.

But, as you say, the job of government is to implement laws as they have been passed. The law says, do United Kingdom is not just bound to the European Union by treaty, but by the 1972 legislation which makes all those details of European legislation part of the UK legislation. That is the law. The Royal prerogative cannot be used to undo a piece of legislation passed by Parliament. A representative Parliamentary democracy – which the UK is – does not have directly effectivr referendums, and the only body that can undo the 1972 act is Parliament.

What is really strange is that nobody thought to check this until now…

Anyway, Counsell does say that the political and legal answers may be different. The legal answer is no. However the political answer is very likely yes.

I suppose there is a certain irony that lots of people have been banging on about sovereignty and are now going to see the very thing they thought they were in favour of being undermined by the thing they want to do.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A comment that made me laugh: everybody who has fucked up has fucked off. Well, not quite everybody.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

....and the one who didn't fuck up too badly is being commanded to fuck off by half his own party !

British politics has gone from boring shades of grey to stranger than fiction almost overnight .

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It puzzles me that nobody has argued clearly something which I would have thought ought to be obvious.

Whatever the legal theory, the existence of devolution changed the constitution. It ought to be an abuse of the constitution, and the whole concept of what devolution ought to be, that the union Parliament takes it for granted that it can make a major change like this over the heads of the devolved bits, when two of them have clearly voted against it.

If there were an such things as a political ethic, devolution should impose on the whole limits on what it can do over the heads of the bits unless all four of those bits are lined up together.

Even if that is not the letter of the law, it is so contrary to the spirit of it, that I can't see why anyone isn't banging on about this.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Whatever the legal theory, the existence of devolution changed the constitution. It ought to be an abuse of the constitution, and the whole concept of what devolution ought to be, that the union Parliament takes it for granted that it can make a major change like this over the heads of the devolved bits, when two of them have clearly voted against it.

I live in a federal country, and like the US constitution upon which it is modelled, ours reserves international affairs to the federal government. Like defence, I'd have thought that it is a classic example of a subject which needs to be dealt with on a national basis, rather than by its constituent parts. No State has an option to exclude itself from the national decision.

Think of this: in 1939, the UK govt wants to declare war on Germany. The (hypothetical) Scottish govt does not wish to. Can it opt out?

[ 08. July 2016, 22:48: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

I see Cammy is stepping down on Wednesday, 13 July. Breaking News.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

My reaction

Cameron out. Great

Corbyn on the way out. Great

Boris and Gove out of the picture. Great

Teresa May in. Hopeful.

"God works in all things for good." Romans 8 So may it be

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

He's ditched the scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts, putting down the mighty from their seats, exalting them of low degree, filling the hungry with good things; and sending the rich empty away?

Pity. I preferred Him when He was more left wing.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

It might stabilize some of the European jitters a bit. May has already been described as the "British Merkel" and her appointment should be well received. Her announcement that "Brexit means Brexit" should reassure them as well.

Of course there is that letter from the 1000 lawyers to be considered but tomorrow is another day.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I find the media being bullish about someone who doesn't like human rights, voted for the now-traduced Iraq war, and wants to read our private emails, somewhat disturbing.

Especially as the same media are going out of their way to trash the reputation of someone who stands full square behind universal human rights, was proved right about Iraq, and thinks privacy is important.

I'm not saying that Leadsom would have been better. Far from it. But May has a genuinely worrying voting record on a great many issues, and everyone seems to be drinking the Kool Aid.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I live in a federal country, and like the US constitution upon which it is modelled, ours reserves international affairs to the federal government. Like defence, I'd have thought that it is a classic example of a subject which needs to be dealt with on a national basis, rather than by its constituent parts. No State has an option to exclude itself from the national decision.

Think of this: in 1939, the UK govt wants to declare war on Germany. The (hypothetical) Scottish govt does not wish to. Can it opt out?

That's actually demonstrates part of the problem. You have a Constitution that sets out how the various bits relate to each other. We haven't. After the Scottish referendum last year, this should have been the next step, sorting how the UK works in stead of launching into the EU referendum which has tragically blown up in Cameron's and all the rest of our faces. He wimped out because it was all too difficult and he thought he could get away with not lifting the stones and revealing all the bugs and woodlice underneath. Oh, and he wasn't the sort of person able to think about these things.

Not only would he have had to juggle Scotland to keep it happy, but someone would have had to come up with a rational structural approach to the English question.

Because this has never been dealt with, because there is no formal basis of how the various bits of the UK are supposed to function, this is a legitimate question now. Besides, is the EU solely a matter of foreign policy?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Ariel
That is an interesting link to the lawyers' letter. I'd never have found it - thank you. I think I'll follow up some of the other links on the page too.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Bear in mind that the lawyers's letter is a political one, not a legal one.

M.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Enoch, largely accepting what you say - the exception being that the UK constitution does not say enough about a lot of matters. The powers and role of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland governments are spelt out pretty exactly. The powers of Westminster are not specified to the same degree, and it has the obligation to be the legislature for England alone in those matters let to the other governments. It's the gaps between these that needs clarification.

On the way, you need to sort out if the result is to be a federation, as in the US and here for example, or a confederation such as in Canada. It may not be a good time to go along he path of a division of England, as suggested above, too much and too hard when there's enough work to be done otherwise.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My reaction

Cameron out. Great

Corbyn on the way out. Great

Boris and Gove out of the picture. Great

Teresa May in. Hopeful.

"God works in all things for good." Romans 8 So may it be

While that would be an interesting development, I think the new Prime Minister is the Theresa May who spells her name with an 'H'.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'd support Teresa with much more enthusiasm that Theresa, more's the pity.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

It seems that with the appointment of Frenchman Michel Barnier as the EU Commission's Brexit negotiator, the Commission is going to play hardball with the UK over terms. So there is going to be an impasse between the fact that Britain can't accept free movement in its present form, and the EU's refusal to allow it access to the single market otherwise. Mutti Merkal has indicated that EU governments and not the commission should be in charge of the negotiations, but it's hard to imaging that President Hollande will think much differently from Monsieur Barnier, even though it's in the financial interests of the EU to keep trade tariff free.

Even one of the UK's other options, trading under WTO rules may not be as easy as some people think according to WTO's Roberto Azevedo. The UK could find itself pushed into the position of having no trade deals and simply trading unilaterally tariff free like Singapore or Hong Kong. This idea, loved by the right, could be the equivalent of a 4% tax cut, but the political fall out may dwarf Thatcher's monetarist refusal to help ailing industries in the 1980's, when farmers and others find they can't compete with cheap imports. Such a situation could be managed by a government that had the insight to do it, but I don't see any evidence of this kind of ability from our present leaders.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't see any evidence of this kind of ability from our present leaders.

Or, any other kind of ability (excluding the ability to totally balls things up).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0